Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday August 25 2019, @02:09AM   Printer-friendly
from the naughty-naughty dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984

Man sued for using bogus YouTube takedowns to get address for swatting

YouTube is suing a Nebraska man the company says has blatantly abused its copyright takedown process. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act offers online platforms like YouTube legal protections if they promptly take down content flagged by copyright holders. However, this process can be abused—and boy did defendant Christopher L. Brady abuse it, according to YouTube's legal complaint (pdf).

Brady allegedly made fraudulent takedown notices against YouTube videos from at least three well-known Minecraft streamers. In one case, Brady made two false claims against a YouTuber and then sent the user an anonymous message demanding a payment of $150 by PayPal—or $75 in bitcoin.

"If you decide not to pay us, we will file a 3rd strike," the message said. When a YouTube user receives a third copyright strike, the YouTuber's account gets terminated. A second target was ordered to pay $300 by PayPal or $200 in Bitcoin to avoid a third fraudulent copyright strike.

A third incident was arguably even more egregious. According to YouTube, Brady filed several fraudulent copyright notices against another YouTuber with whom he was "engaged in some sort of online dispute." The YouTuber responded with a formal counter-notice stating that the content wasn't infringing—a move that allows the content to be reinstated. However, the law requires the person filing the counter-notice to provide his or her real-world name and address—information that's passed along to the person who filed the takedown request.

This contact information is supposed to enable a legitimate copyright holder to file an infringement lawsuit in court. But YouTube says Brady had another idea. A few days after filing a counter-notice, the targeted YouTuber "announced via Twitter that he had been the victim of a swatting scheme." Swatting, YouTube notes, "is the act of making a bogus call to emergency services in an attempt to bring about the dispatch of a large number of armed police officers to a particular address."

YouTube doesn't provide hard proof that Brady was responsible for the swatting call, stating only that it "appears" he was responsible based on the sequence of events. But YouTube says it does have compelling evidence that Brady was responsible for the fraudulent takedown notices. And fraudulent takedown notices are themselves against the law.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday August 26 2019, @07:21AM (1 child)

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday August 26 2019, @07:21AM (#885554) Journal

    Maybe there should be a three-strikes rule for takedown requests: If you do three false takedown requests, you lose the copyright on whatever work you falsely claimed was infringed upon.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @03:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @03:14PM (#885664)

    I like it, but it should be your ability to claim infringement for a time. Part of the issue is that there are multiple ways a fraudulent claim may be submitted: For each: actual infringement, not infringement by fair use but not recognized by claimant, not infringement because the piece use doesn't violate copyright(incorrect identification of piece, piece is no longer covered by copyright), human error Consider the following: Claimangt has copyright, Claimant is employed by the party who owns copyright, Claimant has no ownership of copyright, Claimant believes they have copyright but is mistaken. Many of the potential scenarios don't involve either party owning the copyright, hence ability to dispute is what I believe should be restricted.