I find it particularly curious that this was taken down. It was supposed to be something that the music industry is smart enough to understand for the "attack that you need to sit out for now" that it is - instead, they took the bait and went into attack mode themselves.
The reaction, of course, shows how disgustingly superior (to logic and reason, really) the industry perceives itself - basically everything that an artist creates and is related to the profit of the music industry must fit into a narrow idea of control. When they produce music that sells, the industry wants control. When it's only an appearance that could funnel traffic to something they can sell, they will allow it, because they know they will have control down the line. But if it is something like the Megaupload case - having the artists create something that does neither, but also seemingly "strengthen the enemy", they are caught outside of their logic.
Now, anybody who isn't with their back to the wall would work with such a situation creatively. But with the media industry, we have a curious case of not needing to get defensive (after all, they still turn record profits), but having bought into the idea that that is the attitude they have to display in order to survive.
It would be interesting to hear precisely how much standing they have on this, really. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the artists that appeared in that clip do have contracts that say - whatever you do, we own, if we don't like it, we will fight it. After all - the industry isn't stupid and they certainly have the access to the best legal defenses you can get these days.
The good thing about this hack by Megaupload is that it's a loose-loose for the industry and while they have no shortage of material in that area (it seems like we hear a horribly backwards story like this every month), that steady drip really may end up give us some progressive approaches.
I am almost certain the DMCA take-down request was at least semi-automated via tag searches on youtube and rubber stamped by one of their employees. You can see this yourself by submitting a video with tags that contain artists they have on contract.
I am also almost certain that MegaUpload understood this, and their video was specifically engineered to trigger these bots....
They can't just use a bot to DMCA stuff, they have to have a lawyer sign off on it. Granted, in practice, I think they pretty much rubber stamp it, but the law says that they're supposed to be acting in good faith. If they're not, well, they have nobody but themselves to blame. I mean, how can they expect YouTube or the government to police their stuff if even they can't get it right?
Copyright infringement hinges on permission. If even they don't know who has their permission to do what, nor even what they actually own, it seems ludicrous to suggest that the government or other companies should be expected to know.
If they're confused here, it's because they thought they owned these people, only to find out that they do not.
Oops, you're right. You do still have to make that statement under penalty of perjury that has never, to my knowledge, been enforced, about representing the rightsholder and having a good faith belief that something is infringing.
Sorry my statement was so terse. After getting some much needed sleep and rereading it, I most certainly could have written it better/nicer.
Bogus DMCA take-down requests from unknown/anonymous/incorrect entities are actually a significant problem. It would be nice if you were right and only lawyers could send such requests (and risk being disbarred for intentionally misrepresenting facts). Sadly, any anonymous nut-job can send DMCA take-down requests for any reason, and like spam, they can get away with it. I've seen no cases where the stated "penalty of perjury" has actually been prosecuted.
Right, and you cant just robo-sign foreclosure paperwork either. Until the justice department starts doing their job of enforcing the penalties both ways the system will continue to collapse.
Yeah, but I would like to hear about the back and forth with MegaUpload 'demanding" that this be put back up ... so what happened? Were they met with HUMAN opposition?
A 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.
The reaction, of course, shows how disgustingly superior (to logic and reason, really) the industry perceives itself - basically everything that an artist creates and is related to the profit of the music industry must fit into a narrow idea of control. When they produce music that sells, the industry wants control. When it's only an appearance that could funnel traffic to something they can sell, they will allow it, because they know they will have control down the line. But if it is something like the Megaupload case - having the artists create something that does neither, but also seemingly "strengthen the enemy", they are caught outside of their logic.
Now, anybody who isn't with their back to the wall would work with such a situation creatively. But with the media industry, we have a curious case of not needing to get defensive (after all, they still turn record profits), but having bought into the idea that that is the attitude they have to display in order to survive.
It would be interesting to hear precisely how much standing they have on this, really. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the artists that appeared in that clip do have contracts that say - whatever you do, we own, if we don't like it, we will fight it. After all - the industry isn't stupid and they certainly have the access to the best legal defenses you can get these days.
The good thing about this hack by Megaupload is that it's a loose-loose for the industry and while they have no shortage of material in that area (it seems like we hear a horribly backwards story like this every month), that steady drip really may end up give us some progressive approaches.