If you can’t actually back your assertions, there is nothing to rebut because that’s all they are. Assertions

“You are recycling the same old answers to simple questions. Avoidance and arguing from ignorance is all you have.”

Rich coming from someone who is continually avoiding backing his assertions and insisting I take statements as fact.

“My way is equally easy.”

The “because I said so” while easy, isn’t valid.

“That wasn’t the argument I made at all regarding that part of the exchange. I was referring to TF’s leaning in it’s entirety at that point.”

This still isn’t a valid point. You want to talk bias, you can talk about the article and the author of the article but the notion “herp derp bias site” still isn’t valid.

“The website URL is not enough ?”

Think of it like DMCA law. You don’t censor a domain. I’m perfectly within reason to to wonder why the fuck you couldn’t provide a copy pasted fucking URL. So please, don’t pretend this dipshitery is my fault considering you have failed 3 times to provide my request.

Any who, onto the article I fail to see how anything in the article is contradicting the facts, especially since it’s using Torrentfreak as its SOURCE! lol!

“Megaupload, a Hong Kong-based entity that recently was a target of an anti-piracy advertisement by the entertainment lobby, took the opportunity to play victim.”

I love this wording. Right here is a perfect example of why I can’t take this site personally. “play victim”. I don’t think Hollywood knows what a victim is.

“Even your own opinions speak volumes here”

Most websites put up with and used the DMCA and accommodated abusive labels. I’m not going to argue semantics but the point is, no one was happy but no one was actively mouthing off at each other.

So really? A contradiction? You should grab a thesaurus. It might be next to the dictionary in your classroom.

“In any event, there are enough articles out there regarding KDC and Megaupload to know there has been a healthy enough dislike between themselves and the entertainment industry for quite sometime. You can believe that only very neutral opinions of each other existed prior to the video removal if you wish, you’re naivety however, doesn’t surprise or interest me at all. Being that KDC is an immature child (even he confirms similar) only a moron would dispute that the megavideo wasn’t intended as anything but a giant middle finger to the entertainment industry.You can view it however you like of course.”

Your point was that KDC mouths off all the time at the various music groups, which is still ad hominem btw so no really all that valid.

see what you’re talking about? This is called free speech. You are actually allowed to “mouth off”. There is absolutely nothing wrong here. I don’t dispute it was a “fuck off” to the copyright monopoly. He didn’t actually tell them that in the video. Is this a valid reason for censorship? No. Is telling someone to actually go fuck themselves grounds for copyright claim? No.

“I don’t agree. I think it’s very important to establish that the video did appear on Edwyns Myspace at one point with absolutely no issues.”

It’s irrelevant because it’s a fact and I’m not arguing it. If it didn’t show up on MySpace at one point how would it have been taken down?

“What I said very clearly proves my point. Simply put , “was it hard for Edwyn (or his wife) to prove their copyright to warner” No it wasn’t they did it with a phone call to warner. Here’s an article that has quotes directly from Edwyns wife/manager”

They never responded so this disproves my notion how?

“found a nice lawyer guy at Warners, very apologetic, promised to get it sorted, but all these months later it isn’t.”

Go figure. Saying sorry isn’t really an admission of action. and we can all see why it wasn’t sorted out

“A Girl Like You is available FOR SALE all over the internet. Not by Edwyn, by all sorts of respectable major labels whose licence to sell it ran out years ago and who do not account to him. Attempting to make them cease and desist would use up the rest of my life. Because this is what they do and what they’ve always done.”

Hey look at that.

“Thats it Ice, my point proven……it wasn’t hard for them to prove copyright TO WARNER. They agreed “over the phone””

Pure lip service. Actions speak far louder and the fact they continued to sell his music and did absolutely nothing to sort this mess out all combined with the fact that they never made a public statement add up to one thing. Your point absolutely failing.

(also techdirt a pro torrenting site! lolololol)

“However, do you see the problem with Myspace ? No system in place to deal with Edwyns issue”

Absolutely however I still see no reason to entirely blame them since it’s fairly apparent the system for Warner was there and they could evidently use it, but failed to actually follow up on their groveling.

“They’re involved because as a service provider, they failed to have in place the necessary procedures as required”

Again, I don’t doubt any of this, but you are still shifting attention and the blame to MySpace when Warner and only Warner here is making and maintaining a false copyright claims.

So again, irrelevant blame gaming.

“It might be relevant to you”

Warners involvement is very relevant.

“Warner gave absolutely no resistance when Edwyns wife phoned them”

A phone statement (via a 3rd hand source no less) is hardly a binding statement.

“So how exactly Ice, was it hard for Edwyn to prove copyright”

Because the big label is still selling his song (illegally) and that even going through his channels, got no action or public admission.

“If Myspace are a US service provider and they wish to maintain the protections…”

Let it go. The DMCA wasn’t used or followed. You’re just arguing the “ifs”. Stick to what actually happened.

“Your inability to fathom the obligations of service providers is not my issue.”

The “obligations” of the DMCA have no part here because they weren’t followed.

Your follow up to this gem is irrelevant because it’ just a long list of “they should have Xed”. Fact is they didn’t. This happened well outside any involvement of the DMCA.

“You do remember the original statement I made and Ben jones disagreed with right ? “it ‘s not hard to prove copyright”.”

You keep repeating this, when it is you continually bringing up the DMCA and MySpace. Are you going to pretend I’ve been making these points now?

“Which is the only party of this exchange that actually matters incidentally since the dispute was with Warner and that is the only party he would even had to prove copyright to (which he didn;t actually have to do incidentally, they cleared it up in a phone call)”

Your entire point rests on the 3rd party account of a phone call. One that evidently and admittedly by the source you linked, resulted in zero action. This doesn’t make your point all that strong. In fact it simply reinforces the very point you’re arguing against. Good job.

“oh Jeez, what the fuck does that have to do with the point that you are meant to be disproving ?”

You, not me are the one continually bringing up MySpace. Stop pretending otherwise.

“An automated removal system certainly does not discharge Myspace of any obligations as a service provider operating a website with user-uploaded content. Not unless they don’t want safe harbor, which of course they do so thats a moot point for sure.”

Again, the DMCA is not really involved here.

