[superkuh]

Are you similarly for KYC rules when it comes to people making DMCA and other legal claims?

It seems like KYC is always applied in situations that hurt the individual person and protect the incorporated person. Never the other way.

[Terr_]

I'm not sure what you mean. The DMCA is big piece of crap, but it does have penalties if someone files a DMCA claim regarding content they know isn't theirs to manage.

Alas, it does not extent to penalizing the (duly-authorized) filers who make claims they know are frivolous bullshit, but that's a 'nother can of worms.

[superkuh]

One of the biggest problems with the DMCA is that it is unaccountable for those submitting legal claims anonymously. They should have to identify themselves to submit a legal claim of ownership.

> https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/02/17/the-invisible-campaign-t... To remove something from google's search they copy the text, they create a fake website / company with a URL with copied text then submit a DMCA claim saying theirs is the original. Google automatically rubberstamp approves it and the URL/text they want removed from the search index is removed.

There's a simple and easy solution: there should be "know your customer" for claimaints for laws requiring companies to follow up on legal claims like DMCA reports. KYC is obviously socially accepted and easily implemented since it's being required for so many other things. The whole basis of an adversarial legal system is that you need two legal persons on either side. This is a context in which you have to wonder why it isn't already like that.

[gaadd33]

Have those penalties ever been widely implemented? My understanding is most wrong claims just result in the person making the claim say "whoops sorry my bad" and nothing happens.