> DMCA takedowns do not have "no repercussions" for false claims.
They mostly do.
> If the DMCA takedown was actually baseless, they would be opening themselves up to damage liabilities, as specified under 17 U.S. Code § 512 under section f[1].
The basis for liability there is knowing misrepresentation of infringement. So as long as RIAA believed (and that belief need not be reasonable) the legal theory of infringement that they advanced, there's not a liability problem.
SUre, if they misrepresented their right to act on behalf of the legal owners of the works they claimed were infringed by it, or that would be an issue, but no one even suspects that they are doing that.
While this is true, I was responding to a post about abusing DMCA takedowns, which have the assumption that they're using it to knowingly misrepresent infringement. And even though most abusive DMCA takedowns end up without any counter action, the law does provide a way to fight them, which is the disincentive from "simply send a takedown for anything they don't like no matter whether it is legal or not"
They mostly do.
> If the DMCA takedown was actually baseless, they would be opening themselves up to damage liabilities, as specified under 17 U.S. Code § 512 under section f[1].
The basis for liability there is knowing misrepresentation of infringement. So as long as RIAA believed (and that belief need not be reasonable) the legal theory of infringement that they advanced, there's not a liability problem.
SUre, if they misrepresented their right to act on behalf of the legal owners of the works they claimed were infringed by it, or that would be an issue, but no one even suspects that they are doing that.