“Edwyn Collins wife is even quoted as saying that Myspace are ill equipped to deal with this”

I’m well aware, but why is Warner not able to do anything evidently to withdraw their claim? Likely they don’t want to play ball and just throw that weight around.”

“In any event, your inability to grasp obligations of service providers is not really my problem. Edwyn’s wife had no problem proving copyright to Warner, which they accepted over a quick phone call.”

Again, the entirety of your point rests on one 3rd hand source of a phone call which resulted in no action or public statement.

You wouldn’t see a problem with this though would you since it seems to be your only point.

“And regarding your “no DMCA” horseshit. You clearly have little grasp of the DMCA mechanism.”

Oh gawd. Not the “you don’t know the DMCA” again. lol. I don’t even need to go into detail on this gem. You’d argue the DMCA into a murder 1 charge. Don’t ever get involved with law.

“Lets remind ourselves of the two events. Both Youtube and Myspace video removals were actually incredibly similar: They were the automated removal of a piece of content on a user generated website. Automated removal (or any “behind the scenes tom foolery”) does NOT relinquish the service provider from their legal obligations if they wish to benefit from certain protections drafted in law for service providers. Even arstechnica reported more clearly than TF regarding this.

Here is a pertinent quote from their article http://arstechnica.com/tech-po… (its megaupload related so try not to get confused, it’s merely being used to illustrate how one company that had an almost identical removal of content, got redress)

“Megaupload—doubtless relishing the opportunity to play copyright victim—filed a lawsuit in federal court against UMG for misuse of the DMCA takedown process. UMG, it said, is “abusing the DMCA takedown mechanism to chill free speech they do not like.” It asked the court to declare that Megaupload had the right to post its video and to restrain UMG from submitting any more takedown notices. ”

So why Ice, considering the Megaupload removal (automated removal hence no emailed DMCA) do you think that the Myspace removal which had an automated element (video was on Edwyns Myspace page, then it wasn’t, then the user couldn’t reupload it, with no explanation until Myspace was pressed for an answer) is any different ? ”

I’m not even sure what to make of this mess for a start. It’s like one massive paragraph forcibly separated into four and it really, really doesn’t help me in understanding your point.

Start over. The last paragraph is making absolutely no sense to me since it’s about 4 questions compounded together by commas (WTF are you thinking?!).

Fun fact:

“Ars sought a comment from UMG, but we have not received a response.”

LOOOOOOOOLLLLL! Teh BIAseS!!!! :P

On a last note, in case I don’t see ya. Merry Christmas

If you can’t take my word, you should form rebuttals to my assertions as to why I think they are.

**

Yes, I’m the one ill equiped when I’m not the one recycling the same old points over and over and decending (once again) into ad hominem attacks.

You are recycling the same old answers to simple questions. Avoidance and arguing from ignorance is all you have.
**

Because it’s the easiest way to demonstrate bias.

My way is equally easy.

**

You want to call a writer bias as part of your argument that two articles are bias. Unless they’ve written those articles you really don’t have a point in your argument, was what I was trying to say but without kneeling down to your 5 year old level of comprehension.

That wasn’t the argument I made at all regarding that part of the exchange. I was referring to TF’s leaning in it’s entirety at that point. Please keep up.

**

So you won’t provide a link? I’m not going to waste time doing work you should have been able to do for me, especially since it is your point. I’m not going to entertain the notion this story is real until you’ve actually provided it.

The website URL is not enough ? You do love relying on avoidance and ignorance LOL http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/william-megaupload-kim-kardashian-p-diddy-272414

**

It’s not belief. KDC was not so largely outspoken against the music industry until after the incident with this song which ultimately (following his unwarranted, over the top illegal raid of his business) resulted in the very vocal, anti Hollywood/label KDC we see today. Before that, KDC admittedly begrudgingly had accommodated both groups with DMCA processes but certainly not anti any of these groups. So “known beef”? History my friend. You should likely read up on it before you make comments like this.

“KDC was not so largely outspoken”……… ” KDC admittedly begrudgingly had accommodated both groups”. Even your own opinions speak volumes here. Although, I suspect it also depends how a person interprets the definition of the word “beef”, it varies and some are more severe than others.

In any event, there are enough articles out there regarding KDC and Megaupload to know there has been a healthy enough dislike between themselves and the entertainment industry for quite sometime. You can believe that only very neutral opinions of each other existed prior to the video removal if you wish, you’re naivety however, doesn’t surprise or interest me at all. Being that KDC is an immature child (even he confirms similar) only a moron would dispute that the megavideo wasn’t intended as anything but a giant middle finger to the entertainment industry.You can view it however you like of course.

**

Then it’s all largely irrelevant.

I don’t agree. I think it’s very important to establish that the video did appear on Edwyns Myspace at one point with absolutely no issues.

**

Neither Warner nor MySpace ever responded or allowed his content that he owned to re uploaded.

How the hell does that “prove your point” ? Lala land? Yeah, that suits. You’re absolutely delusional,

What are you babbling about LOL. Can you even remember what my original point was ?

What I said very clearly proves my point. Simply put , “was it hard for Edwyn (or his wife) to prove their copyright to warner” No it wasn’t they did it with a phone call to warner. Here’s an article that has quotes directly from Edwyns wife/manager : http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0146316418.shtml

Thats it Ice, my point proven……it wasn’t hard for them to prove copyright TO WARNER. They agreed “over the phone” and apologized.. Anything beyond that, the tardiness of a company to actually come through for example…….is irrelevant.

However, do you see the problem with Myspace ? No system in place to deal with Edwyns issue (not even enough to sufficiently notify him or to offer redress to reinstate the video). Who said all that at the very beginning. Oh yeah , I did.

**

We’re establishing why MySpace is involved in this.

They’re involved because as a service provider, they failed to have in place the necessary procedures as required of a service provider in the US dealing with user uploaded content. Youtube had no issue having the right procedures in place and Mega had no problem getting their video reinstated. Same cant be said for myspace. They had no applicable channels to deal with the issue, if they did, Myspace would barely be featured in the commentary beyond “Myspace reinstated the video”.

**

Warners tardiness is the most relevant fact of this story because without them, this would have never happened in the first place.

It might be relevant to you (for what reason I have absolutely no idea) but not to me. Warner gave absolutely no resistance when Edwyns wife phoned them regarding their rights over Edwyns song. So how exactly Ice, was it hard for Edwyn to prove copyright (which is the only point I care about since that WAS my original point) ?…….a phone call, therefore not difficult at all.

