I wrote "why" for lack of a better short way of saying: I'm assuming these large companies won't take a chance of being sued for this, and furthermore assume that they know the law requires it, so perhaps I misunderstood the law.

From this link (supplied by David Siegel)

by making available through its service, ... the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.

See a very large company's DMCA page which seems to lack that.

So, "why" is the required (?) information absent?

1 Answer 1


It is always hard to say why a large company does or does not do something, but do note the next line of the law which mentions:

other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate.

In general the purpose of the contact info is to allow claimants to file claims of infringement with the agent. If that purpose is served, I doubt anyone will sue over the exact form of the contact info provided, but I cannot be sure.

The wikipedia article that i linked to in my previous answer also says:

There is a common practice of providing a link to legal notices at the bottom of the main web page of a site. It may be prudent, though it is not required by the provisions of section 512 of the copyright law, to include the designated agent information on the page the legal link goes to, in addition to any other places where it is available. As long as the site gives reasonable notice that there is a method of compliance, that should be sufficient. Once again the courts have not ruled on the technicalities of posting of these notices.

It seems that the law in these matters is not fully tested in the courts.

  • Thanks (for both answers). But I understand that other contact information... is in addition to the aforementioned information. As for I doubt anyone will sue - Why not? They want to sue for some alleged copyright infringement, and they found a way to do it. The only reason not to is if they thought they would surely lose. Though that might be it. Not supplying the information, might not be a reason to find them guilty of copyright violation.
    – ispiro
    Oct 15, 2018 at 20:02
  • As long as enough information is supplied so that a claimant can file a takedown request with the agent, the purpose has been served. If the host supplied an email but omitted a telephone no, it might be in technical violation, but why would anyone sue the host if the email works to file a takedown notice? If only a web form is supplied, but it works, the same argument applies. If the info supplied does not work to file a notice, or no info is supplied, then the host may have lost safe harbor status, and could perhaps be sued for infringement. Oct 16, 2018 at 19:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .