EMI claims it owns copyright to videos of cats purring



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


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.


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.


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!


EMI did in fact produce the first commercial CAT scanner.

1 Like

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.

"Phantom’s lawyer filed a complaint, looking for 10 lbs of catnip in damages,”

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

Stray Cats were on EMI in the 80’s.

1 Like

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

1 Like

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


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’.

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.

Does any jurisdiction believe a bot has ‘faith’?

Skynet here we come!

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.

Maybe if he gets back together with Setzer and Rocker?

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