I set up this database in response to the HN story about a site that had the gall to not only copy another site but then to issue a DMCA on the original site. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5174121 IANAL but I'll try and match cases to lawyers interested in helping prosecute this stuff.

Perhaps you could turn the site into an "auction" site, where people can register descriptions and evidence of fraudulent DMCA activity, and lawyers can make bids for running a case? It would be especially nice if the bidding process could make the fee structure more transparent, with an ability to collect and compare different types of bids, such as "pro bono", "no win no fee" and hourly rates. The site might pay for itself by charging a fee on successful client/lawyer match ups, or by asking for a small (clearly defined) cut of any winnings.

A smart lawyer could make quite a nice living out of such a site, by getting a "routine" in place and repeatedly bidding for work with a high certainty of a win.

Over time, the site might add features to help bidding lawyers to win cases, such as offering timestamp/archiving/forensic services.

That'd be pretty awesome. Frankly, I'll consider this thing a whopping success if I get one quality case actually brought to trial and prosecuted. If things get so far as needing to mediate the huge quantity of quality lawyers and cases, I'd be delighted and astonished, but that's probably a few further steps down the line. I love your vision, though - can you help me build out the DB / find some victims?

I'm good at vision. That's the easy bit! :-)

I live outside the jurisdiction covered by the DMCA, so I don't have the required sustained level of interest to get involved. In this case, the best I can offer is moral support and a sincere wish that a vibrant US based community gathers around the project.

I'm trying to understand why this has 52 points on HN. Creating a fake-DMCA takedown site is a great idea, but this is a slap-dab job.

IMO, it lacks the legitimacy to attract any users. I personally would feel in better hands calling one of those skeezy personal injury law-firms that advertises on daytime TV than submitting my information to a random web form.

Looking forward to seeing improvements//

I'd love to field concrete suggestions for how to improve the likelihood of A) getting in front of people who have received bad takedowns and B) convincing them to get in touch / share information about their case. Friendlier copy? Actual design? Fewer questions?

Something similar: http://www.chillingeffects.org/input.cgi

Not really. Chillingeffects does not discriminate on the legitimacy of the claim.

Don't take this the wrong way, because I really want this to be constructive criticism.

But I actually laughed when I started reading the first sentence. You sound like a law firm fishing for an asbestos-related class action suit.

Are you advertising this to everyone or the hacker community? And are you going to try to monetize it?

If I could narrow this down - I like the idea, but perhaps improve the "bedside manner" - while it is a serious subject, add some more passion at the least. You sound somber and unengaged about this topic on the website.

I really hope that helps. It looks like a good idea. Let's hope you don't run into the same obstacles the Medical Retraction team did recently.

[nod] To be fair, I am fishing for folks who have been injured by fake DMCA takedowns, and injured monetarily at that. Recent 512(f) cases focus (unduly) on direct economic injury (Rossi v MPAA, Lenz v UMC) so finding claimants who were financially significantly harmed by shitty takedowns are going to be the ones for whom a lawsuit is going to be most likely to succeed.

Personally, I'm not trying to monetize it (IANAL), but I'd love to make some lawyers rich suing lame companies who deliberately issue fake takedowns. I was a plaintiff in OPG v Diebold (the first 512f case!) but didn't personally financially benefit even with a six figure judgement.

Would love your thoughts on how to reword the copy.

I have a few suggestions:

1. Make it more personal. Who are you? Why do you care? Why are you NOT just a suit looking to represent someone and earn an income?

2. Don't ask questions to make your point per se; e.g. instead of "Are you..." & "Have you...", begin with a short description of what your website is. In fact, the last two sentences are the most compelling, not the first two.

3. Show passion. You just described experience with victimization. Translate that into passion and sympathy for other people.

You're not a lawyer. But I could have confused you for one. Lawyers are not generally trusted as a identity group - individual lawyers have to prove themselves competent and trustworthy. But before that, they are very often treated with suspicion by the public.

That's too much work for you or a startup. You don't have much to go on right this second - secure user trust by playing to emotion with your experience. That's front page worthy.

I hope that helps, David.

I guess it's a work in progress, but I agree. The sole purpose of the site appears to be:

>We may be able to help by putting you in touch with a lawyer who can help prosecute your case.

People can generally do this themselves, but if you get enough related claims together, I imagine you could potentially file a class action.

Yes, what I'm wondering is whether this is designed as part of larger market research, a call for action, or a standalone startup concept.

That's what it sounds like.

Have you considered the scenario where a valid DMCA takedown notice is sent by a legitimate copyright holder, but the infringer sent a perjured counterclaim?

I ask because I see how your database can be abused as well.

I have personally experienced this scenario, and without a ton of cash to retain an experienced IP attorney, I am powerless (and this database could add another layer of 'insult').

So is this just a Google Spreadsheet form?