> 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?
"UMG is censoring MegaUpload in a deliberate attempt to silence them. This is no different than a mobster trying to silence a witness!"
If 'illegal' was as binary as you want to imply, then all penalties would be exactly the same. ... 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:
This statement implies that UMG was making a deliberate effort to shut down MegaUpload's campaign.