**

You seem a bit lost. Stick to the point presented instead of making your own. You’re kinda bad at it.

Oh the irony. Half of YOUR point was relevant and I answered it, the other half of your point is irrelevant. It’s irrelevant because no one ever should (or should even be asked to) prove copyright to a service provider regarding user uploadad content. So when you typed “Talking to both parties resulted in absolutely zero action”you seem surprised that Edwyn got no response from Myspace, I on the other hand am not. If you’re going to make a point Ice, make one that completely relevant, cause you’re kinda bad at it ;)

**

Yadda, yadda. The DMCA has absolutely no place in the MySpace incident. I’m tired of repeating this.

If Myspace are a US service provider and they wish to maintain the protections afforded to service providers of user generated content websites, then it does have a place in this. And no amount of your illogical fuck wittery changes that.

**

As for lying, we do remember the DMCA in MySpace? Oh yes. Embellishing a story with a law and process uninvolved to better suit your (flawed) point. That would be lying.

Your inability to fathom the obligations of service providers is not my issue. For example, Youtube had no issues offering redress to it’s user for removal of their uploaded video (even though by automated takedown) how idiotic do you have to be Ice, to not see that both removals are almost identical and that when it comes to user generated content, that service providers are legally obliged to follow the DMCA mechanism, despite automation, if they wish to have any hope of benefitting from the protections of that law…..which as we know, THEY ALL DO lol.

**

Warner placed the copyright claim, therefore MySpace is at fault. lolololololololololololololololololol.

You do remember the original statement I made and Ben jones disagreed with right ? “it ‘s not hard to prove copyright”…..I’m sure you do because I’ve had to repeat it a billion times. If you do, where do you see any difficulty Edwyn had proving his copyright to Warner ?

Which is the only party of this exchange that actually matters incidentally since the dispute was with Warner and that is the only party he would even had to prove copyright to (which he didn;t actually have to do incidentally, they cleared it up in a phone call). So where is the issue ice…where did Edwyn struggling to prove copyright to warner Ice ?

**

My mistake. It’s hard to keep up with your ramblings when they are so incoherent and jump around at the drop of a hat.

Blame shifting LOL. and this is not the first time you’ve gotten the parties completely confused (in this exchange or others). If you can’t keep up with such simple articles and variables , ask for help. If you can’t ask for help and you cant keep up……please leave and get Ben jones back here to finish what he started.

**

Needless to say, I’m just resating my point that MySpace didn’t claim his work over copyright, they claimed it on behalf of Warner. Warner mind you had no valid claim.

oh Jeez, what the fuck does that have to do with the point that you are meant to be disproving ? I’m bored having to keep refreshing your memory.

**

Sorry, but no DMCA in the events, means no DMCA in the events. You can argue they should have used the DMCA all you like but it doesn’t change the facts. I know you have a giant hard on for the DMC but you really, really need to move and get help on the issue or something.

An automated removal system certainly does not discharge Myspace of any obligations as a service provider operating a website with user-uploaded content. Not unless they don’t want safe harbor, which of course they do so thats a moot point for sure.

Edwyn Collins wife is even quoted as saying that Myspace are ill equipped to deal with this in the techdirt article (other articles cover her same words but the TD one should do for now).

In any event, your inability to grasp obligations of service providers is not really my problem. Edwyn’s wife had no problem proving copyright to Warner, which they accepted over a quick phone call. Anything else is……..irrelevant.

And regarding your “no DMCA” horseshit. You clearly have little grasp of the DMCA mechanism.

Lets remind ourselves of the two events. Both Youtube and Myspace video removals were actually incredibly similar: They were the automated removal of a piece of content on a user generated website. Automated removal (or any “behind the scenes tom foolery”) does NOT relinquish the service provider from their legal obligations if they wish to benefit from certain protections drafted in law for service providers. Even arstechnica reported more clearly than TF regarding this.

Here is a pertinent quote from their article http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/12/judge-gives-umg-24-hours-to-explain-takedown-spree/ (its megaupload related so try not to get confused, it’s merely being used to illustrate how one company that had an almost identical removal of content, got redress)

“Megaupload—doubtless relishing the opportunity to play copyright victim—filed a lawsuit in federal court against UMG for misuse of the DMCA takedown process. UMG, it said, is “abusing the DMCA takedown mechanism to chill free speech they do not like.” It asked the court to declare that Megaupload had the right to post its video and to restrain UMG from submitting any more takedown notices. ”

So why Ice, considering the Megaupload removal (automated removal hence no emailed DMCA) do you think that the Myspace removal which had an automated element (video was on Edwyns Myspace page, then it wasn’t, then the user couldn’t reupload it, with no explanation until Myspace was pressed for an answer) is any different ?
Both companies are still obligated to offer the user avenues for redress, Youtube did, Myspace didn’t.

I’m sure you’ll still have difficulty with this though.

**

Earth. That is where this happened. Unless you’re disputing the MySpace incident never actually happened.

I’m not disputing that it happened. Im disputing that you understand it in relation to my original point.

**

See this is why you’re a pain. Now we’re back to Megaupload, no warning, just out right switching and exchanging facts.likely as you see fit.

I’ll rephrase. The DMCA is irrelevant to to the point of copyright ownership, especially when it requires no proof to take down something as shown by taking down something with which they have absolutely no legal claim over.

I have NEVER said that the DMCA (or similar) proves actual ownership, where are you getting that horsehit from. Simply put, it’s merely a tool to quickly and cost effectively settle online copyright infringement issues (takedown and reinstantement). In addition to laying out a set of ground rules regarding service providers. Where do you get your BS from that I believe otherwise lol

**

You seem absolutely incompetent so I’ll spell it out for ya.

Why is it that a copyright claim can be a made on something one has absolutely no copyright claim on?

Why do you think I care about “why” someone might make a copyright claim ? My only focus is proving my claim which is……………. “it’s not hard to prove copyright”. Not the why and wherefores of why xyz company did this or who owns what copyright. Stick to the the actual argument Ice, lest you want to continue look completely incompetent.

