Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
It seems a little inappropriate to describe this as a "bogus takedown notice". Professor Lessig is disputing its validity, but that does not make it "bogus".
|
Since Lenz v Universal, it's been established that copyright holders are legally required to consider fair use before issuing a DMCA takedown notice. Issuing one without that does indeed make for a "bogus" takedown--one not based on application law, but on the premise that a host will take down the content regardless of the validity of the notice.
If the notice is invalid, "bogus" is a reasonable term for it. It's possibly premature to call it that, since that hasn't yet been established in court, but it fits with the article's assessment of the situation.
Hypothetically, if the notice is found to be entirely legit, Liberation Music could sue for libel, for the smear on their reputation. Somehow I don't see that as a likely outcome here, especially since "bogus" doesn't only mean "invalid" but sometimes is used to mean "annoying, unpleasant, the opposite of 'excellent'."