[Vorh]

> Why do you think copyright has anything to do with the post?

Because the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is for copyright. You haven't stated how the blog post infringes upon BK's copyright at all, so... yes, seems like a standard fraudulent DMCA claim.

> First thing first. This is NOT DMCA abuse. The DMCA is the only way to communicate with web companies and take down content. As such, it has become the legitimate way to take down any content that needs to be taken down, in the absence of alternatives.

This assumes that companies should be able to take down any content they do not like. This is very much not the case. The DMCA is very specifically only for copyrighted content.

From copyright.gov[1]:

> To be effective, a notice must contain substantially the following information:

> ...

> (v) a statement that the person sending the notice 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; and

> (vi) a statement that the information in the notice is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the person sending the notice is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner .

This is pretty clearly DMCA abuse. TFA isn't using any of BK's copyrighted content, which is what a DMCA claim alleges. Just because people have abused the form... pretty much since inception does not mean that it's not perjury to do so.

If BK wants to press charges for unauthorized usage of computer systems, that's another route. This would involve a police report, not perjury, and would probably not take down the website.

[1]: https://www.copyright.gov/512/