Nick’s boyfriend whining about DMCA abuse…
The DMCA is one of the single most exploitable laws in the world.
Frankly, the people saying that Ralph has broken the law are wrong. The only way to technically abuse the DMCA is to file a "knowingly false" claim. All Ralph has to say is "I thought I was in the right", and unless he goes on air saying "I knew I had no right but I did so anyways in violation of paragraph (f) of the DMCA statute, because I'm a Ralphamale!" (and essentially nothing short of those exact words), he isn't liable for shit. Flamenco was restreaming his stream and it's entirely reasonable to assume someone may not consider that fair use. Ralph wins the tort.
Here's a list of fun facts about the DMCA:
- Anyone may file a DMCA. Only lawyers can represent others (or companies) in court, but anyone can file a DMCA.
- Foreigners may file a DMCA in the US. I have received many DMCAs from a man in Greece representing iDubbbz's girlfriend (Canadian) about OnlyFans content (Grand Cayman LTD).
- Third parties may file a DMCA. As above, I can file a DMCA on behalf of someone else. With their permission, this is legal.
- No evidence is required to prove ownership. To sue for copyright infringement, you need a copyright id with the US Copyright Office. No such requirement for DMCAs.
- DMCAs require a response. Regardless of how ridiculous the DMCA is, the recipient must respond in a specific way. Ignoring a DMCA is a gamble with legal consequences.
- There are no consequences for DMCA abuse.*
There is very limited legal precedence for filing a tort for DMCA abuse. You have to actually sue them, because it's a civil issue. Outright lying is perjury, as DMCAs are signed under penalty of perjury. Good luck getting a prosecutor to arraign someone for perjury on the DMCA. Almost all civil claims for knowingly false DMCAs get thrown out. The exact words for DMCA abuse is "knowingly false", so anything short of that (i.e. "unknowingly false") is fine. The precedent for winning this tort is against big media companies which should know better, i.e. not retards like Ralph.
So in short the DMCA is something that is widely abused by everyone against everyone. It is a cudgel of censorship. It penetrates Section 230 protections. There is
no burden of proof placed on the complainant. If you can fill out a form, you are legally entitled to a response from whoever you send it to.
Fighting against the DMCA is something I can support. If Nick Fuentes was someone who was pro-freedom of speech and wanted less DMCA abuse and less censorship, he has my support. Unfortunately he seems to encourage this behavior and wants less freedom, just more entitlements for his own audience. Why would I support someone with a platform so petulant? Unless you're a manchild his position has no appeal.