Northern District Cal. enjoins Second Life from removing Plaintiff’s virtual horses on Second Life, subject of DMCA takedown notice sent by defendant (who alleges that plaintiff infringed its virtual bunnies software).

Hardly any 17 USC 512(f) actions in a decade, then two in two months.  512(f) is the notional safeguard against DMCA abuse.

Prof Goldman discusses fact that Second Life, not a party to the suit, is enjoined, not defendant.  I think he’s right, all other things being equal, that a company like Second Life would not want to be told that it can’t remove something from its service. 

Decision TRO Re DMCA Second Life