[rawrly]

Most people who are first interacting with the DMCA law are unfamiliar with the fact it has protections against people files false notifications.

Without knowing details about this (and not providing legal advice) this may be how it would work:

If the claim is in fact BS, go lawyer up. File a counter notification, wait 10 days and your content will be put back online (unless they file an injunction to keep it offline), then you file suit against the alleged infringer for the statutory damages of $150,000 per false alleged infringement claim. Likely they'll settle out of court for some number less than their legal costs/time.

Pay your lawyer, use the rest to fund your project.

Go out for a pint, and tell the story to tell on how your project was funded by out witting a scammer.

[rsingel]

That sounds really great, but the courts have been very lenient to those who file false DMCA notices and the burden of proof falls on you to prove that it was filed falsely intentionally.

So, I'd say, don't lawyer up yet. File the counter-notice and if they come after you, then get a lawyer and publicity.

[Dylan16807]

Yep, there is no penalty whatsoever for gross negligence, it sucks.

[jlgreco]

So basically it is in the best interest of any company that is interested in filing these claims without regard for publicity to hire a complete imbecile to do it.

No wonder we see so many idiotic claims.

[krichman]

Who do you think wrote this law?

[anywhichway]

Plus aren't statutory damages based on the degree of harm? I think it would be hard to show 150k of harm if this was just a side project for the author.

[wnight]

Is the takedown, being knowingly false and implying illegal behavior, defamatory?

[adrr]

Filing false report falls under perjury as defined in the statement on the DMCA takedown notice. This would be a criminal matter but as of yet, I don't know of one case where criminal charges have been filed.

[rawrly]

Correct, which may also implicate any "hired guns" lawyers who send DMCA notices for crackpot clients.

In one instance I personally saw, a lawyer sent a false DMCA and they signed it under penalty of perjury for their client. This resulted in a clarification of the perjury that the lawyer may have placed themselves in, and threats to bring it up with the state bar association. Personally I doubted the guy was even accredited in the first place, but the DMCA related harassment stopped promptly.

[anywhichway]

> A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

The only part that is perjury is if you don't actually represent the client you claim to. Assuming the request isn't from a random person pretending to represent a company they don't, the request is not perjury regardless of how frivolous and unwarranted it is.

[paulgb]

The statutory damages you quote are for infringement, not false takedowns. For false takedowns, only damages and fees are recoverable.

[Gepsens]

So, the best way to fund your project is actually to attract patent trolls ?