Reverse DMCA: Copyright Holder Held Liable in Landmark Legal Ruling
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20040930201813382
In a landmark case, a California district court has determined that
Diebold, Inc., a manufacturer of electronic voting machines, knowingly
misrepresented that online commentators, including IndyMedia and two
Swarthmore college students, had infringed the company's copyrights.
This makes the company the first to be held liable for violating
section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which
makes it unlawful to use DMCA takedown threats when the copyright
holder knows that infringement has not actually occured.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Center for Internet
and Society Cyberlaw Clinic at Stanford Law School sued on behalf of
nonprofit Internet Service Provider (ISP) Online Policy Group (OPG)
and the two students to prevent Diebold's abusive copyright claims
from silencing public debate about voting.

Diebold sent dozens of cease-and-desist letters to ISPs hosting leaked
internal documents revealing flaws in Diebold's e-voting machines. The
company claimed copyright violations and used the DMCA to demand that
the documents be taken down. One ISP, OPG, refused to remove them in
the name of free speech, and thus became the first ISP to test whether
it would be held liable for the actions of its users in such a
situation.
"This decision is a victory for free speech and for transparency in
discussions of electronic voting technology," said Wendy Seltzer, an
EFF staff attorney who worked on the case. "Judge Fogel recognized the
fair use of copyrighted materials in critical discussion and gave
speakers a remedy when their speech is chilled by improper claims of
copyright infringement."