The word "knowingly" makes getting even with takedown trolls almost impossible because you have to prove their intent.

▲

vessenes 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Knowingly isn’t intent. It’s knowledge. Both the sender (this UK service company) and the troll fit knowingly for almost any definition I can imagine in this story. The UK sender triggered it on a second notice, after the museum had responded. The troll knows they do not own the copyright.

I think bringing this in a jurisdiction with sensible judges - Northern Cal, SDNY, Delaware, does not look impossible to me. And, it only takes one win to radically change the economics of these trolls — it seems worth doing, is all I’m saying!

	▲	oliwarner 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Somebody disagreeing with you isn't unassailable truth. I could introduce myself as Oli, and as many times as you tell me my name is Brian, that's not going to affect my knowledge of what my name is. Same here. Despite them being told, you will struggle to prove the plaintiff here does not truly believe they hold the IP for this game. Intent is important because it's the motive to fraudulently file. It's the closest you'll get to proving what somebody knew, unless they confess.
	▲	gzread 13 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You still have to prove it in court, and it's already hard enough to prove seemingly obvious things, such as that a seller didn't deliver a product.