It Appears Mickey Mouse May Have Picked An Intellectual Property Fight With The Wrong Mau5

from the oops dept

I actually don't think that Disney's trademark opposition to Deadmau5's attempt to trademark his mouse-shaped helmet thing is that crazy. Disney hasn't gone after Deadmau5/Joel Zimmerman all these years for using it. They're just saying "hey, maybe he shouldn't have a registered trademark on that." And they may have a point. Yes, the designs are different, and no, there isn't likely to be much confusion between Deadmau5 and Mickey, but why is Deadmau5 seeking to get a registered trademark on this in the first place?

That said, if notorious copyright maximalists Disney were going to pick an intellectual property fight with someone, it would probably make sense to make sure their own mouse house is in order, no? Apparently, it's not, because Deadmau5 has discovered that... Disney (yes, I'll repeat that: Disney) has uploaded some of his music on its website without permission. The music was on a "re-micks" (ha ha, get it?) page on Disney's website that has since been taken down -- but not before Deadmau5's lawyers sent a takedown letter over it. The letter also, amusingly, makes a trademark claim, though frankly the trademark claim is quite weak. Deadmau5's lawyer is basically claiming trademark infringement over the video as well. That almost certainly wouldn't fly in court.

I tend to not be a fan of takedowns in general, but it's pretty clear that this is basically just being done to call out Disney's hypocrisy here. Not that I expect the message to get through. Still it's surprising that such a copyright maximalist company would be posting videos like that...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 4:15pm

    Laws...

    ...are for the little people.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 4:25pm

    What's good for the goose ...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    antidirt (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 4:38pm

    The music was on a "re-micks" (ha ha, get it?) page on Disney's website that has since been taken down -- but not before Deadmau5's lawyers sent a takedown letter over it.

    Was it taken down? Looks up to me: http://video.disney.com/watch/ghosts-n-stuff-re-micks-4cc34ca4636bec7bd7bd38a3

    If Disney doesn't take it down soon, that leads me to believe that maybe they have a license.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 5:06pm

      Re:

      Maybe, or maybe they're playing a game of 'Legal chicken', and hoping Deadmau5 isn't willing to go through the hassle and massive costs of actually going after them over it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Luke A, 5 Sep 2014 @ 7:43pm

        Re : Legal Chicken.

        I bet that if he advertised it, he could get a lot of people to kick in some bucks, especially if it meant taking "Everyone's favorite copyright abuser" down a few pegs.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 5:40pm

      Re:

      While this may very well be a case of the legal teams/Rightsholders (does deadmau5 own his own songs?) not knowing the left hand from the right, I find your logic extremely amusing...

      Namely, that an alleged infringer deserves the benefit of the doubt because they've kept their video up, while the legal team sending takedowns is probably in the wrong for the same reason.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        antidirt (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 6:56pm

        Re: Re:

        While this may very well be a case of the legal teams/Rightsholders (does deadmau5 own his own songs?) not knowing the left hand from the right, I find your logic extremely amusing...

        Namely, that an alleged infringer deserves the benefit of the doubt because they've kept their video up, while the legal team sending takedowns is probably in the wrong for the same reason.


        I didn't really explain my reasoning, but I'm happy to do so now. Disney is a sophisticated rightholder, so I find it hard to believe that it would use the song without permission. And if it did discover such an infringement, I believe it would respond quickly--especially considering its opposition to Zimmerman's registration and the publicity involved.

        That said, the lawyer's letter leaves a lot of wiggle room and is quite unclear. He mentions that Zimmerman granted rights in the Composition to EMI. And he only claims that Zimmerman’s rights in the Master have been violated. So presumably, whatever rights in the Composition Zimmerman granted to EMI are the only rights in the Composition that he thinks are being violated. Yet, he also says Zimmerman owns the "copyright and/or exclusive rights" in the Composition. From this I deduce that, while Zimmerman may own some exclusive rights in the Composition, he clearly doesn’t own the rights at issue here since there’s no claim that Disney is violating them.

        As for the Master, he claims that Zimmerman’s rights are being violated, but then he also says that Zimmerman granted “certain rights thereto” to Virgin and Ultra that possibly are also being infringed. Which is it? Unless they’re joint owners, I don’t think this makes sense. He notes that "Zimmerman is unaware of any license(s) between Disney and EMI, Virgin, and/or Ultra" granting Disney the right to use the Composition or the Master. So he doesn't even know if Disney has a license. Perhaps he should have checked on whether Disney had a license before sending the letter.

        So basically it claims infringement, but then admits that maybe other parties who hold some unspecified rights might have granted a license. Combine this with the sophistication of Disney, both to gain the proper rights ahead of time and to timely respond to proper takedown notices, and I arrive at my conclusion “that maybe they have a license.” Make sense?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 8:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Disney is Disney! OBVIOUSLY they could do no wrong!"

          Fantastic reasoning.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            antidirt (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 8:32pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Disney is Disney! OBVIOUSLY they could do no wrong!"

            Fantastic reasoning.


            That wasn't my reasoning. Of course Disney can do wrong. Maybe they're wrong here. I just think that Disney leaving it up after being put on notice shows that maybe the mistake is Zimmerman's. After all, Zimmerman's lawyer admits that Disney may have a license. Why Zimmerman wouldn't ask the other parties that have the ability to license the work whether they did so is beyond me. I'm not sure where you get the notion that I think Disney is incapable of mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. Me, you, Disney, Zimmerman, everybody.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Whatever (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 10:36pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Your reasoning is pretty good. It's actually a case where the claim of copyright by the dead rodent may in fact by actionable, if he does not in fact control ALL of the rights. It could be knowingly making a false claim.

              Disney is capable of mistakes, but you have to think they have plenty of lawyers who vet everything that ends up in their productions, on their websites, and so on. Certainly they could have made an error, but it seems equally likely that the dead rodent just isn't sure WHO has the rights to his work, and who they may have assigned them to after.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2014 @ 6:32am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Well - I'm glad you guys have straightened that all out.

                For a second there I thought there might be some sort of problem in intellectual property land.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2014 @ 8:33am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Your post helps explain why IP laws are so confusing. When not even those making takedown requests are expected to know who holds the copy protection to what and who has permission to do what how can Youtube and a third party provider be expected to reasonably distinguish these things?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2014 @ 5:30pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Your reasoning is pretty good - because it agrees with whatever - lol

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2014 @ 8:37am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "After all, Zimmerman's lawyer admits that Disney may have a license."

              and this is another problem with IP laws. There is almost no punishment for false takedown requests (and where punishment exists it's hardly even enforced because it's so low it's not even worth pursuing) and so everyone has very little incentive to do their homework before making such requests. The laws makes it such that the best strategy is to shoot first and ask questions later.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 8:08pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, large sophisticated companies made up of thousands of individual employees don't make mistakes.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            antidirt (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 8:28pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Yes, large sophisticated companies made up of thousands of individual employees don't make mistakes.

            That's a strange response. Of course Disney makes mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. The video could be infringing, and it could be a mistake on Disney's part. I simply said that leaving up the video after being put on notice "leads me to believe that maybe they have a license." If it were infringing, I believe it's likely that Disney would take it down. And if Disney thinks it's noninfringing, I believe it's likely it would leave it up.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2014 @ 1:08am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Okay, but that's not what you said.

              "Disney is a sophisticated rightholder, so I find it hard to believe that it would use the song without permission."

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2014 @ 6:34am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              People like yourself should not serve on juries.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Whatever (profile), 6 Sep 2014 @ 7:16am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                yeah, heaven forbid that he has an open mind and doesn't rush to judgement... screw that, hang them all, right?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2014 @ 7:11am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "I simply said that leaving up the video after being put on notice "leads me to believe that maybe they have a license.""

                  This is evidence of having an open mind?
                  Wow, that is perverse.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                antidirt (profile), 6 Sep 2014 @ 11:58am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                People like yourself should not serve on juries.

                I think I'd make a great juror. I've never done it, but I'd like to.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  art guerrilla (profile), 7 Sep 2014 @ 4:25am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  yeah, i bet you're an above average driver and have a great sense of humor, too, amirichtig ? ? ?

                  i'm not sure about your state, but most, you can VOLUNTEER to serve on jury duty, wickless, you don't have to be called up...

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2014 @ 7:13am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I'm sure that corporations, if brought to trial, would love to have you serve at said trial.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:28pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          It's a fair assessment.

          In this case, however, my best guess would be that EMI can grant broadcast/public performance rights only, and Disney doesn't have the right to create and distribute derivative works.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            antidirt (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:39pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            It's a fair assessment.

            In this case, however, my best guess would be that EMI can grant broadcast/public performance rights only, and Disney doesn't have the right to create and distribute derivative works.


