There are people out there who believe that just talking about the fact that infringing content is out there is infringing itself, but that seems like a plainly ridiculous standard for judging infringing content. Yet, we see cases like this all the time. Recently, there was Twitter taking down a tweet for merely linking to a blog post that talked about a leaked album (but which didn't link to the leak), and now TorrentFreak points out that the site RLSLOG has been totally taken offline (again) after Universal Music sent a takedown request. The only problem? RLSLOG doesn't actually host any content or infringe on any copyrights. It's a news site that talks about infringing content that's available, but is that infringing itself? It's difficult to see how anyone would properly judge that to be the case, but it didn't stop the site's host from taking them offline thanks to Universal Music's legal threats.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
- German Copyright Troll Sends Thousands Of Shady Demand Letters To Users Of Streaming Porn Site, Redtube
- Photographer Sends C&D To Something Awful Over Photo 'Shopped To Add A Butt To A Bird
- Latest TPP Leaks Reveal That US Is Isolated In Its Desire To Push Through Corporate Exceptionalism
- Make Art Not Law