4 ms·

Just more evidence that the DMCA is broken. This isn't YouTube's fault, it's a problem of Rumblefish harassing YouTube users.

vajrabum 15y ago
No. On the face of it sounds like a problem of Rumblefish stealing from users.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  It's not accurate when the RIAA says stealing like that, and it's not accurate when anyone else does either.
  - rcfox 15y ago
    The ads on the video pay out to Rumblefish instead of the video's owner.
    - lukeschlather 15y ago
      The word "steal" still obscures the true nature of the problem, which is one of demanding services they have no right to based on a flawed law. That's not theft, though it could be described as fraud, extortion, or racketeering.
      - ajross 15y ago
        If you really want to be pedantic, "steal" is not a legal term. It's a term of common English routinely used to refer to any of theft, fraud, extortion and racketeering.
        Karunamon 15y ago
        I find it hard to equate an automated (bad) copyright takedown with any of those terms. Or file downloading, for that matter.
        ajross 15y ago
        Exploiting an automated takedown system for the purpose of extracting advertising revenue from non-infringing content to which you don't own the copyright is undeniably fraud.
        Karunamon 15y ago
        Fraud requires intentional bad faith. You can't accidentally commit fraud. (And there is no proof that this was anything but human error.. you could probably make a good case for gross negligence though.)
        ajross 15y ago
        You can't know intent in either direction. That's an issue of determining guilt, but this thread is a (ridiculous) digression on whether it's linguistically appropriate to use the word "steal" in reference to the takedown request. I assume you would therefore agree that it's valid to say that Rumblefish has allegedly stolen the ad revenue. So therefore you agree, right?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
savramescu 15y ago
Only that this wasn't a DMCA request. It was a request from Rumblefish to Google, using a Google channel. I'm not trying to defend DMCA, but it wasn't used here.

vajrabum 15y ago

No. On the face of it sounds like a problem of Rumblefish stealing from users.

Karunamon 15y ago
It's not accurate when the RIAA says stealing like that, and it's not accurate when anyone else does either.
- rcfox 15y ago
  The ads on the video pay out to Rumblefish instead of the video's owner.
  - lukeschlather 15y ago
    The word "steal" still obscures the true nature of the problem, which is one of demanding services they have no right to based on a flawed law. That's not theft, though it could be described as fraud, extortion, or racketeering.
    - ajross 15y ago
      If you really want to be pedantic, "steal" is not a legal term. It's a term of common English routinely used to refer to any of theft, fraud, extortion and racketeering.
      - Karunamon 15y ago
        I find it hard to equate an automated (bad) copyright takedown with any of those terms. Or file downloading, for that matter.
        ajross 15y ago
        Exploiting an automated takedown system for the purpose of extracting advertising revenue from non-infringing content to which you don't own the copyright is undeniably fraud.
        Karunamon 15y ago
        Fraud requires intentional bad faith. You can't accidentally commit fraud. (And there is no proof that this was anything but human error.. you could probably make a good case for gross negligence though.)
        ajross 15y ago
        You can't know intent in either direction. That's an issue of determining guilt, but this thread is a (ridiculous) digression on whether it's linguistically appropriate to use the word "steal" in reference to the takedown request. I assume you would therefore agree that it's valid to say that Rumblefish has allegedly stolen the ad revenue. So therefore you agree, right?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

savramescu 15y ago

Only that this wasn't a DMCA request. It was a request from Rumblefish to Google, using a Google channel. I'm not trying to defend DMCA, but it wasn't used here.