|
|
|
|
|
|
by qw3rty01
2052 days ago
|
|
|
Hmm this isn't really true, DMCA takedown requests aren't just a "legal demand" in the sense that anyone can file them, it actually is illegal to file an invalid DMCA takedown request. My point is that the RIAA's DMCA takedown request was valid.
(IANAL) The law is also a lot more nuanced than how you described, since the hypothetical case would probably be thrown out with legal fees covered due to anti-SLAPP laws, but if it didn't fall under that, you probably wouldn't be able to recover legal fees without some sort of counter lawsuit. |
|
|
If someone sends you a letter saying:
"Dear qw3rty01: You're hosting Python. Python can be used to circumvent my copy protection provisions. I believe this is illegal under 17 USC §§1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)(1). I ask that you immediately take down and disable access to Python."
They're allowed to do that.
So long as they have a genuine belief that Python violates §§1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)(1), they've sent a stupid letter, not an illegal one. I believe your only recourse is to ignore it.
Your understanding of legal fees is incorrect:
1) I don't need a countersuit to recover legal fees. I can generally file a motion in the original litigation.
2) The US doesn't have federal anti-SLAPP laws. Some states have anti-SLAPP, but even there, there are open legal questions on how state laws interact with federal law suits. Unless you happen to live in a state with anti-SLAPP and one where precedent says state anti-SLAPP laws apply to a federal law suit, you're probably out of luck.
3) Even so, anti-SLAPP is designed for specific types of legal intimidation; I'm not sure this would qualify.
I just looked at the RIAA DMCA repo, and the situation is more complex than reported. The RIAA got a court ruling of some sort in Germany. That throws all sorts of wrenches into all sorts of analyses.