# Has anyone been punished for filing a false DMCA takedown notice? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 21, 2010, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-been-punished-for-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-notice/547443 "2010-07-21T09:32:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-been-punished-for-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-notice/547443/1 "2010-07-21T09:32:56Z")
In US Law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides a streamlined procedure by which a copyright holder can force a web host remove allegedly copyright-infringing material. The complainant sends the web host a letter (a so-called “DMCA takedown notice”) stating under penalty of perjury that they are or are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder, giving their contact details, and identifying the allegedly infringing material and demanding that it be removed. The web host is then obliged to take down the material, and it will stay down unless whoever uploaded it sends the host a properly formatted counter-notice stating that the takedown was in error. However, it’s been widely reported (on Slashdot, Chilling Effects, Usenet, etc.) that many DMCA takedown notices are flawed or fraudulent. Examples include someone using a takedown notice to remove information they don’t hold the copyright to but find objectionable for some reason, someone using a takedown notice to remove information to which they do hold the copyright but where the uploader’s use of it was obviously covered under Fair Use, or submitting a notice with false contact details (a bogus name, address, and/or telephone number). Apparently such abuses are rampant, and may outnumber the legitimate takedown notices. In light of this, I’m wondering if there is any record of anyone having been punished by the courts for sending a takedown notice which was false, fraudulent, frivolous, flawed, vexatious, or otherwise improper. For example, part of a properly-formatted takedown notice includes a statement made “under penalty of perjury” that the complainant is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holders. So has anyone ever been convicted of perjury for lying about this on a DMCA takedown notice? ---
**Author:** ![GHO57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df788c/32.png) [@GHO57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GHO57)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-been-punished-for-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-notice/547443/2 "2010-07-21T10:18:39Z")
There’s OPG v. Diebold > **[Diebold Coughs Up Cash in Copyright Case](https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2004/10/15)** > > False Accusation of Infringement Results in Hefty Payment of Legal Fees, Damages California - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) capped its historic victory in a copyright abuse case against electronic voting machine manufacturer Diebold today.... And of course Lenz v. Universal… still in the process, but looking good-ish. > **[Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp)** > > Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015), is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that copyright owners must consider fair use defenses and good faith activities by alleged copyright infringers before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the Internet. > In February 2007, Stephanie Lenz posted on YouTube a 29-second clip of her 13-month-old son dancing to the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy". The audio was of poor quality, and the... ---
**Author:** ![Kiwi\_Fruit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kiwi_fruit/32/12_2.png) [@Kiwi\_Fruit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kiwi_Fruit)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-been-punished-for-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-notice/547443/3 "2010-07-22T00:23:27Z")
[Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp). Added a period at end of Wikipedia link to match article title. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-anyone-been-punished-for-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-notice/547443/4 "2010-07-22T08:47:04Z")
> [@Kiwi\_Fruit](#): > > [Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp). > > Added a period at end of Wikipedia link to match article title. Whenever you see one of those, remember that Wikipedia’s policy on redirects is that, if it would be useful, add a redirect. As most bulletinboard software removes the final punctuation unless you somehow explicitly tell it o, the redirect is useful. So I made one.