EMI claims it owns copyright to videos of cats purring


#1

[Permalink]


#2

#3

Hmm. Doesn’t falsely claiming ownership of copyright material qualify as fraud?


#4

I’d say so, but so far the legal and financial consequences of copyright misuse via false DMCA take downs has been essentially nil, with little chance of legal reform.


#5

The DMCA was(no doubt by innocent accident, I’m sure) constructed with that lovely little asymmetry unresolved. The risks incurred by committing fraudulent takedowns are effectively zero. The benefits are not.


#6

Thanks to the content ID system, no one even has to perjure themselves making a DMCA claim! They just need to stick an audio recording, for which they do have the copyright, that will create false positive matches with a high number of unrelated recordings into the content ID database, and Bingo!


#7

EMI did in fact produce the first commercial CAT scanner.


#8

They aren’t claiming ownership in a court of law. They are telling a corporation that they own it, and the corporation is just agreeing. The uploader, not being a corporation themselves, has no legal recourse because they agreed to the terms of service, which exist to benefit youtube and companies with bottomless pockets, not people. Real people, I mean.


#9

"Phantom’s lawyer filed a complaint, looking for 10 lbs of catnip in damages,”
ABUSE OF TORT LAW!


#10

Generally claims remain fraudulent no matter who you claim them too. Fraud is specifically for such communications - lying to a court would be perjury.


#11

Stray Cats were on EMI in the 80’s.


#12

Isn’t “catpurrs” an old word for pickpocket?


#13

Relax! This law is there to protect artists! Who would ever abuse it?


#14

Unless Phantom can afford a big, expensive suit (of law), it’ll never see the inside of a court room. Youtube made a nice cushy place for big ‘rightsholders’.


#15

Yes, but does any jurisdiction criminalize “negligent fraud”? They’ll claim that all their takedown notices were sent in good faith.

Now personally I could see acceptance of collateral damage qualifying as dolus eventualis at some point, but in a real life court I wouldn’t hold my breath.

I would love to see legislation addressing this, but at least for now the imbalance in terms of lobbying is just too great.


#16

Does any jurisdiction believe a bot has ‘faith’?

Skynet here we come!


#17

Yes, negligent fraud is criminal. Unfortunately, the law seems to have loopholes that would make it not apply in this case in most places where it exists - as in, such fraud is only illegal when it convinces someone to enter into a contract. Since they don’t technically give Google anything in return for this service, it would be hard to call it a contract, so it probably wouldn’t count.


#19

Maybe if he gets back together with Setzer and Rocker?


#20

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.