2.) In the redacted image… Why do they call it “the internet”… It’s 2014, do we really need to put quote marks around ‘the internet’? I could see maybe back in the 80s, but I would imagine now, the Internet is ubiquitous enough that even if you’ve been living under a rock you know about it. I would imagine most people are familiar enough with the phrases like “online” and “the internet” that we don’t have to give them special quote treatment anymore…

3.) “And because the files were not reviewed, neither Warner’s robots nor its employees made a determination whether there were legal uses for the files.”

But yet, Warner felt justified in including them in a legal document that basically says “Hey, you’re hosting these files illegally, take them down or else”…

I would have to think that statement, paired with knowing the bots are just doing basic key word searches should prevent MAFIAA from claiming innocence on bogus DMCA requests. Sure, the bots are not maliciously selecting certain sites but there is a whole other point. When was the last time you Googled something and didn’t get a few thousand sites that really had nothing to do with what you were looking for? Just imagine searching for some of the generic titles, like “The Thing”… How many millions of sites are going to pop?

4.) They claim they only monitor a select set of pages. Alright. I’d imagine they would limit their pages to TPB and similar sites where pirates are known to post links. So why is it Google frequently gets DMCA requests to remove iTunes.com links? Do MAFIAA agents really think Apple is secretly hosting pirated copies of the movies they sell on iTunes? If so I might have to reconsider getting an iPhone… Same with HBO. Does MAFIAA expect HBO.com to host pirated copies of Game of Thrones episodes? If they’re only monitoring a certain 200 or so hand-picked sites why do sites that obviously would not be hosting pirated content get included in the dragnet?

However…I’m pretty sure all Warner has to do is say “Our bad, we couldn’t possibly know our machines would send takedowns which weren’t valid” – and then go straight back and turn their robots on again, changing nothing.

Anyone else objects, they repeat the statement above to a new judge. Rinse and repeat.

And if anyone calls them out on it, that sad sack will have twenty lawyers on his/her ass day and night threatening countersuits.

No, as long as the DMCA contains the term “good faith” without specifying a minimum standard of what that constitutes, Warner is on safe ground.

No, on the contrary they have a few smart people. You’re assuming they expect to win.

I’m assuming they’re just a band of unscrupulous con men with a lot of low cunning out to guarantee their own jobs. They don’t care their tools are inefficient – in fact, if the copyright tools were effective, most of the MPAA and RIAA would be right out of a job.

When we observe the copyright enforcement industry we’re looking at a business which, like war profiteers, relies on both sides continuing a conflict where for all intents and purposes, one side won the war for all practical purposes once the internet was invented.

The MPAA, RIAA, Ifpi, BREIN, SABAM, etc – ladies and gents, I give you the job lot of ten thousand lawyers scared shitless that tomorrow will see them without a job.

Warner Bros, on the other hand, have access to a souped-up tamagochi which performs largely as sane minds would expect.