**

I think the point he was making is that it is easy to make false claims with zero responsibility but using a counter notification actually places all legal burden on the filer. Megaupload is one the rare cases where they bully the big guys.

Your speculation is not relevant.

**

It’s also worth understanding the process on Youtube for the little guys. If you get a false DMCA claim on your videos and you contest that claim and it is rejected, you loose your channel. Factor that into your brain if you can. What sort of effect does that have on people with everything to lose?

This has nothing to do with my original point and is completely irrelevant.

**

Too bad the DMCA has never worked as intended aye?

It does it’s best I suppose considering it is woefully out of date for the current environment it’s meant to operate.

***

None of your most valid points remotely address that.

I completely disagree.

**

Disagreeing won’t stop someone being wrong, nor does it really change the fact they broke the law.

whatever opinions and reasons existed back then, for either party, It makes absolutely no difference and is totally irrelevant to my original point.

The disagreement might have been relevant if mega ended up in court with Universal for example, but they didn’t. Mega never had to prove copyright…..to anyone……..ever. Therefore Ice, how hard was it for Mega to prove their copyright ? I think you’ll find “not at all” is the answer ;)

**

Correct? Hah, your most valid point is that the articles are bias accusations.

I disagree.

**

Everything else has been blame shifting, DMCA law whoring to distract from the point you’re trying to make and then you want claim you’ve proven it? What? 10Whats? You’ve proven nothing. You’ve gone from “teh articles r lying” to the making up events as you see fit and it doesn’t take a degree I hope to figure out how moronic this is.

Backflips. Logic backflips. You asked about them but you’re preforming them, over and over again.

I disagree completely. Neither Mega or Edwyn actually had any problems proving their copyright to the only parties that matter. Mega didn;t even have to prove there’s and Warner agreed with Edwyn. Anything else has got nothing to do with the point I originally made and that Ben attempted to refute by presenting me with two TF articles.

If you can find one relevant point within the TF articles that show that either Mega or Edwyn had any issues proving their copyright to the only parties that matter (the companies removing the content initially) then find them in the articles.

Sorry, but you really don’t expect me to take your word on it that “its bias” is some sort of valid way to argue the article do you? We’ve been over this.

“One that you are ill equipped to even attempt a rebuttal. Sad”

Yes, I’m the one ill equiped when I’m not the one recycling the same old points over and over and decending (once again) into ad hominem attacks.

“Why is this reasoning even relevant ?”

Because it’s the easiest way to demonstrate bias.

“Where did I say he did ?”

You want to call a writer bias as part of your argument that two articles are bias. Unless they’ve written those articles you really don’t have a point in your argument, was what I was trying to say but without kneeling down to your 5 year old level of comprehension.

“If you’d read my post before responding you can see that I generously”

I read your posts as I respond to save time. You can argue what you’ve done, not what you are about to do if you expect any kind intelligent exchange here.

“Just Lol”

Well I’m waiting.

No I’m really about to argue.

No really, really I’m about to argue with you.

You fucking joke

“Hilarious lies.”

I think we’ve been over who is known liar here.

“Disqus linked that. I only intended to name the site. You can find their article easy enough by using their webs ites search feature. Who’d believe it, a website in 2013 has a built in search”

So you won’t provide a link? I’m not going to waste time doing work you should have been able to do for me, especially since it is your point.

“I have no interest in Hollywood reporter personally, the purpose of the link was to take you to a website that featured a similar story”

I’m not going to entertain the notion this story is real until you’ve actually provided it.

“That might be your belief”

It’s not belief. KDC was not so largely outspoken against the music industry until after the incident with this song which ultimately (following his unwarranted, over the top illegal raid of his business) resulted in the very vocal, anti Hollywood/label KDC we see today.

Before that, KDC admittedly begrudgingly had accommodated both groups with DMCA processes but certainly not anti any of these groups.

So “known beef”? History my friend. You should likely read up on it before you make comments like this.

“You weren’t even involved at the very beginning LOL and your allegation is untrue”

Insults are dime a dozen from you. I can find one in nearly every post you’ve made to me.

As for lying, we do remember the DMCA in MySpace? Oh yes. Embellishing a story with a law and process uninvolved to better suit your (flawed) point. That would be lying.

“I think you’re talking horseshit again,”

I think I’ve been rather clear I don’t care what you really think..

“What are you babbling about now boy ? I’m simply establishing from Edwyns wife/managers comments (as reported on a number of other websites with more complete reporting on the incident) that the video was previously uploaded to his account on Myspace. That is all. That fact that the video WAS once present on Edwyns account establishes that at a certain point, Myspace allowed the video to be uploaded normally and displayed. Nothing more, nothing less. And that we are dealing with is a “re-upload” rather than a video that the user had never attempted to upload to Myspace before.”

Then it’s all largely irrelevant.

“I pointed out VERY clearly that when Edwyns wife/manager contacted Warner regarding the copyright snaffu involving his video that Warner did not dispute Edwyns ownership. Which rather handily proves my point in this particular argument regarding this incident, that, it isn’t and wasn’t at all difficult for Edwyn to prove his own songs copyright.”

Neither Warner nor MySpace ever responded or allowed his content that he owned to re uploaded.

How the hell does that “prove your point” ? Lala land? Yeah, that suits. You’re absolutely delusional,

“Where did I say that Myspace did have a claim over Edwyns copyright?”

We’re establishing why MySpace is involved in this.

“Warners tardiness in the situation is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT”

Warners tardiness is the most relevant fact of this story because without them, this would have never happened in the first place.

“As for Myspace, that isn’t even relevant. Reinstatement of a video removed from their website “should” not require any proof of actual copyright ownership”

You seem a bit lost. Stick to the point presented instead of making your own. You’re kinda bad at it.

“How have you still not grasped the obligations..”

Yadda, yadda. The DMCA has absolutely no place in the MySpace incident. I’m tired of repeating this.

“Oh you have to explain that lol. I’m all ears and can’t wait.”

Warner placed the copyright claim, therefore MySpace is at fault. lolololololololololololololololololol.

“It’s Warner and Myspace, NOT fucking Universal. LOL”

My mistake. It’s hard to keep up with your ramblings when they are so incoherent and jump around at the drop of a hat.

Needless to say, I’m just resating my point that MySpace didn’t claim his work over copyright, they claimed it on behalf of Warner. Warner mind you had no valid claim.

