I don’t see anything on that site that infringes the DMCA. At best they might have a trademark violation claim, but DMCA is only for copyright claims, not trademark claims.
Comment on Parody site ClownStrike refused to bow to CrowdStrike’s bogus DMCA takedown
nifty@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Lmao what a legend. How would DMCA even apply in this case though? Parodies are free speech
dan@upvote.au 3 months ago
TeoTwawki@lemmy.world 3 months ago
The only reak use of trademark I could find was actually on the twitter account clownstrike took a picture of, unless they seriously want to try and tell is they think the name could be confused for theirs with a straight face.
dan@upvote.au 3 months ago
They have an edited version of the Crowdstrike logo on the page, which is what I was thinking of. It’s a stretch though.
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
They don’t. Companies regularly abuse DMCA notices because the law REQUIRES a hosting company to take down the information immediately.
It allows 14 days for the same information to be restored after receiving a counter notice.
otter@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
I think if DMCAs are abused, it should limit the company’s ability to file one in the future.
and if not… regular people could do the same
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Laws only apply to poor people. If you submit a bogus DMCA that takes down a corporation’s site, they will sue you so hard your children’s children will be paying off the debt.
It’s all by design.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
It should require jail time if abused.