Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Piracy Youtube Your Rights Online Idle

YouTube Identifies Birdsong As Copyrighted Music 730

Posted by timothy
from the estate-of-john-cage-winces-with-envy dept.
New submitter eeplox writes "I make nature videos for my YouTube channel, generally in remote wilderness away from any possible source of music. And I purposely avoid using a soundtrack in my videos because of all the horror stories I hear about Rumblefish filing claims against public domain music. But when uploading my latest video, YouTube informed me that I was using Rumblefish's copyrighted content, and so ads would be placed on my video, with the proceeds going to said company. This baffled me. I disputed their claim with YouTube's system — and Rumblefish refuted my dispute, and asserted that: 'All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish; Content Type: Musical Composition.' So I asked some questions, and it appears that the birds singing in the background of my video are Rumblefish's exclusive intellectual property."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Identifies Birdsong As Copyrighted Music

Comments Filter:
  • Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26, 2012 @05:46PM (#39166687)

    "All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content."

    Complete bold-faced lie.

  • Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by durrr (1316311) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @05:48PM (#39166715)
    Oh not at all, you see, unless you're a big corporation with a lot of lawyers, you can't own any content. So they look "oh it's the little guy again" and "yeah this content would be nice to own" and with that, it's theirs.
  • Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26, 2012 @05:49PM (#39166721)

    Absolutely. The internet is more akin to the Wild West of yesteryear. Every company is out to commit highway robbery.

    Darn those varmints.

  • by TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @05:51PM (#39166741)

    Copyright is STRICTLY for the benefit of society. If we didn't think it profited us, we'd just steal all of everyone's crap (and, in some cases, society would vastly benefit; anything having to do with music, not so much). Mark my words, industry: copyright means NOTHING if it's abused and it justifies my attitudes on the subject (y'all know what i mean)

  • Sue? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rebot777 (765163) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @05:56PM (#39166773)
    Could we find any lawyers to take this case on? Surely if this is happening often enough some type of class action suit might be able to come out of it?
  • Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mateorabi (108522) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @05:58PM (#39166793) Homepage
    Of course I'm also sure that none of this has anything to do with the fact that YouTube gets a cut of those ad proceeds. And that a small user posting original content would probably opt not to insert ads, such that YouTube would be then getting a cut of zero.

    I'm also willing to venture that after going through the figleaf of a process of he-said, she-said, he-said, that there is little recourse. My guess is that any future attempt by a little guy to appeal/refute/re-dispute a big copyright holders' refutation of the original dispute will fall down some big black rabbit hole of non-responsiveness from YouTube corporate bureaucracy, complete with lack of any personal points of contact for trying to actually resolve this.
  • Ineteresting... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nugoo (1794744) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @06:02PM (#39166817)
    Huh... I have reviewed, say, The Hurt Locker, and I confirm that it's in the public domain.
  • by Required Snark (1702878) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @06:10PM (#39166869)
    Contact your US senator and House members. It won't do any good, but it is very easy to do. If enough voters do this it can have an influence. It's like voting; if you don't bother to vote you have abandoned your right to have an opinion. Posting on Slashdot will get you exposure, but I don't see how it will help much.
  • by Arch_Android (1989386) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @06:17PM (#39166919)
    In all honesty though, I really with it was more feasible for people to actually fight back against these large corporations. It's really a shame when all you need is money to hire lawyers and you can do anything.
  • by truedfx (802492) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @06:21PM (#39166941)
    I wouldn't take copyright advice from someone who doesn't understand the difference between that and patents.
  • by mysidia (191772) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @06:22PM (#39166943)

    You're legally in the right but is it really worth your time to fight it? Just delete the video from YouTube, edit the audio on your original video with some voice annotations or something to change it up a bit and re-post.

    Since obviously Rumblefish is using your recording, sue them for any "royalties" collected based on your work.

    First of all, send them legal notice that they are collecting royalties on your work without your authorization, then if your videos gain sufficient popularity, so they actually collect $$$, sue them for the ad revenues they collected + other offenses.

  • by whoever57 (658626) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @06:22PM (#39166953) Journal
    ... as a clear example of why SOPA and PIPA would have been a disaster for the Internet.
  • Re:Yeesh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @06:33PM (#39167031)
    In a contest of douchbaggery between the RIAA and Monsanto... I'd have to say the RIAA wins. Monsanto loses points because they do actually produce something truely useful, while the RIAA member's only purpose is to sit in between artists and listeners and take a cut. A position that made perfect sense pre-internet when getting music distributed required a substantial investment in disc manufacture and trucking, but is increasingly obsolete now.
  • Slander of title (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gnasher719 (869701) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @06:48PM (#39167135)
    Assuming that your video was recorded in the wilderness, you can sue for "slander of title", like in SCO vs. Novell. All conditions are met: A false statement was made to a third party, claiming that you are not the copyright holder. The claim is malicious since they cannot reasonably believe they are the copyright holder. And finally there are special damages, since ads are added to your video and the revenue is sent to them.
  • by symbolset (646467) * on Sunday February 26, 2012 @06:50PM (#39167147) Journal
    Sure there's a solution. Abolish copyright. It no longer serves its purpose and should be discarded. That's what you do with things that are used up: discard them.
  • Re:Yeesh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dkleinsc (563838) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @06:52PM (#39167165) Homepage

    On the other hand, the RIAA takes their cut of something we could survive without, whereas Monsanto wants to demand a cut of every pound of food sold in the world.

  • by Dhalka226 (559740) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @06:56PM (#39167189)

    Step #1 is to contact your representatives, yes. I would expand it beyond simply the three who directly represent you and include anybody in your state's delegation, particularly those who support nonsense laws that make things like this possible. No reason not to expand it even more than that if you want.

    Step #2 is to see if you can get a news organization to bite. There may or may not be any traction here, but it's worth the effort.

    Step #3 is to lawyer up. Try to find a lawyer who won't take a fee up front, either one who takes a cut of the winnings or one willing to do it pro bono. It shouldn't be too hard considering this is pretty much a guaranteed victory. You already have evidence of their outright fraud. In particular you already have them stating on the record that they investigated the matter -- meaning when you prove it is bullshit, you're already 90% of the way to proving they did it with malicious intent. If this process is some sort of automated DMCA frontend, you've got them for fraud under the DMCA as well and can seek punitive damages for the abuse of process.

    More to the point, they'll never let it get to trial. What jury in the world is going to believe the idea that some idiot can come along and get 130ish year exclusive right to the generic sound of birds singing--thousands of years into recorded history and hundreds of years after audio recordings became possible? It's not going to happen and they know it's not going to happen. They're counting on being able to bully and intimidate you into doing what they want and like most bullies, confronting them is going to send them running for the hills. In this case, it will likely send them running with a nice little check in your pocket for your troubles.

    It's a hassle, yes; probably more hassle than it's worth. It's a risk too, which is why it's important to find a lawyer who will work for a cut of the settlement rather than a hourly fee. You certainly don't want to be bankrupted by winning. But it's also the only way there is any chance of this kind of idiotic bullying to stop. Maybe you can't afford to fight; maybe rolling over and letting them have their way is the best choice for you in your situation. Nobody will judge you for it. But if you can fight, fight. These kind of victories are victories for everybody, not just yourself.

  • Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anthony Mouse (1927662) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @07:00PM (#39167217)

    Of course I'm also sure that none of this has anything to do with the fact that YouTube gets a cut of those ad proceeds. And that a small user posting original content would probably opt not to insert ads, such that YouTube would be then getting a cut of zero.

    I kind of doubt that's it. I mean sure, they get a cut of the ads, but YouTube actually has to care about what YouTube users think. There is, after all, no ad revenue if people stop posting new videos.

    It seems to me more likely that the entertainment industry is behind it. Recall that YouTube has been trying to get Hollywood to let it compete with Hulu. Of course, Hollywood is run by tyrannical despots who claim to own everything anyone has ever created, so this sort of behavior is right up their alley. And, Hollywood has never cared one lick what the users think about it.

    I mean think about it: Who is more likely to demand something user hostile? A company that makes its living based on users liking its service better than those of competitors, or a cartel that makes its money by filing lawsuits and screwing artists out of contractually agreed royalties?

  • Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @07:25PM (#39167381)

    Which is why we should go to the company directly:
    http://rumblefish.com/about-us.php [rumblefish.com]

    Email them and let them know that as a potential customer and citizen you find their behavior unacceptable.

  • Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrLint (519792) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @07:25PM (#39167385) Journal

    Which would be conspiracy to defraud. Other than your sarcasm, this isn't actually to far from that. Google makes money on false claims, the media company makes money on false claims. They claim it was reviewed. The claim of it being reviewed, and if it not in fact copyrighted, that attaches intent. The counter claim would have to be 'error'. However to go to court and claim error of the reviewers, in the case of birdsong, would be tantamount to claiming abject incompetence, bringing in to question every other alleged review.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26, 2012 @07:27PM (#39167403)

    I live in the universe that notes he had a white mother, grew up in a wealthy, all-white household, and is a multimillionaire, rather than invoking the racist "one drop" notion to categorize him as black.

    Now, what universe do you live in, where the old Jim Crow definition of race defines your view of him?

  • Re:ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Grishnakh (216268) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @07:48PM (#39167551)

    What's wrong with an anti-Obama rant? You could rant about Bush if you want, but that's pretty pointless since he's long gone, but Obama is still here, and worse, he's running for re-election, so I think anti-Obama rants are perfectly valid, especially since the guy is basically a clone of Bush even though he promised change.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26, 2012 @07:54PM (#39167593)

    I'm all for using the wrath of the Internet to burn a false copyright claimer to the ground, but I see no timestamped text or screenshots of notices from Youtube or Rumblefish posted by eeplox. The video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPBlfeuZuWg was uploaded on 2/24. Before we all jump onboard and make an effort to force Rumblefish to disconnect their telephones and move their offices out of the Pacific Northwest, can we get some verification that the notices were received and replied to and refuted after 2/24 and were in reference to that same video and not a different one?

  • Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @08:19PM (#39167765) Homepage Journal

    There is, after all, no ad revenue if people stop posting new videos.

    Until there's a reasonable alternative, people aren't going to "stop posting new videos".

    YouTube's revenue is now all about their deals with other content providers, because their ad revenue is going to stay pretty stable (or go up).

    This story, about Rumblefish claiming to represent the owner of the rights to a birdsong makes me sick. I think the target of our anger should be Rumblefish entirely. They're the bullies. They're the bad guys.

    This is only partly a job for Anonymous. I don't know who Rumblefish really represents, but I'm guessing that somewhere down the line is someone who cares what the public thinks. Maybe it's a record label who has an artist who makes them a lot of money. A targeted campaign directed at that artist might well make an impression.

    We're just going to have to make an example of some people to make doing business the way Rumblefish does business unacceptable. I don't know enough about them to know who to target, but unless we cause some pain somewhere, nobody's going to care. We have seen wealthy, powerful organizations brought to heel recently by public outrage. We're going to have to unleash holy hell on somebody, somewhere.

  • Re:Attorneys (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrLint (519792) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @08:34PM (#39167845) Journal

    I'm glad you asked, and I didnt go and put this in the first post as to not get off course.

    It's not going to end. I predicted 'this' pretty much a decade ago. Any company who chose to get in bed with the media companies and start to proactively 'censor' would soon run into the gaping maw of corporate greed and be faced with 'you aren't doing enough'. Sadly, it's worse and will be worse. The media monsters want carte-blanche to expunge anything they deem damaging to their failing business model (rightly or wrongly). And even if you were to sue google and the media companies, they would just demand the laws get rewritten to allow them to get away with it based on some meaningless threshold that wont even amount to a slap on the wrist. They have already crafted an atmosphere in which 'look ppl we don't care about and end up firing anyway are gonna lose jobs because of blahblahblah.

    Its part and parcel of the mindset that bundles boatloads of crap into your cable TV package you don't want, for the 6 things you do, all the time claiming they not only can't do anything about it, and that all the crap you dont want is in fact good for you.

  • by raehl (609729) <raehl311 AT yahoo DOT com> on Sunday February 26, 2012 @08:50PM (#39167927) Homepage

    If you want to compete with the big boys, you have to think like the big boys.

    Sue Rumblefish for $150,000 for each time your video is played with their advertising on it.