            I left out one thing. This "Re-Micks" video isn't just a one-off, it's part of a series of videos Disney put out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_a_Laugh!#Re-Micks

            There's 20 of them, each with a different song. These are included as bonus features on DVDs, and they play them on the Disney channel between shows as filler. I find it hard to believe that Disney wouldn't obtain the proper licenses, but it's certainly possible.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          techflaws (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 10:19pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Disney is a sophisticated rightholder

          [citation needed]

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Karl (profile), 6 Sep 2014 @ 12:35am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Disney is a sophisticated rightholder, so I find it hard to believe that it would use the song without permission.

          Your entire post rests on the idea that a "sophisticated rightholder" would not infringe on copyright. Of course they would. They would infringe upon whatever copyright that they can, if the rights holder is someone who can not afford an expensive lawyer. If it isn't, then they can infringe however they like, because the artist can't afford to sue them.

          As for the Master, he claims that Zimmerman’s rights are being violated, but then he also says that Zimmerman granted “certain rights thereto” to Virgin and Ultra that possibly are also being infringed. Which is it?

          You're being disingenuous. Let's read the quote in context:

          Moreover, Zimmerman was an exclusive songwriter of EMI Music Publishing Limited ("EMI") when he composed "Ghosts 'n' Stuff" (the "Composition") and granted certain exclusive rights in and to the Composition to EMI. With respect to the Master, certain rights thereto have been granted to Virgin Records Limited ("Virgin") and Ultra Records, LLC ("Ultra"). Zimmerman is unaware of any license(s) between Disney and EMI, Virgin, and/or Ultra granting Disney the right to synchronize the Composition with the Infringing Video or to exploit the Master in any manner or media. If Disney has any such licenses, please forward them to my attention immediately. Accordingly, hnot only is Disney violating the rights of Zimmerman, but it is also infringing upon the rights of EMI Music Publishing Limited, Virgin Records, Limited, and Ultra Records, LLC.

          Clearly, Disney does not have any sort of licence. He only brings up the other parties to make it clear to the Court that Disney is infringing upon the rights of multiple rights holders.

          The request from Disney is something that they do not believe Disney can provide, because they clearly do not believe Disney has any kind of license with any of those rights holders; it's simply boilerplate language.

          So basically it claims infringement, but then admits that maybe other parties who hold some unspecified rights might have granted a license.

          No, it claims infringement of the plaintiffs' rights, then accuses Disney of infringing upon the rights of other rights holders. It "admits" nothing.

          Incidentally, it's pretty telling that you take the side of Disney in a copyright fight against an actual artist - but you always take the side of the rights holders in any case where the rights holder isn't an artist, but is a major media company instead. It demonstrates pretty clearly where your loyalties lie.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Spaceboy (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:12pm

      Re:

      Or maybe they don't give a shit.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      RonKaminsky (profile), 6 Sep 2014 @ 1:42am

      Hypocrisy, much?

      > Was it taken down? Looks up to me

      Wait a sec, this is the behavior we expect of a company backing "notice and staydown"? Given what they expect of others, even if they have a valid license, one would think they'd have the courtesy to at least take it down for appearances sake, right?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2014 @ 2:13am

      Re:

      according to the counter next to the facebook "like" button on that page at least 29 THOUSAND people have viewed that Deadmau5 videoclip on Disney's page.

      let's multiply that by the statutory infringement damages that the RIAAs/MPAA/other aasses usually ask for these days, USD 150k per unauthorized performance/distribution

      29000 x 150000 = 4.350.000.000 USD ... 4 billion and some in damages that Disney might end up paying to Mau5

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2014 @ 2:32am

        Re: Re:

        P.S.

        made a screenshot of it too:
        http://i58.tinypic.com/15fiyyw.jpg

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        cpt kangarooski, 6 Sep 2014 @ 10:46pm

        Re: Re:

        let's multiply that by the statutory infringement damages that the RIAAs/MPAA/other aasses usually ask for these days, USD 150k per unauthorized performance/distribution


        No, statutory damages are calculated per work, not per infringement. One song would top out at $150,000, whether the copyright was infringed once or a million times. But two songs would top out at $300,000.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Luke A, 7 Sep 2014 @ 8:18pm

        Costs

        Well, lets look at this the way the riaa/mpaa does then.