“How have you still not grasped the obligations”

Sorry, but no DMCA in the events, means no DMCA in the events. You can argue they should have used the DMCA all you like but it doesn’t change the facts.

I know you have a giant hard on for the DMC but you really, really need to move and get help on the issue or something.

“On what planet do you believe that a US service provider who’s website deals with user uploaded content, can get away with not offering an opportunity to someone who has had what they claim is their content removed, reinstated ?”

Earth. That is where this happened. Unless you’re disputing the MySpace incident never actually happened.

“In your feeble mind DM CA is not at work. It is at work whether you like it or not.”

See this is why you’re a pain. Now we’re back to Megaupload, no warning, just out right switching and exchanging facts.likely as you see fit.

I’ll rephrase. The DMCA is irrelevant to to the point of copyright ownership, especially when it requires no proof to take down something as shown by taking down something with which they have absolutely no legal claim over.

“This (who owns the copyright) was at the time under a little more contention (lawyers and even artists) however, your ramblings are completely irrelevant (and so is your Megaupload song/universal library point incidentally)…… because their issues between each other is NOT what my original argument was about OR why Ben Jones decided to supply his chosen articles) and has no bearing on my original point and does nothing to disprove it. Original point “not hard to prove copyright ownership” – Who did mega actually have to prove it to…….oh yeah, no one – a counter claim (2 counter claims technically) and the video was reinstated”

You seem absolutely incompetent so I’ll spell it out for ya.

Why is it that a copyright claim can be a made on something one has absolutely no copyright claim on?

I think the point he was making is that it is easy to make false claims with zero responsibility but using a counter notification actually places all legal burden on the filer. Megaupload is one the rare cases where they bully the big guys.

It’s also worth understanding the process on Youtube for the little guys. If you get a false DMCA claim on your videos and you contest that claim and it is rejected, you loose your channel. Factor that into your brain if you can. What sort of effect does that have on people with everything to lose?

“My point has already been proven. The counter notification procedure (that KDC used) worked as intended”

Too bad the DMCA has never worked as intended aye?

“is that it’s not difficult to prove copyright’. And even using TF articles provided by CTO Ben Jones to argue against that, I have proven otherwise”

None of your most valid points remotely address that.

“Back then, other parties disagreed.”

Disagreeing won’t stop someone being wrong, nor does it really change the fact they broke the law.

“is that my original point “it’s not difficult to prove copyright” has in fact been proven correct, especially in relation to the TF articles provided by Ben Jones and presented to me as some kind of evidence to disprove my statement. You’re now just babbling irrelevancies that have………………… absolutely nothing to do with anything.”

Correct? Hah, your most valid point is that the articles are bias accusations. Everything else has been blame shifting, DMCA law whoring to distract from the point you’re trying to make and then you want claim you’ve proven it? What? 10Whats? You’ve proven nothing. You’ve gone from “teh articles r lying” to the making up events as you see fit and it doesn’t take a degree I hope to figure out how moronic this is.

Backflips. Logic backflips. You asked about them but you’re preforming them, over and over again.

“Are you on drugs at the moment? I just stole your satchel, your fricken lunch money and gave you a virtual wedgie.”

Awwwwww poor baby.

False, See KDC actually had no problem or beef with the RIAA or MAFFIA outside of their rogue but rather harmless accusations of what Megaupload is and does. Really the incident was a fire starter for this beef with them, the cause. So as to his “known beef”, it certainly puts your comments in real doubt now.
That might be your belief . Some Hollywood studios however were getting peed off with him much earlier (2008/9) and he was becoming equally peed off with them (Megaupload case emails state as such). Human nature being what it is, that would be reason enough for both sides to begin a healthy dislike for each other and much earlier than the megavideo situation. And however YOU feel about the MPAA and RIAA allegations leveled at Mega, lets not be under any illusion that KDC (probably moreso than most being that he’s somewhat of an egomaniac) would be developing a personal beef much much earlier than the Megavideo situation. At lest you attempted a rebuttal this time.
Being insulting and generally outright lying and misleading causes that
You weren’t even involved at the very beginning LOL and your allegation is untrue IMO. You inherited this argument by jumping into it when Ben vanished.
This right here is all that really matters in your none stop verbal diarrhea. Your hypothetical, rhetorical question flipped on its head and its absurdity proven by reality. Suck it up.
I think you’re talking horseshit again, which is nothing new. Lets press on anyway.
What on earth for? You’re proposing that he was some how protecting his copyright or that his copyright had been protected in the past despite his openness in not doing any of that. The song was being given away fro free. That is perfectly legal and only the copyright holder can legally protect his copyright
What are you babbling about now boy ? I’m simply establishing from Edwyns wife/managers comments (as reported on a number of other websites with more complete reporting on the incident) that the video was previously uploaded to his account on Myspace. That is all. That fact that the video WAS once present on Edwyns account establishes that at a certain point, Myspace allowed the video to be uploaded normally and displayed. Nothing more, nothing less. And that we are dealing with is a “re-upload” rather than a video that the user had never attempted to upload to Myspace before.
Now you’re in lala land again. Warner had zero claim but still claimed it.
Which is not what I said at all. Where the hell have I said that ? LOL
I pointed out VERY clearly that when Edwyns wife/manager contacted Warner regarding the copyright snaffu involving his video that Warner did not dispute Edwyns ownership. Which rather handily proves my point in this particular argument regarding this incident, that, it isn’t and wasn’t at all difficult for Edwyn to prove his own songs copyright.
Myspace had zero claim and claimed in on behalf of a request from Universal.
Where did I say that Myspace did have a claim over Edwyns copyright? And what the fuck has Universal got to do with this Myspace incident…..it was fucking Warner, you dolt. Boy you seem confused LOL
Let me refresh your memory of the parties involved in each case since you seem to have lost the plot.
Megaupload – Universal – Youtube, then Edwyn Collins – Warner – Myspace. Have you got that now ?
Talking to both parties resulted in absolutely zero action which should come as a surprise to no one.
Warners tardiness in the situation is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT and has no bearing on the fact that “it wasn’t difficult for Edwyn to establish his copyright ownership to WARNER” because his wife phoned Warner “AND WARNER DID NOT DISPUTE IT”. Have you not understood that yet ?
As for Myspace, that isn’t even relevant. Reinstatement of a video removed from their website “should” not require any proof of actual copyright ownership (are you under the impression it does? ). Myspace’s lack of even a rudimentary system to deal with cases like Edwyns (which by law they do in fact need to have in place) was the issue.
Stop mentioning the DMCA. It was in no way involved here.
How have you still not grasped the obligations (regardless of special systems, deals, whatever) regarding reinstatement of content for a U.S service provider, even after all this time ?
What backflips you preform.
Oh you have to explain that lol. I’m all ears and can’t wait.
Universal had no claim. You acknowledge this yet you still blame MySpace despite the fact such a claim would have never happened if Universal had never claimed it in the first place. This isn’t a chicken-egg. The claim has always started at Universal. Drop your absurd victim blaming, corporation bum loving. It’s distorted absolutely everything you view for it’s massive gravity field.
It’s Warner and Myspace, NOT fucking Universal. LOL
If you cant get these simple details correct how do you expect to deal with the more complex (but still supremely easy I feel) details? Your comment is particularly irrelevant this time and does nothing to prove that it’s in anyway difficult to prove you own a copyright. Please at least attempt to stick to the point.
Lastly, DMCA law is not involved here.
How have you still not grasped the obligations (regardless of special systems, deals, whatever) regarding reinstatement of content for a U.S service provider, even after all this time ?
You are aware of how services providers involved in user uploaded content HAVE to deal with removals and reinstatement regardless of special systems and back door arrangements….. right ? Please tell me that you can at least grasp the basic obligations in that regard, otherwise we’re just wasting our time.
Irrelevant. DMCA law was not at work here. It’s not a factor in your argument.
On what planet do you believe that a US service provider who’s website deals with user uploaded content, can get away with not offering an opportunity to someone who has had what they claim is their content removed, reinstated ?
And just to refresh your memory….the megaupload infringement claim was via an automated system too and Youtube still had channels for KDC to reinstate (it says explicitly in the TF article that he filed a counter claim)
In your feeble mind DMCA is not at work. It is at work whether you like it or not.
Quote from TF article “A few minutes after this exchange Kim contacted us with good news. After filing a YouTube copyright takedown dispute, the video was reinstated” ) . Oh no, look Ice, the DMCA law at work with companies adhering to it like they should. ;)
THE MYSPACE REMOVAL WAS ALSO AUTOMATED AND MYSAPCE HAD NO SUCH REINSTATEMENT CHANNELS. Please digest and comprehend this simple information. Remember, I am using TF articles provided by TF’s CTO and inherited by you to disprove MY original argument despite having reservations about them……and It’s still not going well for you is it ;) LOL
Being unable to prove you own the copyright despite actually owning the copyright is still failing to be able to be able or allowed to prove your copyright, regardless of to who. This paragraph is absurd in relation to your argument.
Warner did not dispute Edwyns claim when his wife phoned Warner. None at all. So where are you finding any degree of difficulty of proving copyright to Warner ? And on what planet do you believe that anyone has to prove shit to Myspace for them to reinstate a video ?
Blame myspace for not having the correct channels back then (which was not in compliance with the law incidentally) to allow reinstatement when someone believes their video was wrongfully removed. What is absurd is your continuing lack of knowledge in this area of exactly what the obligations of service providers are in relation to user claims of wrongful content removal. In addition to the fact that you have argued for so long and pointed the finger at completely the wrong company (the company that I always said was at fault incidentally).
It’s fairly obvious he owns the copyright as I can find no “Megauplaod song” i Universals library, yet Universal still claimed it was theres
What are you babbling about now LOL.
This (who owns the copyright) was at the time under a little more contention (lawyers and even artists) however, your ramblings are completely irrelevant (and so is your Megaupload song/universal library point incidentally)…… because their issues between each other is NOT what my original argument was about OR why Ben Jones decided to supply his chosen articles) and has no bearing on my original point and does nothing to disprove it. Original point “not hard to prove copyright ownership” – Who did mega actually have to prove it to…….oh yeah, no one – a counter claim (2 counter claims technically) and the video was reinstated. Try your best to understand this. Or ask for help.
This is what happens Ice, when you jump into other peoples arguments and assume the responsibility of trying to prove THEIR point with articles that THEY selected.
A week, spent on a blatantly obvious false copyright claim clearly intended to attack Megaupload.
My point has already been proven. The counter notification procedure (that KDC used) worked as intended and Mega not only had “no obligation” to even prove their claims of full copyrights to Youtube, the video was also reinstated. You can stop wah waaaahing about irrelevancies now. My point “as it always has been” is that it’s not difficult to prove copyright’. And even using TF articles provided by CTO Ben Jones to argue against that, I have proven otherwise.
There is no grounds for copyright interpretation here, in music of images used or artists involved. Yet still claimed.
Back then, other parties disagreed. All completely irrelevant of course because what is a fact right now (and the whole point of this exchange that you took over from Ben Jones) is that my original point “it’s not difficult to prove copyright” has in fact been proven correct, especially in relation to the TF articles provided by Ben Jones and presented to me as some kind of evidence to disprove my statement. You’re now just babbling irrelevancies that have………………… absolutely nothing to do with anything.
Yeah you can dispense with this. It’s fairly apparent even outside of the claims of “lol bias” you haven’t got a point and been thoroughly schooled. But feel free to use the continual logic back-flips, they are ever so easy to spot and make my job just a little bit easier.
Are you on drugs at the moment? I just stole your satchel, your fricken lunch money and gave you a virtual wedgie.

I’m not interested in arguing semantics. You are refusing to deal with the articles and are instead attacking the validity of them.

“You calling a website “a news site” does not alter my allegation that the website has a bias”

That’s all it is as far as I am concerned, an allegation.

“FOX and MSNBC are both news sites each with well known opposite bias”

Funny enough, we know that because you can watch the same story on Fox/MSNBC else where and get a comparison to prove bias. But yeah, that’s why I can accept your accusation Fox/MSNBC are bias reporters (not to mention fox has won a case in the courts that legally allows them to outright lie about the news).

With that note, do you have a comparison for TF?

“A regular contributor to Torrentfreak articles for example is Rick Falkvinge of the Swedish Pirate Party.”

Call me crazy but he wrote neither of those articles.

Again, you’re just proposing sheer guilt by association and without actually addressing content of those articles.

“I mean seriously, do you really intend to continue arguing against the bleeding obvious. Just own it.”

It’s not “bleeding obvious” and if it was you’d be able to show it.

“There is no fiction that other sides existed”

I’ve yet to see actual facts materialize from you about this despite numerous requests and all I’ve gotten is pseudo logic and question dodging

“Hertz (attorney for Will.I.Am) for example, also filed a takedown request with YouTube on behalf of his client. Hertz claimed that like many of the artists who appear in the video, his client had never consented to the “Megaupload Mega Song.”

UMG echoes that sentiment. “This is an on-going dispute that surfaced several weeks ago with respect to the unauthorized use of a performance from one of our artists,” a UMG spokesperson tells us. “We heard from a number of our other artists and their representatives who told us they’ve never consented to being portrayed in this video.”

Now, you can continue with your belief that there was no other side of events. It is quite clear however that other websites were quite able to report a wider variety of claims and viewpoints, none featured in the TF article.

Hollwoodreporter.com for example at least attempted to broach this side of events and even had some comments from UMG. Something TF were unable to do

I think this highlights my concerns over bias reporting very clearly. Although I’m sure you will disagree in any event.

TF could really only manage comments from KDC in their article ??? oh , come on, is that the best that could be mustered LOL. Why do I have to keep pointing out the bleeding obvious LOL.”

Your only link leads me to a front page after failing to actually take me there. Soooooo what does this even mean to me? It’s still on par with the fiction you’ve made

Also, Hollywoodreporter? Lol! That right there is the fox news of .the internet.

“Irrelevant for you maybe, not for me. If an article is filled with only the comments from a person with a long history of beef with the side that they have an issue with”

False, See KDC actually had no problem or beef with the RIAA or MAFFIA outside of their rogue but rather harmless accusations of what Megaupload is and does. Really the incident was a fire starter for this beef with them, the cause. So as to his “known beef”, it certainly puts your comments in real doubt now.

“The beginning of this article currently showing on TF is a bit of a clusterf..k right now (what with the deleted comments and convenient post moderations”

Being insulting and generally outright lying and misleading causes that.

“If you were a legitimate rights-holder, how hard do you think it would be to prove ownership of a creative work?”

This right here is all that really matters in your none stop verbal diarrhea.

Your hypothetical, rhetorical question flipped on its head and its absurdity proven by reality. Suck it up.

“Not exactly, I asked you to rebut. Of course, because it would be a little difficult for you to even manage that, you continue to argue from ignorance which is tedious at best and not at all convincing.”

I’m not arguing on a fiction with you. I’m not proving your fiction exists for you. Make your claim. Back your claim. Don’t expect me to take your word as fact since as far as I’m concerned, you are anything but a believable source for anything you state.

You can prove bias exists, link a real source (hint, the front page isn’t a source) and post links or exerts from the posts.

“So it is safe to conclude that the track HAD been on their Myspace account in the past without issue.”

What on earth for? You’re proposing that he was some how protecting his copyright or that his copyright had been protected in the past despite his openness in not doing any of that. The song was being given away fro free. That is perfectly legal and only the copyright holder can legally protect his copyright

“Proving copyright to Warner was in fact not difficult, a phone call had a Warner lawyer agree to address the issue, they did not dispute Edwyn as the rights-holder.”

Now you’re in lala land again. Warner had zero claim but still claimed it.

Myspace had zero claim and claimed in on behalf of a request from Universal.

Talking to both parties resulted in absolutely zero action which should come as a surprise to no one.

“Myspace is a different story and they are missing a key element to their takedown removal and reinstatement system. And that is “the ability for a counter notification, regardless as to whether the notification sent to them is a traditonally filed DMCA email or the ability to counter a claim because of a websites automated system”.”

Stop mentioning the DMCA. It was in no way involved here.

“Fault therefore lies with Myspace and their counter notification systems which I would contend (at least at the time of this issue, 2009) was uncompliant with at least DMCA law.”

What backflips you preform.

Universal had no claim. You acknowledge this yet you still blame MySpace despite the fact such a claim would have never happened if Universal had never claimed it in the first place. This isn’t a chicken-egg. The claim has always started at Universal.

Drop your absurd victim blaming, corporation bum loving. It’s distorted absolutely everything you view for it’s massive gravity field.

Lastly, DMCA law is not involved here.

“Here is an excerpt from the law:

the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)].”

Irrelevant. DMCA law was not at work here. It’s not a factor in your argument.

“Myspace failed here. I have stated this before. This article therefore does not refute my claim”

Being unable to prove you own the copyright despite actually owning the copyright is still failing to be able to be able or allowed to prove your copyright, regardless of to who.

This paragraph is absurd in relation to your argument.

“KDC has never had to prove copyright at all in this example so the example article provided by Ben Jones is not even relevant to my original statement nor does it disprove my statement.”

It’s fairly obvious he owns the copyright as I can find no “Megauplaod song” i Universals library, yet Universal still claimed it was theres

“Note the use of “Counter notification” mentioned in the article and used by Megaupload. This process, that legally all service providers need to have implemented, worked exactly as it should, twice in fact. .”

A week, spent on a blatantly obvious false copyright claim clearly intended to attack Megaupload.

There is no grounds for copyright interpretation here, in music of images used or artists involved. Yet still claimed.

“Therefore, neither submitted argument disproves my original statement…”

Yeah you can dispense with this. It’s fairly apparent even outside of the claims of “lol bias” you haven’t got a point and been thoroughly schooled. But feel free to use the continual logic back-flips, they are ever so easy to spot and make my job just a little bit easier.

I wasn’t refuting the articles, I was rebutting them. What is it that you don’t understand about the word rebut ?

Guilt by association? No you can do better than that considering torrentfreak is a news site. Being on any given website won’t really change the facts of what happened

You calling a website “a news site” does not alter my allegation that the website has a bias. FOX and MSNBC are both news sites each with well known opposite bias. A regular contributor to Torrentfreak articles for example is Rick Falkvinge of the Swedish Pirate Party. I mean seriously, do you really intend to continue arguing against the bleeding obvious. Just own it.

You are implyig there is some other side to this. I’ve yet to see it materialize any where but in your fiction.

There is no fiction that other sides existed.

Hertz (attorney for Will.I.Am) for example, also filed a takedown request with YouTube on behalf of his client. Hertz claimed that like many of the artists who appear in the video, his client had never consented to the “Megaupload Mega Song.”

UMG echoes that sentiment. “This is an on-going dispute that surfaced several weeks ago with respect to the unauthorized use of a performance from one of our artists,” a UMG spokesperson tells us. “We heard from a number of our other artists and their representatives who told us they’ve never consented to being portrayed in this video.”

Now, you can continue with your belief that there was no other side of events. It is quite clear however that other websites were quite able to report a wider variety of claims and viewpoints, none featured in the TF article.

Hollwoodreporter.com for example at least attempted to broach this side of events and even had some comments from UMG. Something TF were unable to do.

I think this highlights my concerns over bias reporting very clearly. Although I’m sure you will disagree in any event.

TF could really only manage comments from KDC in their article ??? oh , come on, is that the best that could be mustered LOL. Why do I have to keep pointing out the bleeding obvious LOL

**********************

Totally irrelevant. There is absolutely no question of what actually happened and you will find Torrentfreak reported on what happened and not what KDC said happened, which is a big distinction.

Irrelevant for you maybe, not for me. If an article is filled with only the comments from a person with a long history of beef with the side that they have an issue with, hell yeah I’m going to question the comments of the only person in the article. Especially when other websites had much less issue with providing comments from Universal and lawyers associated with the artists etc. You Should try to get out more ;) and by that I mean other websites, just to and a little breadth to your mindset.

*********************

You never asked for a trend. You asked for an example. You got two which was being generous.

The beginning of this article currently showing on TF is a bit of a clusterf..k right now (what with the deleted comments and convenient post moderations ;)

But, from what I can see, I posted this:

” If you were a legitimate rights-holder, how hard do you think it would be to prove ownership of a creative work? – oh that’s right, no difficuly at all. Counter claim procedure is very much in your favor……unless, you don’t own the rights. Even if they lied, using your 100 times higher math means 800 false. 25 million vs 800, not exactly a compelling argument.”

to which Ben Jones posted this :

“how hard? Actually pretty hard http://torrentfreak.com/copyri… (first one that springs to mind)

oh wait, a second popped into my head http://torrentfreak.com/univer…”

I see no mention of me asking for “an example” before Ben replied.

Hook line and sinker….

see this is called a reversal of the burden of proof. You want me to prove your arguments for you on the basis that I can’t prove a negative.

Not exactly, I asked you to rebut. Of course, because it would be a little difficult for you to even manage that, you continue to argue from ignorance which is tedious at best and not at all convincing.

***********

In any event, If we were to move on, regardless of our different views concerning the articles supplied by your CTO Ben Jones, we should firstly remind ourselves of my original point and why Ben supplied the articles. Which was:

**”If you were a legitimate rights-holder, how hard do you think it would be to prove ownership of a creative work? – oh that’s right, no difficuly at all.”**

Article one supplied by Ben: http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-drama-prevents-artist-from-sharing-music-on-myspace-091007/- Edwyn Collins/myspace

a) The song “A Girl Like You” was attempted to be uploaded to Myspace but was not able to be completed. One can conclude that rather than upload, re-upload is more accurate because Edwyn Collins wife/ manager has been quoted on several other websites as saying “At the beginning of this year I noticed that Edwyn’s myspace had gone bit wonky and I tried to upload the tracks back on to the music player” (this information was missing on TF incidentally).

Edwyns wife/manager is also reported as saying: “I wrote to myspace on his behalf demanding to know who the hell was claiming copyright of Edwyn’s track? Which, incidentally, he always made freely available for download on myspace” (the bolded section is missing from the TF article)

So it is safe to conclude that the track HAD been on their Myspace account in the past without issue.

b) it would not re-upload and the account holder was forwarded to Myspaces copyright re-education page. Safe to assume therefore that an automated program was operating here, denying the re-upload.

c) It is discovered Warner made the claim (or rather than an actual “real time” claim, had clearly provided Myspace with a list of works to be included in Myspaces automated system, Edwyns being one of them).

Proving copyright to Warner was in fact not difficult, a phone call had a Warner lawyer agree to address the issue, they did not dispute Edwyn as the rights-holder.

Myspace is a different story and they are missing a key element to their takedown removal and reinstatement system. And that is “the ability for a counter notification, regardless as to whether the notification sent to them is a traditonally filed DMCA email or the ability to counter a claim because of a websites automated system”.

Edwyns wife/manger is quoted as saying “That is because Myspace are not equipped to deal with the notion that anyone other than a major can claim a copyright.”

If Myspace HAD this tool in place. Edwyns track would have been available (probably within 24 hours or less) despite what the automated system initially was set up to do.

Fault therefore lies with Myspace and their counter notification systems which I would contend (at least at the time of this issue, 2009) was uncompliant with at least DMCA law.

Here is an excerpt from the law:

the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)].

Myspace is not even meant to be deliberating on copyright claims and would have absolutely no rights to even ask for proof of copyright. So proving it to them is actually also not difficult especially since they are not allowed to ask for it.

Myspace failed here. I have stated this before. This article therefore does not refute my claim, the only way the article would have done so is if when contact was made with Warner regarding Edwyns copyrights, Warner disputed that Edwyn owned the copyrights. This did not happen.

Article Two supplied by Ben: http://torrentfreak.com/universal-censors-megaupload-song-gets-branded-a-rogue-label-111210/

a) Megaupload song uploaded to youtube.

b) Megaupload song removed (automated system) .

c) Mega video reinstated (counter filed).

d) Megaupload song removed again (automated system).

e) Mega video reinstated (counter filed). And the video remains online to this day.

KDC has never had to prove copyright at all in this example so the example article provided by Ben Jones is not even relevant to my original statement nor does it disprove my statement.

Note the use of “Counter notification” mentioned in the article and used by Megaupload. This process, that legally all service providers need to have implemented, worked exactly as it should, twice in fact.

Therefore, neither submitted argument disproves my original statement that it is not difficult to prove copyright. Only that (at the time of the article) Myspace did not have a system in place that dealt with takedowns AND REINSTATEMENT as described in the DMCA law and required for service providers.