Do we really know if this isn't an over-zealous bot that say big names like P. Diddy and Snoop Dogg and decided that it was time to issue a notice?
I still think it's an abuse of the DMCA power to have bots out there mining for things and sending notices without a human ever looking over its shoulder, but there's a difference between negligence and malice.
I see no practical difference between a human issuing illegitmate DMCA takedown notices, or using a bot to do the same. The difference to the affected party is nil. "The bot made me do it" is not a legal defense.
If a boot does it, then it is much more difficult to pin the crime on any one person, therefore much less likely to result in any consequences for any of the guilty parties.
I'm not saying it's logically more difficult, I'm saying that in practical terms, it puts one more hurdle (or maybe several) in the way of anyone who wants to hold the culprit accountable.
I reread it. It still looks like you're drawing a distinction between a person flagging an "infringing" work, and a bot doing the same. I still think that there is no practical use for this distinction. Where's the strawman?
The strawman is that I'm not building a legal defense for UMG, whereas that seems to be what you've pegged me as doing.
My message can be summed up as:
Don't get carried away with conspiracy theories that UMG saw this successful viral campaign and felt that they needed to do something illegal to stop it. This video just ran afowl of UMG's "shotgun approach" to take-down notices, which just happens to be an illegal activity of theirs. I also find it highly probable that this was a targeted effort to get the video into the sights of whatever process it is that UMG uses to issue notices.
UMG's 'shotgun approach' to take-downs is not limited to just UMG, and it is also nothing new. This has been going on for a long time. If you're only getting outraged about it now you're years late to the party.
> I also find it highly probable that this was a targeted effort to get the video into the sights of whatever process it is that UMG uses to issue notices
That's not a conspiracy theory, no matter how much you think that you want to 'win' this Internet argument with me.
You think that there was no thought put into the fact that if they put a video up on YouTube with a bunch of well-known artists in the name that they might get taken down for 'copyright violations?' It perfectly demonstrates their case, and with all of the publicity around the video itself brings the issue to a lot of the general public. Even if it wasn't a targeted effort, it seems like it turned out really well for them, IMO.
You posited a situation where a group of people (the artists and/or their representatives) got together for the purposes of tricking UMG into illegally issuing a DMCA takedown notice. You don't have even the slightest shred of proof. That is a conspiracy theory. Do I really need to give you elementary school lessons about your own words?
HN seems to be eating an apostrophe between the y and s in that link.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Grey's_Law
Regardless, nobody reasonable is going to fault anybody for assuming malice from class acts like the MPAA. And if you apply Grey's Law, then they deserve the criticism regardless.
I'd have to agree with sp332, since I don't see how a bot would be able to legally sign a document - the legal backlash could be significant if a bot signed a document and that document was submitted without any human checks. Then again, it doesn't always seem like the media has regard for the law unless it is benefitting them, so it wouldn't surprise me.
People seem to be misunderstanding my post. I'm trying to differentiate between:
"I hate those MegaUpload people. I'll issue a false take-down notice to shut them up! Bwahahaha! <twirls mustache>"
and
"Oh. Another hit from our crappy YouTube crawler bot. <rubber stamps take-down notice>"
There is a difference between malice directed towards MegaUpload and (willful) negligence.
[ Also, don't reply with something stupid like, "but that won't hold up in court." Because a careful reading of the above text will reveal a lack of me making any such statement. ]
> There is a difference between malice directed towards MegaUpload and (willful) negligence.
It's a difference that doesn't matter in the slightest. The organization is acting illegally, and people are rightfully angry about that. Who cares if someone's twirling their mustache? And why would a stereotypical corporate villain be worse than a system that is set up to screw people with the least resistance possible? It makes no difference whatsoever - only the outcome does.
edit: and I have to say that your insistence that people leave the legal stuff out of this, because you didn't explicitly mention it, is laughable. You realize that the DMCA is a law, right? And that this article is about a legal matter?
> That's because DMCA takedown notices require deliberate
> effort. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
You've translated:
> A DMCA take-down notice requires a statement under
> penalty of perjury that the issuer has a good-faith
> reason to believe that they are the owner of the
> copyright in question.
Into meaning that the following two statements are equivalent:
I want to take down this video because I want to stop
MegaUpload's viral campaign because it could be damaging
to my bottom line.
and
This video has the name 'Snoop Dogg' in it so I'll send
a take-down notice because I might own the copyrights to
this, and I'm too lazy/over-worked to be bothered to
check.
You say that the above statements are equivalent because the end result is the same (a video is wrongfully and illegally taken down).
If that is true, then you have to accept that nothing that you do in your life matters because you'll only end up dead. The end result is exactly the same.
More ridiculous drivel. The "end result" of my life will be substantially different, depending on how I affect the people around me. Do you have anything to say that's even slightly true?
To be honest, I don't think it really matters. The point is, Universal is blocking access to content they (allegedly - I don't know if the artists involved have copyright assignment agreements or something) don't own. Whether or not this was intentional, it shows that the system is broken, and that we cannot afford to give them any more power than they already have.
DMCA takedowns are done under penalty of perjury. I can't imagine a judge or a bar association taking a liking to a lawyer whose defense is "I was just rubber stamping these things."
It's a little frustrating that all of the responses to my post are "THAT WOULD NEVER HOLD UP IN AS A DEFENSE IN A COURT OF LAW! BLARG!"
It's been long-suspected that these DMCA take-down notices are just being rubber-stamped, yet not one penalty has been handed out. Color me disillusioned with the legal process.
I still think it's an abuse of the DMCA power to have bots out there mining for things and sending notices without a human ever looking over its shoulder, but there's a difference between negligence and malice.