        29 thousand people saw the video and heard the song..for FREE. Thats 29,000 people that didn't buy the mp3! The Mp3 can be bought from deadmau5 on his site for $1.30, so I'm going to assume the entire 1.30 goes to him.

        Disney......stole..... $37,700 dollars...right out of Deadmau5's pocket...because CLEARLY everyone that saw the video DIDN'T BUY THE SONG.....BECAUSE THEY HEARD IT FOR FREE!!!!!!!!!

        NOW...I'm being sarcastic, obviously.

        I'm sure that there are people that were exposed to Deadmau5 because of the video, and I'm willing to bet that he managed to sell some more songs and albums, because people that were never exposed to the music before heard it....but if I were him, I'd try and go after them for the extra $37,700.....just because I could....and tell Disney that their OWN STUPID LOGIC THAT EVERY EXPOSURE TO THE MEDIA WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING PURCHASE IS "PIRACY" is the reason why.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Tim R (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 4:52pm

    Copyright Infringement

    I think the real question to be asked here is why hasn't the entire domain been taken down yet. I mean, that is the correct and measured response that we've been told.

    Isn't it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2014 @ 5:38pm

      Re: Copyright Infringement

      Yes, you are correct - if you are a member of the circle jerk club. Otherwise, no - you don't get shit.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymouse, 5 Sep 2014 @ 4:52pm

    "...but why is Deadmau5 seeking to get a registered trademark on this in the first place? "

    Merchandising. Concert shirts, etc with his trademark on it. So he can go after others selling them without his permission. Its part of his brand he's worked pretty hard to build and now wants to protect.

    Frankly I am surprised he didn't register it a lot sooner. He really should have.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 5:03pm

    No, no it really isn't

    It's not surprising at all actually, as has been shown several times, those that push for tougher and harsher punishments for copyright infringement, those that believe the law needs to be even stronger, always seem to think that those same laws don't apply to them.

    As the AC above notes, 'laws are for the little people', so it's not surprising that a huge company like Disney might ignore or 'forget' to follow the same laws they push for expanding so much, they bought the laws, it's only natural they'd feel free to ignore them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Beech, 5 Sep 2014 @ 5:25pm

    When I infringe Disney's IP I am a heartless monster literally stealing bread from their childrens' mouths. When Disney infringes your IP they're probably just doing you a favor, and you should count yourself lucky that they arent trying to charge you for it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Whatever (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 5:37pm

    First off, the dead rodent dude needs to learn what DMCA is. All the rest of his lawyer's letter is totally worthless and meaningless. In fact, I would even go as far as to say "attention whoring" is at the core of this.

    I also wouldn't be shocked to find out that Disney has either license to use the video already, or is playing it in the same manner that a video channel might play a music video. The dead rodent may find that he is stepping on his own tail, essentially claiming that the video wasn't release for broadcast or online use (he should sue Google and Youtube too!)

    Disney on the other hand should know better. When they started legal process against the guy, they should have sent out an all points bulletin to make sure none of his material was associated with Disney in any manner.

    For the dead rodent, all I can say is that three stories in a week makes me think he is attention whoring, having found that the anti-copyright crew are easy to manipulate for wide spread press.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 5:44pm

      Re:

      Amusing that you of all people immediately side with the alleged infringer.

      By the way, did you not read the letter that's shown in this article? That is a DMCA notice.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 5:59pm

        Re: Re:

        And I don't mean it contains a DMCA notice. The entire thing is a basic boilerplate for a letter in compliance of the DMCA under Title 17 USC §512(c)(3).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Whatever (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 6:17pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Go back and re-read it. It's a light DMCA notice with heavy doses of trademark infringement and other issues. A DMCA can be written in about 1 short paragraph, it doesn't take two pages. The other claims are spurious and meaningless under the DMCA.

          Moreover, the dead rodent seems to think that people who do broadcast or distribute his songs or music should specifically not mention his name.

          All this of course assuming that Disney did not obtain the rights to use the music in some manner already. Would you say loser pays if the dead rodent is proven wrong?

          If it's a valid DMCA, then good on him for making a notice. But the current "play to the anti-copyright types" attention whoring is way too obvious.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            jupiterkansas (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 6:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Aren't you just so cute calling him "dead rodent" instead of Deadmau5? Proud of that one are you?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2014 @ 9:29pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The size of the letter is because a lawyer wrote it.

