IMO this is really a technical "legality vs. morality" argument, and whether or not a given form of civil disobedience is appropriate.
For example, I'm against illegal downloading myself, except when it's done as civil disobedience against the current state of copyright maximalism. Even taking it as civil disobedience, I don't think it's appropriate unless it has a good chance of being effective. And it only becomes effective if someone is actually targeted, takes responsibility for his/her actions, and steps up to be the suffering martyr.
Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum came close to meeting the above criteria, except that by all appearances, they initially lied about their culpability. I still strongly disagree with the onerous penalties levied against them, but I can't condone their initial conduct even for the sake of civil disobedience.
Matthew Inman's response to this specific situation, however, was a perfect expression of civil disobedience. He admitted to what he did and described exactly why he did it, as in "this is what is broken about the existing system." I'd like to think he would have stuck to his guns if he'd been targeted with a lawsuit.
I suspect Petrarca simply doesn't have any room on his moral compass for civil disobedience (and that's a failing on his part). Hence the apparent dissonance in his comments.
I remember reading this yesterday and facepalming vigorously. My fear in this case is that Potti, or his reputation management firm, intentionally arranged this stunt, and intentionally set up Newsbulet.in as an offshore front specifically to dodge the consequences of such a blatant DMCA fraud.
I can only hope that some evidence will come out that leads back to Potti and/or his rep management firm, and the appropriate parties thoroughly piledrive the real instigators in court. If not, it highlights just how much of a joke this part of the DMCA is. :-(
This isn't a matter of her not understanding the intent of the DMCA. It's a matter of her understanding it quite well, then trying to misrepresent it to fit an agenda.
The DMCA was written by a group of legislators, of which she was only one part. The letter of the DMCA clearly reflects the group's intent in this case, and the group as a whole clearly sided against her on this issue. You (and she) need to grow up and live with that.
In any event, with the apparent blatant disregard for the letter of the law AND misrepresentation of the GAO report, it seems to me she just crossed the line from unintentional bias to a deliberate attempt to subvert justice from the bench.
I suspect whatever higher-level judge ends up calling her out on this will be too polite to ascribe her fuck-up to anything worse than accidental misreading. Malice vs. incompetence and all that.
Interestingly, I would say that a person who was so key in writing DMCA might know a thing or two about it's intended application.
She was one of many parties involved in drafting the DMCA. She definitely has a very good idea what she wanted it to say, but nobody involved got everything they wanted out of the DMCA. She certainly isn't entitled to decide after the fact, against the clear letter of the law and the overwhelming concensus of many other courts, that it actually says what she wants.
It seems to me that this enormously selfish generation does not understand that the labels compensate the artists that pour their hearts and souls into a production.
Apparently, they believe that EVERYTHING should be free.
Major corps like WMG are in this business for their own enrichment, not for the sake of the artists. In fact, they routinely end up screwing the artists they're supposed to be supporting. Artists just about sign away their souls to major record labels, then historically end up getting a piddling fraction of a dollar every time a consumer spends $10-20 on one of "their" CDs. Considering how the labels treat the artists that depend on them, claiming this play is all about "compensating the artist" is nothing more than a sad, hollow joke.
The labels are whining because they spent a decade riding the wave of of vinyl-to-CD conversion, using a few good tracks to sell bundles of garbage, and growing fat off the profits. They got left with an entitlement complex even after the bubble burst. Now they feel like they automatically deserve some minimum profit margins that are neither justifiable (given the quality of their product) nor practically sustainable (given the easy availability of pirated music).
Oh, and advertising revenu? Do you really think that sooner or later the advertisers are going to catch on a realize that we mostly ignor internet ads, completely.
Funny...how many billions has Google raked in, solely in ad revenue? And how many years have they kept that up?