Demaestro - 5:19 pm on Sep 2, 2009 (gmt 0)

Yes it is very risky and stupid, however it is still being done.

The goal seemingly is to quiet a point of view. By the time it is all sorted out, even if the content is deemed to be non-offending, the filer has accomplished their goal of silencing a point of view they don't agree with for an extended period of time.

If a point of view is time sensitive than having it back after a certain point may not matter.

Example:
I post a site that promotes one politician and denounces another, I post my own original material on my site, including a series of pictures from a rally of the politician I don't like... someone on his "team" files a DMCA claiming those are their pictures.

Maybe the filer even believes they are his photos or out of a misunderstanding of the law thinks that any pictures from their event is their property even if I took them... regardless they contact my host, the site is taken down with threat of this ruling, I beg and plead and show the raw photos on my camera, but the host won't risk it and by the time it is sorted out the election is over and I have been silenced.

I know this is a fringe circumstance but there are lots of things like this happening.

There is a big stink going on right now with a creationist (ID) group who filed false DMCA's

Search:
discovery institute false dmca