            You'll find that lawyers are experts at text padding.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            nasch (profile), 6 Sep 2014 @ 7:20am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The other claims are spurious and meaningless under the DMCA.

            Moreover, the dead rodent seems to think that people who do broadcast or distribute his songs or music should specifically not mention his name.


            Interesting, I've never seen you go out of your way like this to criticize bogus DMCA notices from big media companies. I wonder why that is?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      techflaws (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 10:20pm

      Re:

      I would even go as far as to say "attention whoring" is at the core of this

      It takes one to know one. Go figure.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Whatever (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 10:39pm

        Re: Re:

        Wow, aren't you a special little troll. What exactly would I be attention whoring for, exactly?

        If you are going to troll, at least have a clue, not flaws!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 8 Sep 2014 @ 5:11am

      Re:

      Copyright for me but not for 'thee!

      If my powerful masters are (ab)using copyright it's ok, but if the smaller guy is doing it and my mighty bosses were caught pants down then I'm all angry!

      Keep at it, it's entertaining!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    OldGeezer (profile), 5 Sep 2014 @ 10:43pm

    I have no idea who this guy is but I love that he called them on their bullshit. Actually the video could be possibly be derivative enough to be covered by fair use but we all know Disney doesn't believe in fair use by anyone but them. Snow White was written in the early 1800's and is public domain. Don't you dare make a Snow White character that even remotely resembles theirs or you will be sued. This is only to show what blatant hypocrites they are. Otherwise I really don't think he would have ever given two shits about this video with his music being used by Disney.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Whatever (profile), 6 Sep 2014 @ 1:45am

      Re:

      Of course, if it turns out that Disney does have a license, will you call him out for his false DMCA style claims?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        OldGeezer (profile), 6 Sep 2014 @ 5:12am

        Re: Re:

        I don't think they would have taken the video down if they did have a license. They have a legal department that would have sued him over it just because they can.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Whatever (profile), 6 Sep 2014 @ 7:20am

          Re: Re: Re:

          A cautious legal department may take it down pending review. They may feel it's not worth the risk to leave it up, in case things don't work out.

          That's what good lawyers would advise.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2014 @ 10:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "A cautious legal department may take it down pending review. They may feel it's not worth the risk to leave it up, in case things don't work out."

            Which shows the problems with IP laws once again. It creates little disincentive to file false takedown requests and lots of incentive to take a shoot first ask questions later approach so that legitimate content could be taken down and those that posted it would have to go through a complicated process to get their content back up. If you support something like this it's despicable.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2014 @ 8:53am

        Re: Re:

        Nope - after all, it's "just an error." That's what you've said before when other copyright agents have been caught under DMCA. The law needs to be applied equally and fairly, or else it's not a law; merely guidelines.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        antidirt (profile), 6 Sep 2014 @ 12:03pm

        Re: Re:

        Of course, if it turns out that Disney does have a license, will you call him out for his false DMCA style claims?

        He did send real takedown notices. I saw a copy of the video on YouTube that had the frowny-face-we're-sorry thing, citing Deadmau5 as the sender. And there's a few search results on Google that were also taken down.

        Of course, if Disney does have a license, I expect a post from Mike blaming Deadmau5 for killing innovation and free speech. Oh wait, no I don't.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2014 @ 3:32pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Or perhaps a post from Mike explaining how this shows that bogus takedowns keep going unpunished and stricter punishments need to be enacted to give those on the receiving end of such takedowns more incentive to pursue their rewards. Mike can explain how Deadmau5 is demonstrating and even (perhaps intentionally) flaunting the broken nature of our laws by filing bogus takedowns and going virtually unpunished.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2014 @ 6:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes! - I too can predict the future by looking into my magic crystal ball. Let me tell you want is going to happen next.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2014 @ 1:27pm

        Re: Re:

        "will you call him out for his false DMCA style claims?"

        Just as soon as you call for stricter legal punishments for false takedown requests no matter who makes them.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2014 @ 7:42am

    The video was posted by a mouse, so there is no copyright infringement.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Craig, 8 Sep 2014 @ 1:37am

    This all seems so petty

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Just Another Anonymous Troll, 8 Sep 2014 @ 8:27am

    The trolls are out in force today... If you guys post any more, OOTB will return from the troll grave.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ACasey (profile), 8 Sep 2014 @ 2:41pm

    I'd be REALLY surprised if any of this actually goes anywhere. Seems pretty frivolous to me.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.