> For all practical purposes the 512f has proven to be a pretty pointless tool for holding large corporation accountable.
That's because it's very difficult to prove that they did it knowingly, especially in an age of automated DMCA takedowns. It has nothing to do with the pain of a suit or any of that, but that you're likely to lose.
I don't get why it should make any difference if a takedown is automated, or not.
If you run an automated system that deals in any way, shape, or form with legally binding documentation and - entites, you should be liable for the consequences, period.
If you're a financial institution, which runs an automated trading system you can't really argue that this trade, which just cost you a couple gazillions, is from an automated system and should thus be considered invalid.
Any exchange and the regulating authorities will laugh you out of business.
Why should different principals apply if you automate your legal bullying?
No no, you're missing the point. Making a mistake here is not actionable -- it's totally legal to make a mistake and file for the wrong things or thinking that you have the right to the material when you actually don't. Only if you knowingly file a false claim is it an issue. That's the fundamental flaw in the DMCA's takedown construct, IMO.
Edit: To make an analogy, it's like me firing a gun in no particular direction. If I hit someone, it's at least manslaughter. But if it were like the DMCA takedown system, there would be two options: I didn't knowingly shoot at anyone in particular, so I get off with nothing, or I knowingly shot at them and was in the wrong, making it murder.
If you construct an automated DMC takedown system, even if you know that a certain proportion of those takedowns will be illegitimate you suffer no penalties, regardless of the fact that those illegitimate takedowns could be very onerous and costly for the victims.
Conversely if you set up a gun in the roof of your house and have it randomly shoot into the street, lets see how long you get away with that for.
That's because it's very difficult to prove that they did it knowingly, especially in an age of automated DMCA takedowns. It has nothing to do with the pain of a suit or any of that, but that you're likely to lose.