3 ms·

Mmmm... DMCA spam/extortion seems like a industry just waiting to take off.

d4mi3n 3y ago
Waiting to take off? It’s been alive and well for years. A few examples: Bungie suing person responsible for multiple fraudulent Destiny 2 DMCA takedowns, 2022: https://www.vg247.com/bungie-suing-person-responsible-for-fraudulent-destiny-2-dmca-takedowns https://www.vg247.com/bungie-suing-person-responsible-for-fr... Using Youtube takedowns as extortion, 2017: https://www.techdirt.com/2017/10/25/using-youtube-takedowns-as-extortion/ https://www.techdirt.com/2017/10/25/using-youtube-takedowns-... Warner Bros’ False Takedowns Stifle Free Speech, EFF Tells Court, 2013: https://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-false-takedowns-stifle-free-speech-eff-tells-court-120306/ https://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-false-takedowns-stifle-...
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  I mean in an highly automated way, ala modern call extortion and such.
- suction 3y ago
  [dead]
EdwardDiego 3y ago
Someone patent it as a business process and then assign it to a patent troll, let the bottom feeders sort it out.
ww520 3y ago
Oh, it's live and well, and compensated very well. Just an example, TwoSetViolins did a live concert of some classical music pieces (no copyright would exist on them at this time and age) and their YouTube video got millions of views. A French music company did a DMCA claim against them and YouTube took down their video and transferred their ad money to the music company. They fought to get their video back. But but the kicker was that the music company got to keep the ad revenue generated during the dispute period, which was most of the money as many event based videos got most of their views from the initial release time frame due to promotion of the events by the video creators. Not sure what the eventual outcome was. As you can see, even if the false claims have failed, the DMCA filers still got a part of the money. The incentive is completely skewed.
- blooalien 3y ago
  Sad thing is that under pretty much any other circumstances (as in not protected by a broken law) that sort of action would totally be straight-up fraud on the part of the filer (literally stealing ad revenue).

Waiting to take off? It’s been alive and well for years. A few examples: Bungie suing person responsible for multiple fraudulent Destiny 2 DMCA takedowns, 2022: https://www.vg247.com/bungie-suing-person-responsible-for-fraudulent-destiny-2-dmca-takedowns https://www.vg247.com/bungie-suing-person-responsible-for-fr... Using Youtube takedowns as extortion, 2017: https://www.techdirt.com/2017/10/25/using-youtube-takedowns-as-extortion/ https://www.techdirt.com/2017/10/25/using-youtube-takedowns-... Warner Bros’ False Takedowns Stifle Free Speech, EFF Tells Court, 2013: https://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-false-takedowns-stifle-free-speech-eff-tells-court-120306/ https://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-false-takedowns-stifle-...

brucethemoose2 3y ago
I mean in an highly automated way, ala modern call extortion and such.
suction 3y ago
[dead]

EdwardDiego 3y ago

Someone patent it as a business process and then assign it to a patent troll, let the bottom feeders sort it out.

ww520 3y ago

Oh, it's live and well, and compensated very well. Just an example, TwoSetViolins did a live concert of some classical music pieces (no copyright would exist on them at this time and age) and their YouTube video got millions of views. A French music company did a DMCA claim against them and YouTube took down their video and transferred their ad money to the music company. They fought to get their video back. But but the kicker was that the music company got to keep the ad revenue generated during the dispute period, which was most of the money as many event based videos got most of their views from the initial release time frame due to promotion of the events by the video creators. Not sure what the eventual outcome was. As you can see, even if the false claims have failed, the DMCA filers still got a part of the money. The incentive is completely skewed.

blooalien 3y ago
Sad thing is that under pretty much any other circumstances (as in not protected by a broken law) that sort of action would totally be straight-up fraud on the part of the filer (literally stealing ad revenue).