In this case, however, there is clearly no grounds as no IP is even remotely infringed. The onus is on the entity issuing the takedown order to check this (good faith being key, and an automated tool could be argued to operate entirely without this).
Sadly, it would be a long drawn out procedure without great odds of success as you suggest.
Got to love badly written laws right?
In this case, however, there is clearly no grounds as no IP is even remotely infringed. The onus is on the entity issuing the takedown order to check this (good faith being key, and an automated tool could be argued to operate entirely without this).
Sadly, it would be a long drawn out procedure without great odds of success as you suggest.
Badly written implies this wasn’t the intent…