4 ms·
The ads on the video pay out to Rumblefish instead of the video's owner.
by rcfox 15y ago
The ads on the video pay out to Rumblefish instead of the video's owner.
- lukeschlather 15y agoThe 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 agoIf 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 agoI find it hard to equate an automated (bad) copyright takedown with any of those terms. Or file downloading, for that matter.
- ajross 15y agoExploiting 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 agoFraud 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 agoYou 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?