He could always file improperly and then get it thrown out, like those wacky Messianic Jews from Appalachia.
"Could"? This is Russell Greer we're talking about. He's filed a few lawsuits in his life... none of them properly.
Without knowing the nuances of DMCA law, I imagine one of the requirements is an exact URL because:
- It gives the person tasked with investigating the complaint an easier time looking through content - which in this case is voluminous - and perform a prompt investigation, and
- If there truly is content subject to a DMCA request at the link(s) in question, it can be addressed or removed as quickly as possible.
The requirement is "information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material".
Hell, actually, I'm looking at it right now, so let's just go through each of the elements.
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Good job Russ! You got this one right.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
I am no lawyer but it looks like Russ fulfills this one also. I guess some of the online "how to DMCA" guides combine this requirement with the next one - I originally thought they were one element, but the law breaks them into two.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
Not even remotely close. "It's there, search for it" is not reasonably sufficient to permit Null to locate it. You have to give the exact links, Russ! You linked to the whole thread; the
whole thread isn't infringing, and if it takes more than 5 seconds for Null to even
see the content, much less figure out whether it's the specific content that you claim infringes, ... yeah, no. That's just not reasonably sufficient.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
There's a common belief that a complaining party has to dox themselves in order to file a proper DMCA takedown. I don't really see it. I'm sure there's plenty of case law that clarifies what "reasonably sufficient" means in this context, so
maybe some court decided that the law is interpreted to mean that you have to provide a valid physical address. Just based on the law itself, though, it seems like just an email address might be sufficient contact information to satisfy this element. I don't really see any reason why a mailbox service address wouldn't be germane, either. This one is a question for an attorney who is well-versed in the DMCA, but to my eye it looks like Russ actually gave enough contact info.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
Russ
completely leaves this out, which should be
really embarrassing for him because
it was definitely in whatever DMCA takedown template he was using. Instead, he simply claims "rights I own are being infringed". Rekieta: "How embarrassing!" Now, I can't say with 100% certainty that a court wouldn't rule that the meaning is the same, but still,
why would you edit out the boilerplate stuff?! It's there because it has to be there!
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Russ does certify that the information contained in the notification is accurate, but
he completely leaves out the second part of this element, which is to certify under penalty of perjury that he is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. Again,
this is boilerplate language and it was definitely in whatever template he used. Russ just knows better than literally everyone else, so he ad-libbed it. Ad-libbing is a really stupid idea when you have a template laid out for you that contains the exact language the court will expect you to use.