Double Bogus DMCA Takedown All The Way!

from the what-does-it-mean? dept

Wed, Sep 7th 2011 12:00pm — Mike Masnick

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...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, double rainbow, fair use, hungrybear9562, paul vasquez, youtube

68 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

william (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 11:16am

so... no one has tried to DMCA him and let him feel what it's like to have bogus take down filed against him for no apparent reason?

lol, i just used DMCA as a verb. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymouse, 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:11pm
  
  Re:
  While it may seem like a good idea to show him what it feels like, filing bogus DMCA reports IS illegal. Not that it ever get enforced...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Harlan Sanders, 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    We'd have a lot fewer issues in this country if that was enforced...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:00pm

Question:
When did the infamous Sasquatch learn to formulate words and statements, albeit w/o much logic, and what implications does this have on our National Security?

This is what happens with a Democrat in office. The Yetis take over the intertubes. I'm getting a gun....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:05pm
  
  Re: Question:
  You don't already have one!?!
  
  Well, just borrow one from a nearby spaceball...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dementia (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:10pm
  
  Re: Question:
  No disrespect intended DH, but I think you may be mistaken. I believe this is what happens when you have a professional politician in office, his particular color, be it red, blue, green, orange, or any other, is completely irrelevant.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:23pm
    
    Re: Re: Question:
    ....Color? What the hell?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Robert Ring (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Question:
      He meant color is in red/blue (you mentioned him being a democrat).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Robert Ring (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Question:
        *Oops, "as in" not "is in"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question:
        Aaah, got it. I was thinking he meant something else, but that explanation makes sense....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dementia (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 2:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question:
        I was wondering how many people would over react to be saying color, but yes, I was referring to party affiliation not race.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question:
        Come on people now, smile on your brother
        Everybody get together and try to love one another
        Right now
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 6:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question:
        I am not the above anonymous coward, but in his name I hearby claim Fair Use.
        
        Come get him.;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 1:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Question:
      How about plaid? If a politician goes plaid, can we expect some sanity then?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 1:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Question:
        "How about plaid? If a politician goes plaid, can we expect some sanity then?"
        
        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....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:09pm

I want to know how he will remove videos from Youku :p

http://www.soku.com/search_video?searchdomain=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.soku.com&searchType=video&a mp;q=double+rainbow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:24pm

Hey look: the rare Double Dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:27pm

Willful ignorance
He admits that he doesn't fully understand the DMCA takedowns, and then he DMCAs the videos trying to explain it to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BeeAitch (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 6:19pm
  
  Re: Willful ignorance
  That's because he's a Double Dumbass. ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 8:12am
    
    Re: Re: Willful ignorance
    All the way across the internet!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:35pm

The only easy tool of censorship is hosting companies who don't check first, but act first without considering the source.

Why nobody has sued him yet is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:44pm
  
  Re:
  We are in a recession still, people are broke.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 1:46pm
  
  Re:
  The only easy tool of censorship is hosting companies who don't check first, but act first without considering the source.
  
  It's hard to blame hosting companies. It's the law that's the problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:37pm

untended consasquatches
See what happens when people can no longer get affordable medication from Canada?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:37pm

The thing is, he has no money and he is not that bright, I wonder what will happen when he discovers that those videos can come up if people just file a DMCA counter-notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Manabi (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 1:59am
  
  Re:
  He'll probably send another one, thus opening himself up to a lawsuit. And given how much attention he's getting now, he's bound to hit some lawyer out there (if nothing else I'm betting he'll accidentally double-DMCA some lawyer who posts a video trying to explain why what he's doing is illegal). After that... well, I hope he gets sued into oblivion, probably the only way he'll learn anything sadly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:39pm

Double dmca all the way, what does it mean?

It's starting to look like a triple DMCA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 6:43pm
  
  Re:
  It's a tripple DMCA Double.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blaine (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:39pm

Who owns the copyright?
At 5:31 he admits that he's not responsible for the video. "It was god speaking through me."

So... I guess god owns the copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:48pm
  
  Re: Who owns the copyright?
  He has the performance rights, but god owns the songwriting rights.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:42pm

Thanks Mike!
Thank you for the last two lines. Made my day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:45pm

Have they autotuned that sob story video yet? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cloksin (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 7:00pm
  
  Re:
  If they do you can be sure he'll send a DMCA takedown notice for it. I'd do it myself if I had autotune.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:46pm

Piracy pays.
http://chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=642

"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.""
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:46pm

Have they autotuned that sob story video yet? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:50pm

Crap! We can't use music on Youtube anymore. That sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 12:58pm

What this clearly shows is a need for a gatekeeper to process as DMCA take down notices so the riff raff doesn't destroy our culture. Does anyone know if the MPAA or RIAA have a suggestion hotline?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 1:08pm
  
  Re:
  You are thinking too shortterm. What happens when new technology comes around that makes these gatekeepers unneccessary and they lobby with all the power their massive corruption can buy to make terrible laws that will makes the legal system a circus and wreck peoples lives for no reason?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cloksin (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 6:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Wait, hasn't this already happened?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 6:59pm
  
  Gatekeeper
  Easy. Charge$5.00 US for every takedown notice, held in 'escrow'. If the 'plaintiff doesn't get challenged, they get the $5 back, else, it goes to the respondent. The plaintiff now has an economic decision to make. Is this worth the $5.00 and ensuing costs?
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Miff (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 1:05pm

I should go ahead and DMCA him.

