My friend and law professor Wendy Seltzer’s story was Slashdotted last week, after the NFL apparently violated procedure around DMCA takedown notices.
According to her blog post, the clip from Superbowl broadcast showing the copyright warning was restored by YouTube after her counter-notification. Not content to let the matter rest, NFL fired back. But instead of seeking action in court as called for by DMCA, they sent a second, identical notice to YouTube resulting in removal of the offending content for a second time. Quote:
If the NFL deigned to respond, I expect they would argue something like “the volume of material is so high, we can’t possibly keep track of all the claims of non-infringement. Our bots are entitled to a few mistakes.” But if they’re not able to keep track of the few counter-notifications they’ve received (the YouTube URL and page stayed the same at all times it’s been up), how can they demand that YouTube respond accurately and expeditiously to all the DMCA notifications they send, or worse, filter all content as Viacom is demanding?
This is an interesting complement to stories of users wronged by content owners and threatened with costly lawsuits. Perhaps for the first time, the target of the infringement claim is an expert in DMCA, runs the website ChillingEffects dedicated to chronicling DMCA abuses (at one point used by Google when search results were altered due to take-down notice) and is writing about her experiences in a blog.