Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the anonymous-on-parade dept

We've got a tie for first place on the insightful this week, with a pair of comments from our post about YouTube's $100-million upload filter (and all its failings). First up, we've got an anonymous comment noting that YouTube even allows the removal of private archival videos:

On copyright takedowns of non-public videos: the University of California, Berkeley, hosts course lecture recordings on YouTube. Since 2015, the videos are not public and can only be viewed after logging in with a berkeley.edu account. Despite that, several of the videos have disappeared due to copyright claims. (Ctrl-F for "copyright".)

https://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley_Course_Captures/YouTube_ Status_Fall_2015

• This video contains content from UMG_MK, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
• This video contains content from UMG, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.

https://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley_Course_Captures/YouTube_Status_Fall_20 16

• This video contains content from Crowley Media, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

https://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley_Course_Captures/YouTube_Status_Spring_ 2017

• This video contains content from BBC Worldwide, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.
• This video contains content from BBC Worldwide, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.
• This video contains content from Mosfilm, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.
• This video contains content from WBTV, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.

As time passes, even more videos from the past disappear. YouTube is not a trustworthy repository for archival videos like these.

Next, we've got a comment from James Burkhardt responding to a question about why the DMCA can't punish people who file false takedowns on YouTube:

One, Copyright ID is not a DMCA system, and does not operate under the DMCA legal framework. 512(f) only applies the DMCA Copyright notices. Does not apply to these cases. That said....

There were a flurry of lawsuits a few years ago, but unfortunately the Dancing Baby Lawsuit effectively but the nail in the coffin of that approach. The bar set by the courts over several rulings was so high that it could never be proven the copyright holder acted in a manner that triggered 512(f) penalties.

For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start with one more anonymous response to that post, specifically taking on our description of the entertainment industries as "going for broke" on Article 13:

It sounds like everyone else are the ones who are actually going to go broke though.

Next, we've got an anonymous comment taking a look at ICE's mission-creep into domain seizures:

I see a weird way to explain this as mission creep. As Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, they plausibly had authority preventing physical import of contraband across the border. Like most government agencies, they inevitably decided they wanted more power, so they assumed responsibility for interfering with contraband in other venues. That explains their infamous (and sadly not derided nearly often enough) panty raid. With the rise of e-commerce, it makes sense that ICE would decide to self-expand to online contraband. As with most things involving a computer, doing the job right is hard, and government agents have plenty of outs, so why bother restricting yourself to disrupting only proven dangerous contraband, when you can go disrupt alleged contraband for a fraction of the effort?

Over on the funny side, it's another win for the anonymous cowards, with first place going to a little carol about asset forfeiture:

Deck the halls with assets "forfeit",
Fa, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la!
We can make a tidy profit
Fa, la, la, la, la, la, la, la!
Don we now our SWAT apparel,
Fa, la, la, la, la, la, la, la!
As we grab those goods and chattels,
Fa, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la!

In second place, it's lucidrenegade, who had to do a double-take on our headline about congressmen courting lobbyist cash with tickets to a shared box at the Grammies:

At first I read the headline as "Want to Box At The Grammies With Two Bigshot Congressmen?" I'd sign up for that!

For editor's choice on the funny side, we've got a pair of responses to the already-funny story about Monster Energy's trademark attack on Monster Dip, a brand of industrial paint. First, it's not a true anonymous comment but rather one from Anonymous Anonymous Coward, who felt vindicated in some assumptions:

You hit the ball out of the park. I have never tried Monster Energy's drink because that is exactly what I though they might be selling, watered down industrial sludge. But paint works too.

I want to thank Monster Energy for clearing up any confusion as it certainly appears that they were worried about an industrial paint company siphoning off beverage drinkers, leaving no doubt about the source for Monster Energy's drinks.

Not all were so lucky — and so we finish this week off with an anonymous commenter who fell prey to this terrible source of customer confusion:

I give the new flavor by Monster a 0 out of 5... I tried the customer hotline, but there must have been some problem that day because I kept getting connected to some other beverage company... Poison Commander or something

That's all for this week, folks!

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