Fluffeh writes:
"Lawrence Lessig is Professor of Law at Harvard Law School but is probably best known to readers for his work with Creative Commons, the Free Software Foundation, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Without considering fair use, Liberation Music wrongly had some of Lessig's work removed from YouTube and threatened to sue. It didn't go well. Liberation will pay Lessig an undisclosed sum for the damages it caused with the wrongful takedown. The money will go towards supporting the EFF's work on open access and the label will also 'adopt new policies' that respect fair use."
(Score: 5, Informative) by compro01 on Friday February 28 2014, @09:23PM
No. This doesn't fit the DMCA's stupid definition of a false takedown.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday February 28 2014, @09:25PM
Isn't this something that was done in good faith, since this was a legitimate legal question? It's not like they didn't own the copyrights, as has happened in other cases.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by epyx on Friday February 28 2014, @09:38PM
That paragraph makes me think that Lessig had a valid legal argument about Liberation knowingly filing a false DMCA.. I wondered if they settled to avoid a precedent.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hatta on Saturday March 01 2014, @05:06AM
I wonder why Lessig accepted the settlement. I'd expect him to prefer the precedent to the settlement.
(Score: 3, Informative) by glyph on Saturday March 01 2014, @02:11AM
Furthermore, Youtube is not bound by the DMCA. They have a one-sided arrangement negotiated with the content industry so that they don't need it's protections as a safe harbour, and you are bound to this agreement via the Youtube TOS. There is no false takedown provision at all. Also unlike under the DMCA, if the claimant wants to refuse your counter notice, *you* must sue *them* to get the alert removed an the video/account restored.