5 ms·

So Congress is going on the assumption that the industries wont abuse SOPA, but the industry is abusing existing law, which proves their intentions.

code_duck 15y ago
Congress is going on the assumption that the people who support SOPA will hire their children and spouses for more lucrative fake employment than will the people who oppose SOPA.
tantalor 15y ago
> the industry is abusing existing law Sounds more like UMG has a deal with YT to short circuit DMCA, which isn't against the law. I expect that contract requires UMG to demonstrate a copyright claim on video. In this case, obviously UMG didn't do that, and violated the contract. It's similar to a false DMCA takedown, except that its not against the law. YT could cancel the contract, sue UMG for damages, or simply fine them if the contract allows that. My point is no laws were broken.
- mikeash 15y ago
  Intentional misrepresentation for the purpose of gaining some advantage or harming the other party is fraud, and is illegal. If lying about the copyright can be shown to have hurt YT or helped UMG then there may well be a legitimate case there. Not that I'd ever expect to see it prosecuted.
  - tantalor 15y ago
    Granted, but what if no intentional misrepresentation happened? Did UMG ever assert a copyright claim on the video? Or do they have carte-blanche to remove any video they want? If they asked YT to remove it, that might be fraud, because somebody on YT's side would remove the video on the assumption that UMG had a claim. But if they just flagged the video for automatic removal, is that fraud? Can you lie to a computer?
    - mikeash 15y ago
      If the contract lets them request the removal of any video, I imagine they would be in the clear. If it requires a claim of copyright, then perhaps not. As for lying to a computer, I think that counts as lying to whatever organization is running it. Try lying to a bank's computer to tell it to transfer money from somebody else's account into yours, for example....
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

code_duck 15y ago

Congress is going on the assumption that the people who support SOPA will hire their children and spouses for more lucrative fake employment than will the people who oppose SOPA.

tantalor 15y ago

> the industry is abusing existing law Sounds more like UMG has a deal with YT to short circuit DMCA, which isn't against the law. I expect that contract requires UMG to demonstrate a copyright claim on video. In this case, obviously UMG didn't do that, and violated the contract. It's similar to a false DMCA takedown, except that its not against the law. YT could cancel the contract, sue UMG for damages, or simply fine them if the contract allows that. My point is no laws were broken.

mikeash 15y ago
Intentional misrepresentation for the purpose of gaining some advantage or harming the other party is fraud, and is illegal. If lying about the copyright can be shown to have hurt YT or helped UMG then there may well be a legitimate case there. Not that I'd ever expect to see it prosecuted.
- tantalor 15y ago
  Granted, but what if no intentional misrepresentation happened? Did UMG ever assert a copyright claim on the video? Or do they have carte-blanche to remove any video they want? If they asked YT to remove it, that might be fraud, because somebody on YT's side would remove the video on the assumption that UMG had a claim. But if they just flagged the video for automatic removal, is that fraud? Can you lie to a computer?
  - mikeash 15y ago
    If the contract lets them request the removal of any video, I imagine they would be in the clear. If it requires a claim of copyright, then perhaps not. As for lying to a computer, I think that counts as lying to whatever organization is running it. Try lying to a bank's computer to tell it to transfer money from somebody else's account into yours, for example....
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]