The article is worth a read, as it is a good example of how an attempt to intimidate a merchant of goods backfired on the bully.
You may recall last monthâs hilarious story of lawyer Mike Dunfordâs response to a vexatious angry demand letter from IMG, representing the LAPD Foundation, claiming that a t-shirt with the followiâŚ
4 Likes
papy
May 23, 2024, 3:04am
2
The point that Colaâs lawyer makesâthat the âCâ in DMCA stands for âcopyright,â but that there was no actual copyright at issueâis probably explained best by this:
It seems clear that Schmidt was either lazy⌠or (more likely) was hoping that because âDMCA takedownsâ are so widely known as a concept, that simply calling his document as such would lead an unsophisticated individual at Cola Corporation to get scared and fold.
Dunford further makes it clear that the format of the letter âmirrors the requirementsâ of an official DMCA takedown notice, to effectively argue that even if it wasnât officially a âDMCA takedown notice,â it was substantially close enough that Cola Corporation might actually have a legitimate 512(f) claim.
Now, if youâve followed Techdirt for any length of time, you probably know that DMCA 512(f) claims for filing a misleading DMCA takedown claim are nearly impossible to win for a variety of (mostly stupid) reasons. But, damn, if this werenât a case where itâs pretty clear that, not only was IMG misrepresenting stuff, but that they knew full well they were misrepresenting stuff. And that means that itâs a situation where a 512(f) claim might actually be legit.
Sellers must educate themselves so as not to be some bullyâs âunsophisticated individualâ.
Great read, thanks @packetfire !
2 Likes
system
August 21, 2024, 3:05am
3
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
Somebody get those bullies some sunscreen! 