Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexcoomans | Hacker News Reader

I'd have to agree with sp332, since I don't see how a bot would be able to legally sign a document - the legal backlash could be significant if a bot signed a document and that document was submitted without any human checks. Then again, it doesn't always seem like the media has regard for the law unless it is benefitting them, so it wouldn't surprise me.

View on HN

People seem to be misunderstanding my post. I'm trying to differentiate between:

"I hate those MegaUpload people. I'll issue a false take-down notice to shut them up! Bwahahaha! <twirls mustache>"

and

"Oh. Another hit from our crappy YouTube crawler bot. <rubber stamps take-down notice>"

There is a difference between malice directed towards MegaUpload and (willful) negligence.

[ Also, don't reply with something stupid like, "but that won't hold up in court." Because a careful reading of the above text will reveal a lack of me making any such statement. ]

To be honest, I don't think it really matters. The point is, Universal is blocking access to content they (allegedly - I don't know if the artists involved have copyright assignment agreements or something) don't own. Whether or not this was intentional, it shows that the system is broken, and that we cannot afford to give them any more power than they already have.

DMCA takedowns are done under penalty of perjury. I can't imagine a judge or a bar association taking a liking to a lawyer whose defense is "I was just rubber stamping these things."

It's a little frustrating that all of the responses to my post are "THAT WOULD NEVER HOLD UP IN AS A DEFENSE IN A COURT OF LAW! BLARG!"

It's been long-suspected that these DMCA take-down notices are just being rubber-stamped, yet not one penalty has been handed out. Color me disillusioned with the legal process.

> There is a difference between malice directed towards MegaUpload and (willful) negligence.

It's a difference that doesn't matter in the slightest. The organization is acting illegally, and people are rightfully angry about that. Who cares if someone's twirling their mustache? And why would a stereotypical corporate villain be worse than a system that is set up to screw people with the least resistance possible? It makes no difference whatsoever - only the outcome does.

edit: and I have to say that your insistence that people leave the legal stuff out of this, because you didn't explicitly mention it, is laughable. You realize that the DMCA is a law, right? And that this article is about a legal matter?

  > It's a difference that doesn't matter in the slightest.

In a courtroom, maybe. I'm drawing a distinction here because of the propensity of people to create elaborate narratives.

"UMG is censoring MegaUpload in a deliberate attempt to silence them. This is no different than a mobster trying to silence a witness!"

  > The organization is acting illegally, and people are 
  > rightfully angry about that.

If 'illegal' was as binary as you want to imply, then all penalties would be exactly the same.

  > You realize that the DMCA is a law, right?

... and HN is a court room, apparently. Are you going to hold me in contempt of court because I don't agree with you?

Especially when the article itself has quotes like this:

  > “Dirty tricks in an effort to stop our massively successful 
  > viral campaign.”

This statement implies that UMG was making a deliberate effort to shut down MegaUpload's campaign.

> If 'illegal' was as binary as you want to imply, then all penalties would be exactly the same

What a ridiculous statement, which bears absolutely no relation to what I said.

> This statement implies that UMG was making a deliberate effort to shut down MegaUpload's campaign

... That's because DMCA takedown notices require deliberate effort. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

  > That's because DMCA takedown notices require deliberate
  > effort. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

You've translated:

  > A DMCA take-down notice requires a statement under
  > penalty of perjury that the issuer has a good-faith
  > reason to believe that they are the owner of the
  > copyright in question.

Into meaning that the following two statements are equivalent:

  I want to take down this video because I want to stop
  MegaUpload's viral campaign because it could be damaging
  to my bottom line.

and

  This video has the name 'Snoop Dogg' in it so I'll send
  a take-down notice because I might own the copyrights to
  this, and I'm too lazy/over-worked to be bothered to
  check.

You say that the above statements are equivalent because the end result is the same (a video is wrongfully and illegally taken down).

If that is true, then you have to accept that nothing that you do in your life matters because you'll only end up dead. The end result is exactly the same.

More ridiculous drivel. The "end result" of my life will be substantially different, depending on how I affect the people around me. Do you have anything to say that's even slightly true?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com