[Animats]

This would be a really good case to push the Department of Justice to investigate. There are criminal penalties for false claim of copyright infringement, but only the Attorney General can initiate a case. For knocking NASA PR out of search, that just might be possible. Complain to NASA's PR people. NASA still has some political clout. Enough to take on some Instagrammer.

[Hizonner]

Nah. It takes an act of God to prosecute anybody for perjury, and these wouldn't even be easy cases to win.

What NASA and anybody else harmed by this stuff (such as say Google) needs to do is to lobby for parity.

The statutory damages for pirating a single pop song in the US are $250,000, and any copyright holder can file a suit to get that amount, under a civil "preponderance of the evidence" standard, without having to involve the criminal justice system at all.

Therefore, the damages for knowingly or negligently filing a false DMCA notice should also be $250,000. Either the wrongly accused person or any service provider inconvenienced by the notice should be able to sue for that amount, under the same standard of evidence. If the preponderance of the evidence shows you didn't take proper care to verify a notice, that'll be $250k. For each notice.

[giantrobot]

It's rich that someone on Instagram picked the name of a Greek goddess and is able, through the insanity of the DMCA, squat on that name.

[kmeisthax]

They aren't trying to squat on the name. They wanted to remove copies of their own photographs and picked the cheapest lawyer they could find, who proceeded to blast out bullshit notices in their clients' names. Likely because anyone more competent would be entirely outside their budget.

If there is anything to learn here, it's that...

- DMCA 512 is wholly inadequate for creators because there are zero protections for false claims (tell me what I don't already know), and,

- DMCA 512 is wholly inadequate for creators because the cost to actually find, takedown, and potentially prosecute infringements of your work is astronomical.

It is a law that makes everyone miserable, except Google, who gets to push papers around and wash their hands of everything.

[jandrese]

The media cartels are pretty happy with it, being able to take down massive swaths of the Internet with no realistic consequences for false positives.

[kmeisthax]

The thing is, even the media cartels hate this system, because it requires they go and manually hunt infringement. They don't want to pay that cost. They want something like YouTube's Content ID where they send one notice and all the platforms do what they say (or perish). That's why there was such a big push for yesterdecade's SOPA/PIPA and today's EUCD Article 17.

[bawolff]

DMCA isn't the thing allowing this, its big companies taking dmca notices at face value and just acting on them without caring.

[cultureswitch]

The DMCA forces them to act this way.

[bawolff]

It somewhat encourages companies to act this way by making it the safest path, but it absolutely does not force them to. Service providers are not required to act on invalid dmca requests.

Consider wikipedia which regularly rejects most [1] of the dmca notices it gets because it cares enough to actually read them and ignore the ones that are bullshit.

[1] according to https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/transparency/2023-1/dm... in a 6 month period they got 29 dmca requests and ignored 27 of them.

[ljm]

It’s almost as if US legal systems actively facilitate cultural appropriation, particularly with DMCA generally being applied by brute force. Using US copyright law to protect an influencer’s appropriation of a 3000 year old name to market their narcissism is exactly a case of that.

Not as if it’s a unique name either. Artëm is common for men in Russia and Ukraine.

[akira2501]

It facilitates the violation of human rights. It created a system that does more to harm speech than it does to protect it's proliferation. The large corporations who profit the most from this "law" are the least in need of it's protections and it's bizarre that they're entitled to raise the specter of FBI investigated criminal penalties for what should be a civil matter.

The cultural appropriation, to the extent that it does occur, is simply profitable within this framework. It's more like cultural maceration, the guts are thrown away, and the brightly colored chitin is all that remains.

[93po]

This but for all of intellectual property. Outlawing humans doing whatever they want with ideas sounds like some Orwellian nightmare

[voakbasda]

Thats exactly the world we live in.

[93po]

I'm painfully aware

[jevoten]

> an influencer’s appropriation of a 3000 year old name

Most of the results for "artemis onlyfans/instagram" are Caucasian. Meaning it is overwhelmingly likely that the model in question is a descendant, at least in part, of literal Artemis worshiping pagans, and is thus not committing any appropriation.

[cultureswitch]

Hans get the skull measurer

[trinsic2]

That is a good idea for a perception campaign against this kind of practice. Calling it "Cultural Appropriation" might trigger more people on the progressive side to get involved...

[Animats]

Also true of "Nike".

[superkuh]

It'd be especially good for setting case law precedence since it isn't a multi-national megacorp with an army of lawyers. It's just a shady small company hired by a person. The case could probably get a fair hearing.

[ZoomerCretin]

How would it change anything? You still need to challenge the false DMCA in court, and prove it is false. Bad actors will continue targeting people too poor to fight back.