> Is part of the story missing on how google eventually accepted the fake dmca requests?
There isn't really a story here. YouTube just kind of blindly accepts any and all DMCAs regardless of whether the claimant has legitimate ownership or not.
Here's an excerpt from the court filing:
> Ninety-six separate times, Minor used his fake “CSC” Gmail addresses to exploit the hole in YouTube’s DMCA-process security that allows anyone at all to claim to be representing a rights holder for purposes of issuing a takedown, with no real safeguards against fraud.
> In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.
There isn't really a story here. YouTube just kind of blindly accepts any and all DMCAs regardless of whether the claimant has legitimate ownership or not.
Here's an excerpt from the court filing:
> Ninety-six separate times, Minor used his fake “CSC” Gmail addresses to exploit the hole in YouTube’s DMCA-process security that allows anyone at all to claim to be representing a rights holder for purposes of issuing a takedown, with no real safeguards against fraud.
I'd note that they refer to it as "the" hole
https://www.pcworld.co.nz/article/483729/google_submission_h...
> In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.