It's not like I'd get fines or jailtime for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 7 Sep 2011 @ 2:19pm
  
  Re:
  You're a powerful megacorporation?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 7 Sep 2011 @ 1:06pm

IS "just a case of a fairly ignorant guy abusing the DMCA".
Affects at worst speech about his products. No big deal, no wider implications.

So why write it up? -- Fills space and doesn't exceed the grasp of Mike's fanboy base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 1:21pm
  
  Re: IS "just a case of a fairly ignorant guy abusing the DMCA".
  No wider implications? The wider implications are even much simpler than usual: More ignorant guys could do the same/it's stupid to give ignorant people power over my speech.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 1:34pm
    
    Re: Re: IS "just a case of a fairly ignorant guy abusing the DMCA".
    it's illegal to give anyone power over my speech.
    
    fixed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 2:20pm
  
  Re: IS "just a case of a fairly ignorant guy abusing the DMCA".
  Boy you best be trollin'. If he can get away with this, what's to stop others from doing the same?
  
  And even if it's just for his products, why do you find it acceptable for him to censor critics?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bjupton (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 2:23pm
  
  Re: IS "just a case of a fairly ignorant guy abusing the DMCA".
  serious question. why are you here?
  
  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?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ben in TX (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 11:45pm
  
  Re: IS "just a case of a fairly ignorant guy abusing the DMCA".
  Spoken like someone totally ignorant of history, unintended consequences, and precedent.
  
  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?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 2:05pm

That crap he smokes is good, but it is attracting flies.
I wonder if there is no cow dung in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeff brown, 7 Sep 2011 @ 2:16pm

DMCA offers counter notification - use it.
This person obviously does not have a very sophisticated understanding of copyright or fair use or DMCA...

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 2:38pm

Slash Unblocker. Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 2:54pm

What I gather from this video is the portrayal of a selfish oblivious halfwit who has somehow managed to parlay the tiny bit of empowerment that DMCA policy has granted him into a fully-blown sense of glorious destiny complete with a holy crusade, historical commendation, and recognition from the highest legal authority in the land. This is sadly typical of such an idiot, driven far more by impulse than intelligence, blowing things out of proportion, succumbing to egocentric delusions of grandeur, adopting arbitrary inconsistent oversimplified standards of right and wrong. Yet again, religion and ignorance share the same residence, side-by-side. How can it be helped?

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tom Landry (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 4:32pm
  
  Re:
  "both major political parties are just wings on the same corporate vulture"
  
  I like Jim Goads description better:
  
  "...they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby..."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hornblower-fan, 8 Sep 2011 @ 5:43pm
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 7th, 2011 @ 2:54pm
  I commend you on your perspicacity, Sir.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 3:19pm

I now have the urge to starting issuing random copyright violation claims on youtube for no reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 3:28pm

I saw an ad....
*shrug*

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).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 3:35pm

And this children answers a very important question...

If a hippy gets stoned in the forest and posts it on Youtube, no you should not care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 5:08pm

This guy is tempting fate with these fraudulent DMCAs. There's enough internet tough guys to DMCA his account back to the stone age ,especially if 4Chan gets a hold of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 5:08pm

simply pitiful...
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 formidable opponent like that. What next, you going to pick a fistfight with a guy in a wheelchair?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2011 @ 6:13pm
  
  Re: simply pitiful...
  Wouldn't a footfight make more sense?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Vulpis, 8 Sep 2011 @ 8:44pm
    
    Re: Re: simply pitiful...
    Really..some wheelchair-bound people (especially those who use old-school manual chairs rather than the powered ones) have *serious* upper-body strength. Pick a fistfight with one, and you will *lose*.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BeeAitch (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 6:30pm
  
  Re: simply pitiful...
  "...obviously slow-witted, possibly mentally ill, hillbilly/hippie hybrid..."
  
  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?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 7 Sep 2011 @ 7:42pm
  
  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
  Fine. Go find us a copyright maximalist who isn�t obviously slow-witted and possibly mentally ill and rambling.
  
  We�ll wait.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 6:47am
    
    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
    Please. Masnick (and you as well) get punked all of the time by knowledgable people on this site. Any time you're ready Larry.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 8 Sep 2011 @ 8:15pm
    
    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
    Still waiting
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 7:50pm

Vasquez simultaneously demonstrates that copyright law and the war on drugs are deeply flawed and broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wvhillbilly (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 8:59pm

Unwarranted takedowns
Maybe I'm playing devil's advocate, but it seems throughout his video his complaint was other people using his comment without his permission. If this is the case, it seems to me he is within his rights to have them taken down.

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- wvhillbilly (profile), 7 Sep 2011 @ 9:01pm
  
  Re: Unwarranted takedowns-oops
  Oops-that should have read "using any of his *content*..." not "his comment".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]