I very much doubt that that actually happened. It seems more likely to be a story created to scare people.
But it seems that the problem here is that google accepts DMCA requests that are not signed by an individiual but mass produced by a computer. That really shouldn't be allowed and I don't know why it is (what other legal documents are mass produced by a computer with no human oversight? Deeds? wills? power of atterny? Didn't think so).
It did happen. I was there (Laurentian University in Sudbury Ontario), teaching in the Department of Physics and Astronomy and my former colleague, N.I. Robb now retired - and an extremely well liked prof btw-, did just what I described.
People get really annoyed when someone undeserving gets favorable treatment. So, stronger students will not take the chance to let weaker students copy their assignments. Penalize both equally, and a group mentality makes it more likely that they will take a chance again... at least, that's how I understand it worked out.
But, the students that do care about the course are dissuaded from plagiarizing their work. If my experience in uni is any telling, people who get caught copying/plagiarizing will do it again. If you cut the easy access of the more hard-working students, at the very least they'll have to do some research for those answers.
The nice thing about the zero to the stronger student without consequence to the weak student is that they didn't go down together, which tends to make the affected more likely to go confront the issue.
Sure, what I'm saying is not based on any hard data except my years at uni and the fact that a physics professor in my campus did the exact same thing.
wouldn't have made for as good or as memorable an example. the guy who let the other guy copy his work now has to feel bad both about getting a zero, and about seeing the other guy unfairly get 100%.
Unfortunately, there is nothing requiring that DMCA takedown notifications not be mass produced. In fact, the law specifically allows a "physical or electronic signature"[1] (emphasis added) on takedown notices.
The bigger problem is the "knowingly" in "any person who knowingly materially misrepresents...that material or activity is infringing...shall be liable for any damages". Enforcement has no teeth because that is a barrier that almost no discovery process will be able to overcome.
Actually, the "robosigners" were humans who would sign (and were encouraged / forced to sign) documents asserting facts for which there was no supporting evidence, or even where there was directly contradictory evidence. Signatures were by humans, not computers.
You're right, although in practice it was largely the same thing. Huge database contains home listings, computer spits out which are due for foreclosure, a bunch of ex-fast-fooders sign them as quickly as possible. There was a human in the loop but 0% of their judgement was employed - their job was to sign stuff, and that's what they did.
Naivety? He probably thinks that professors care about creating effective and fair anti-cheating schemes and therefore would never have gone with this one.
Doesn't seem terribly unfair, but in any case I don't see why this person would necessarily would care. As for the complaint, what's he going to complain about, that he got a zero for letting somebody cheat off him? Not a complaint worth worrying about.
But it seems that the problem here is that google accepts DMCA requests that are not signed by an individiual but mass produced by a computer. That really shouldn't be allowed and I don't know why it is (what other legal documents are mass produced by a computer with no human oversight? Deeds? wills? power of atterny? Didn't think so).