3 ms·
That would explain why the first takedown request was made, but not the second.
by regularfry 15y ago
That would explain why the first takedown request was made, but not the second.
- throwaway64 15y agothe bot simply issued another request, seems obvious to me.
- regularfry 15y agoA 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 agoI dont think such flippant disregard for procedure would be surprising from them