6 ms·

I am almost certain the DMCA take-down request was at least semi-automated via tag searches on youtube and rubber stamped by one of their employees. You can see

I am almost certain the DMCA take-down request was at least semi-automated via tag searches on youtube and rubber stamped by one of their employees. You can see this yourself by submitting a video with tags that contain artists they have on contract. I am also almost certain that MegaUpload understood this, and their video was specifically engineered to trigger these bots....

skore 15y ago
Interesting - if that is the case, kudos to them! This also makes me wonder whether there is are bots to search for all those "no copyright intended" videos.
EGreg 15y ago
Yeah, but I would like to hear about the back and forth with MegaUpload 'demanding" that this be put back up ... so what happened? Were they met with HUMAN opposition?
regularfry 15y ago
That would explain why the first takedown request was made, but not the second.
- throwaway64 15y ago
  the bot simply issued another request, seems obvious to me.
  - regularfry 15y ago
    A bot that would repeatedly issue notices against the same material would not be one I would be legally confident in, if I were in Universal's shoes. After all, if the material comes back after the first take-down, it means that someone has made a legally binding declaration that the original claim was mistaken. If it did end up in front of a judge, I can't see a blind repetition having helped Universal's case.
    - throwaway64 15y ago
      I dont think such flippant disregard for procedure would be surprising from them
Natsu 15y ago
They can't just use a bot to DMCA stuff, they have to have a lawyer sign off on it. Granted, in practice, I think they pretty much rubber stamp it, but the law says that they're supposed to be acting in good faith. If they're not, well, they have nobody but themselves to blame. I mean, how can they expect YouTube or the government to police their stuff if even they can't get it right? Copyright infringement hinges on permission. If even they don't know who has their permission to do what, nor even what they actually own, it seems ludicrous to suggest that the government or other companies should be expected to know. If they're confused here, it's because they thought they owned these people, only to find out that they do not.
- jcr 15y ago
  > They can't just use a bot to DMCA stuff, they have to have a lawyer sign off on it. This is incorrect. Anyone operating with the consent of the rightsholder can send a DMCA take-down request. You do not have to be a lawyer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Ac... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_L...
  - Natsu 15y ago
    Oops, you're right. You do still have to make that statement under penalty of perjury that has never, to my knowledge, been enforced, about representing the rightsholder and having a good faith belief that something is infringing.
    - jcr 15y ago
      Sorry my statement was so terse. After getting some much needed sleep and rereading it, I most certainly could have written it better/nicer. Bogus DMCA take-down requests from unknown/anonymous/incorrect entities are actually a significant problem. It would be nice if you were right and only lawyers could send such requests (and risk being disbarred for intentionally misrepresenting facts). Sadly, any anonymous nut-job can send DMCA take-down requests for any reason, and like spam, they can get away with it. I've seen no cases where the stated "penalty of perjury" has actually been prosecuted.

skore 15y ago

Interesting - if that is the case, kudos to them! This also makes me wonder whether there is are bots to search for all those "no copyright intended" videos.

EGreg 15y ago

Yeah, but I would like to hear about the back and forth with MegaUpload 'demanding" that this be put back up ... so what happened? Were they met with HUMAN opposition?

regularfry 15y ago

That would explain why the first takedown request was made, but not the second.

throwaway64 15y ago
the bot simply issued another request, seems obvious to me.
- regularfry 15y ago
  A bot that would repeatedly issue notices against the same material would not be one I would be legally confident in, if I were in Universal's shoes. After all, if the material comes back after the first take-down, it means that someone has made a legally binding declaration that the original claim was mistaken. If it did end up in front of a judge, I can't see a blind repetition having helped Universal's case.
  - throwaway64 15y ago
    I dont think such flippant disregard for procedure would be surprising from them

Natsu 15y ago

They can't just use a bot to DMCA stuff, they have to have a lawyer sign off on it. Granted, in practice, I think they pretty much rubber stamp it, but the law says that they're supposed to be acting in good faith. If they're not, well, they have nobody but themselves to blame. I mean, how can they expect YouTube or the government to police their stuff if even they can't get it right? Copyright infringement hinges on permission. If even they don't know who has their permission to do what, nor even what they actually own, it seems ludicrous to suggest that the government or other companies should be expected to know. If they're confused here, it's because they thought they owned these people, only to find out that they do not.

jcr 15y ago
> They can't just use a bot to DMCA stuff, they have to have a lawyer sign off on it. This is incorrect. Anyone operating with the consent of the rightsholder can send a DMCA take-down request. You do not have to be a lawyer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Ac... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_L...
- Natsu 15y ago
  Oops, you're right. You do still have to make that statement under penalty of perjury that has never, to my knowledge, been enforced, about representing the rightsholder and having a good faith belief that something is infringing.
  - jcr 15y ago
    Sorry my statement was so terse. After getting some much needed sleep and rereading it, I most certainly could have written it better/nicer. Bogus DMCA take-down requests from unknown/anonymous/incorrect entities are actually a significant problem. It would be nice if you were right and only lawyers could send such requests (and risk being disbarred for intentionally misrepresenting facts). Sadly, any anonymous nut-job can send DMCA take-down requests for any reason, and like spam, they can get away with it. I've seen no cases where the stated "penalty of perjury" has actually been prosecuted.