Double Bogus DMCA Takedown All The Way!
from the what-does-it-mean? dept
HappyCabbie alerts us to the news that "Hungrybear9562," whose real name is Paul Vasquez, but is much better known as the "Double Rainbow Guy" for his viral video hit "Double Rainbow" (perhaps one of the most viral videos ever), has gone on a fascinatingly ignorant DMCA takedown binge, using some questionable theories. Basically, he's decided that if there's a video he doesn't like, he can take it down. He put up his own bizarre video in which he explains his views on the DMCA:
It's one of those cases where a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. He admits that he doesn't quite understand the DMCA, but he feels 100% sure that he must be using it properly. His response to claims of "fair use" are to bizarrely cite (incorrectly) the YouTube/Viacom case, which he claims was about "a music company" suing YouTube for $1 billion, and because of that no YouTube videos can use music any more. And towards the end of the video, he responds to those claiming that his takedowns were illegal because they didn't consider fair use by saying, "you know what, if it is illegal, I'm going to change the law."
Throughout the video he makes it clear that his main concern is that he "doesn't like" these videos, which apparently are somewhat mean and make fun of him, but copyright is not made for censoring speech you don't like. Amazingly, Vasquez even seems to be issuing DMCA takedowns on videos that try to explain this to him, including one from HappyCabbie which tries to explain the Streisand Effect to Vasquez:
Oh, and did we mention that Vasquez seems to have no problem using clips from others in his own videos?
Now some may claim this is just a case of a fairly ignorant guy abusing the DMCA, but that's what happens when you provide such a tool for easy censorship. It gets abused by people to censor speech. What does it mean? It means that we have a double free speech problem all the way...
Throughout the video he makes it clear that his main concern is that he "doesn't like" these videos, which apparently are somewhat mean and make fun of him, but copyright is not made for censoring speech you don't like. Amazingly, Vasquez even seems to be issuing DMCA takedowns on videos that try to explain this to him, including one from HappyCabbie which tries to explain the Streisand Effect to Vasquez:
Now some may claim this is just a case of a fairly ignorant guy abusing the DMCA, but that's what happens when you provide such a tool for easy censorship. It gets abused by people to censor speech. What does it mean? It means that we have a double free speech problem all the way...






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
lol, i just used DMCA as a verb. :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Question:
This is what happens with a Democrat in office. The Yetis take over the intertubes. I'm getting a gun....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question:
Well, just borrow one from a nearby spaceball...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question:
Everybody get together and try to love one another
Right now
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question:
Come get him.;)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question:
Trust me on this, you NEVER want to go to plaid. It's a ludicrous prospect and you're likely to overshoot your target.
Seriously, trust me on this....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.soku.com/search_video?searchdomain=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.soku.com&searchType=video&a mp;q=double+rainbow
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Willful ignorance
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Willful ignorance
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Willful ignorance
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Why nobody has sued him yet is beyond me.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's hard to blame hosting companies. It's the law that's the problem.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
untended consasquatches
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
It's starting to look like a triple DMCA.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Who owns the copyright?
So... I guess god owns the copyright?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who owns the copyright?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Mike!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy pays.
"Abstract: The New York Times today (page B1) is reporting that "more than one-third of the two billion views of YouTube videos with ads each week are ... uploaded without the copyright owner's permission but left up by the owner's choice." The content owners are choosing to not request that the posted material be taken down because YouTube splits the ad revenue with them. The Times notes that "[h]undreds of these [content] partners make more than $100,000 per year.""
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Gatekeeper
Hmmm.
Maybe it should be $500.00 US.
Or maybe a better way would be to just shorten copyright and patents to 14 years, and then make them Public Domain.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not like I'd get fines or jailtime for it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
IS "just a case of a fairly ignorant guy abusing the DMCA".
So why write it up? -- Fills space and doesn't exceed the grasp of Mike's fanboy base.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IS "just a case of a fairly ignorant guy abusing the DMCA".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IS "just a case of a fairly ignorant guy abusing the DMCA".
fixed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IS "just a case of a fairly ignorant guy abusing the DMCA".
And even if it's just for his products, why do you find it acceptable for him to censor critics?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IS "just a case of a fairly ignorant guy abusing the DMCA".
I assume you are a paid shill, but there's a good chance that you do this for fun.
Why is it fun for you?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IS "just a case of a fairly ignorant guy abusing the DMCA".
Allowing any censorship of speech, especially just because someone 'doesn't like it,' inevitably leads to censorship of more speech which in all likelihood affect many others.
It's the principle behind it, and you and he are both WRONG.
How much did you earn for posting that comment?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if there is no cow dung in it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA offers counter notification - use it.
Is he abusing it... probably.
but file the counter notification, get the content re-enabled and start the clock..
He has a limited amount of time to file his suit and something tells me he is not likely to do so.
DMCA, when used properly is powerful for both sides.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh and in response to several stupid partisan comments: Guess what you clowns, both major political parties are just wings on the same corporate vulture, circling high overhead its witless quarry. If you, as an ordinary citizen, are actually dumb enough to believe that either the Democrats or Republicans are "on your side", then you're a born dupe. The incumbent two-party system only creates an illusion of choice. Both parties answer to big money, not the voting masses (as the DMCA itself ought to make evident). Elections provide the illusion of control, wealth secures actual control. Most Americans have been outwitted and pitted against their own best interests without even knowing it. Now go sing the national anthem, suckers.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I like Jim Goads description better:
"...they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby..."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 7th, 2011 @ 2:54pm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I saw an ad....
at 5:40, someone pointed out "Notice no ads?". I had to X out of the google ad right at the beginning (the one at the bottom of the screen that pops up).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
If a hippy gets stoned in the forest and posts it on Youtube, no you should not care.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
simply pitiful...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: simply pitiful...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: simply pitiful...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: simply pitiful...
Yep, just your ordinary, run-of-the-mill copyright maximalist shilltard.
Did you do the description from memory, or did you cheat and look in the mirror first?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick searches out an example of an opposing view presented by an obviously slow-witted, possibly mentally ill, hillbilly/hippie hybrid and proceeds to shred his rambling discourse. You must be very proud Mike, being able to dispatch such a formidab
We’ll wait.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Masnick searches out an example of an opposing view presented by an obviously slow-witted, possibly mentally ill, hillbilly/hippie hybrid and proceeds to shred his rambling discourse. You must be very proud Mike, being able to dispatch such a form
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick searches out an example of an opposing view presented by an obviously slow-witted, possibly mentally ill, hillbilly/hippie hybrid and proceeds to shred his rambling discourse. You must be very proud Mike, being able to dispatch such a formidab
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Unwarranted takedowns
Now if he is taking down other people's videos just because he doesn't like them, and they are not using any of his content. then that's a whole 'nother matter. Then he *is* violating the law.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unwarranted takedowns-oops
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment