6 ms·

I see no practical difference between a human issuing illegitmate DMCA takedown notices, or using a bot to do the same. The difference to the affected party is

I see no practical difference between a human issuing illegitmate DMCA takedown notices, or using a bot to do the same. The difference to the affected party is nil. "The bot made me do it" is not a legal defense.

pyre 15y ago
> "The bot made me do it" is not a legal defense. Please re-read my post instead of tearing down a straw man.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Why should we care about the difference between negligence and malice? Should we respond differently? I would not be comfortable with that. Besides, let's not forget Grey's Law... (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Greys_Law http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Greys_Law)
  - pyre 15y ago
    From http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Greys_Law http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Greys_Law : > There is currently no text in this page. My point is not to get carried away by making claims like this: > “Dirty tricks in an effort to stop our massively > successful viral campaign.” If these claims turn out to be false, then you just end up looking stupid, even if UMG is still on the wrong side of the law.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      HN seems to be eating an apostrophe between the y and s in that link. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Grey's_Law Regardless, nobody reasonable is going to fault anybody for assuming malice from class acts like the MPAA. And if you apply Grey's Law, then they deserve the criticism regardless.
- chairface 15y ago
  I reread it. It still looks like you're drawing a distinction between a person flagging an "infringing" work, and a bot doing the same. I still think that there is no practical use for this distinction. Where's the strawman?
  - pyre 15y ago
    The strawman is that I'm not building a legal defense for UMG, whereas that seems to be what you've pegged me as doing. My message can be summed up as: Don't get carried away with conspiracy theories that UMG saw this successful viral campaign and felt that they needed to do something illegal to stop it. This video just ran afowl of UMG's "shotgun approach" to take-down notices, which just happens to be an illegal activity of theirs. I also find it highly probable that this was a targeted effort to get the video into the sights of whatever process it is that UMG uses to issue notices. UMG's 'shotgun approach' to take-downs is not limited to just UMG, and it is also nothing new. This has been going on for a long time. If you're only getting outraged about it now you're years late to the party.
    - chairface 15y ago
      > Don't get carried away with conspiracy theories Followed by a conspiracy theory of your own: > I also find it highly probable that this was a targeted effort to get the video into the sights of whatever process it is that UMG uses to issue notices Classy.
      - pyre 15y ago
        That's not a conspiracy theory, no matter how much you think that you want to 'win' this Internet argument with me. You think that there was no thought put into the fact that if they put a video up on YouTube with a bunch of well-known artists in the name that they might get taken down for 'copyright violations?' It perfectly demonstrates their case, and with all of the publicity around the video itself brings the issue to a lot of the general public. Even if it wasn't a targeted effort, it seems like it turned out really well for them, IMO.
rcthompson 15y ago
If a boot does it, then it is much more difficult to pin the crime on any one person, therefore much less likely to result in any consequences for any of the guilty parties.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  It's easy really. The person that authorized the bot to work on their behalf is responsible.
  - rcthompson 15y ago
    I'm not saying it's logically more difficult, I'm saying that in practical terms, it puts one more hurdle (or maybe several) in the way of anyone who wants to hold the culprit accountable.

pyre 15y ago

> "The bot made me do it" is not a legal defense. Please re-read my post instead of tearing down a straw man.

burgerbrain 15y ago
Why should we care about the difference between negligence and malice? Should we respond differently? I would not be comfortable with that. Besides, let's not forget Grey's Law... (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Greys_Law http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Greys_Law)
- pyre 15y ago
  From http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Greys_Law http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Greys_Law : > There is currently no text in this page. My point is not to get carried away by making claims like this: > “Dirty tricks in an effort to stop our massively > successful viral campaign.” If these claims turn out to be false, then you just end up looking stupid, even if UMG is still on the wrong side of the law.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    HN seems to be eating an apostrophe between the y and s in that link. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Grey's_Law Regardless, nobody reasonable is going to fault anybody for assuming malice from class acts like the MPAA. And if you apply Grey's Law, then they deserve the criticism regardless.
chairface 15y ago
I reread it. It still looks like you're drawing a distinction between a person flagging an "infringing" work, and a bot doing the same. I still think that there is no practical use for this distinction. Where's the strawman?
- pyre 15y ago
  The strawman is that I'm not building a legal defense for UMG, whereas that seems to be what you've pegged me as doing. My message can be summed up as: Don't get carried away with conspiracy theories that UMG saw this successful viral campaign and felt that they needed to do something illegal to stop it. This video just ran afowl of UMG's "shotgun approach" to take-down notices, which just happens to be an illegal activity of theirs. I also find it highly probable that this was a targeted effort to get the video into the sights of whatever process it is that UMG uses to issue notices. UMG's 'shotgun approach' to take-downs is not limited to just UMG, and it is also nothing new. This has been going on for a long time. If you're only getting outraged about it now you're years late to the party.
  - chairface 15y ago
    > Don't get carried away with conspiracy theories Followed by a conspiracy theory of your own: > I also find it highly probable that this was a targeted effort to get the video into the sights of whatever process it is that UMG uses to issue notices Classy.
    - pyre 15y ago
      That's not a conspiracy theory, no matter how much you think that you want to 'win' this Internet argument with me. You think that there was no thought put into the fact that if they put a video up on YouTube with a bunch of well-known artists in the name that they might get taken down for 'copyright violations?' It perfectly demonstrates their case, and with all of the publicity around the video itself brings the issue to a lot of the general public. Even if it wasn't a targeted effort, it seems like it turned out really well for them, IMO.

rcthompson 15y ago

If a boot does it, then it is much more difficult to pin the crime on any one person, therefore much less likely to result in any consequences for any of the guilty parties.

burgerbrain 15y ago
It's easy really. The person that authorized the bot to work on their behalf is responsible.
- rcthompson 15y ago
  I'm not saying it's logically more difficult, I'm saying that in practical terms, it puts one more hurdle (or maybe several) in the way of anyone who wants to hold the culprit accountable.