153
Google Play keeps banning the same web browser due to vague DMCA notices | Ars Technica
(arstechnica.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
153 points (100.0% liked)
Android
27948 readers
248 users here now
DROID DOES
Welcome to the droidymcdroidface-iest, Lemmyest (Lemmiest), test, bestest, phoniest, pluckiest, snarkiest, and spiciest Android community on Lemmy (Do not respond)! Here you can participate in amazing discussions and events relating to all things Android.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules
1. All posts must be relevant to Android devices/operating system.
2. Posts cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
3. No spam, self promotion, or upvote farming. Sources engaging in these behavior will be added to the Blacklist.
4. Non-whitelisted bots will be banned.
5. Engage respectfully: Harassment, flamebaiting, bad faith engagement, or agenda posting will result in your posts being removed. Excessive violations will result in temporary or permanent ban, depending on severity.
6. Memes are not allowed to be posts, but are allowed in the comments.
7. Posts from clickbait sources are heavily discouraged. Please de-clickbait titles if it needs to be submitted.
8. Submission statements of any length composed of your own thoughts inside the post text field are mandatory for any microblog posts, and are optional but recommended for article/image/video posts.
Community Resources:
We are Android girls*,
In our Lemmy.world.
The back is plastic,
It's fantastic.
*Well, not just girls: people of all gender identities are welcomed here.
Our Partner Communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The bigger problem here is how any bad actor can abuse the DMCA system almost with impunity as even if the accused wants to fight back, and even if they grab a lawyer, usually it ends with Google reinstating the app and that's that. The actual abuser never sees any retribution for abusing the system as counterclaims again go through the mediating instance. Google in this case.
If, say, Warner would be locked out of issueing DMCA claims after a dozen fight back within a month or two, that'd be a far bigger deterrent to issueing these spurious claims. Or even better, if they were to suffer fines based on a percentage of their worth for erroneous claims.
The issue is that nobody at the justice department seems to be interested in pursuing perjury, which is what filing a fake DMCA claim would be punished as.
It's difficult. Perjury requires intent. If a badly trained employee in a hurry makes a mistake that's not perjury.
This means it's legal, under the current law, to badly train your employees and to set them quotas for the amount of DMCA takedowns they have to serve.
They're not intentionally making false statements.
To stop this, you need to create new explicit penalties for bad takedown requests.
If it's repeated offenses like the example in the article, it's a little harder to prove it wasn't intentional.
I think the problem is that it shows irresponsibility, however the law requires intent. That's sadly - or well, I suppose overall it's a good thing! - a very different beast on a legal level.