    Even better, file as a class action, that way you and your lawyer get paid for every case of Rumblefish doing this, and everyone else gets a coupon.

  • by Legion303 (97901) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @09:56PM (#39168303) Homepage

    "I'm Peat Bakke, the Lead Architect at Rumblefish. [...] Automated content identification is a hairy problem [...]"

    "Rumblefish refuted my dispute, and asserted that: 'All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish; Content Type: Musical Composition.' "

    Fuck you, Peat.

  • Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @10:27PM (#39168433) Homepage Journal

    They probably have all the rights that Righthaven had.

    And look at Righthaven today.

    "As of November 2011, the company's assets are subject to confiscation by the US Marshals Service due to expired debts from legal fees to a successful defendant.[6] In January 2012, its domain name, righthaven.com, was sold at auction to an undisclosed purchaser to help satisfy its debts.[7]" h/t Wikipedia

    This isn't going to be a short war. It's going to have to be something we're going to fight over and over and over. But even when it's asymmetrical warfare, there is a boundary condition after which certain business models just aren't worth the hassle. You find some names to drag through the mud, and you keep dragging them through the mud until it becomes a media story, and then they over-react with a libel suit or something and then it's game over, we win.

    Do you understand that this "Rumblefish", these slimy pieces of shit who are probably well-known child molestors (the reason for their secrecy), do you understand that they forced Google to take down a completely original piece of work, something that somebody made, that contained no copyrighted material just by claiming it was theirs.

    They do this and there's nothing that's safe. Even if you own something and you've got a piece of paper saying you own something, they can just clap their hands and take it away.

    Rumblefish endangers every artist, every musician, every writer. They do not respect the rule of law, or even what's right. They just take what they want. And in this case, Google is complicit. So there we go: Google. Maybe it would make Google uncomfortable to be associated with these (alleged) child-molesting creeps at Rumblefish, but the least we can do is hang it around their necks to see how they react.

    I read a lot of yadda yadda about how "big government" is taking away our rights and all about the "second amendment" and how big tough-talking freedom-loving Libertarian gun owners are going to face down anybody who's gonna threaten their liberties. Well here it is, you simple fucks. Here it is. Big as life and twice as ugly. If some faceless company can decide that, no, you don't really own those things you made with your own two hands, they belong to us, then your Second Amendment sacred right to feel manly with some shootin' iron don't mean a goddamn thing.

    Now we find out who talks about liberty and who does something.

  • Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @10:28PM (#39168439)

    Or tell them that, while you cannot boycott them any more than you already do, their behaviour just earned The Pirate Bay or EFF another donation.

    Supporting organizations who don't believe in copyright such as The Pirate Bay does not help protect copyright holders such as the YouTube video submitter. I don't wan The Pirate Bay profiting from my work any more than I want rumblefish profiting from my work.

    In fact I think on principle Rumblefish is doing precisely what we as consumers and content producers have been demanding from the media industry: innovative ways for them to profit from their work.

    What Rumblefish does is allow artists to profit from YouTube videos through YouTube ad revenue. Nobody gets sued, people can post their home videos with copyrighted music for free and the artists get paid. That's an excellent solution to the desires of consumers and content producers.

    The *PROBLEM* is that Rumblefish is claiming copyright on other people's work. That's completely unacceptable--it's piracy. And that's what needs to be stopped.

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @10:41PM (#39168501) Homepage Journal

    Class action lawsuit? Great idea. Then youtube users can get zero dollars (since it is a free service) and some lawyers can rake in big bucks if it works out.

    Dummy, if "some lawyers" can do a good enough job to win a class action lawsuit and turn Rumblefish into a smoking crater, then they have earned the money.

    The "youtube users" weren't getting any money anway, so who cares if they still don't get money? The guy in this story just wanted to put up a nice video of him walking in the woods. He wasn't looking for "any money".

    I guess Rumblefish is just going to have to decide they own the name "Linux" and all distros and force every repository to shut down and force all distros of Linux to carry an indelible advertisement for Windows 8 before some people are going to wake up and realize how urgent this is.

  • Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Sunday February 26, 2012 @11:52PM (#39168941)

    The problem I have with your CEO's response is this:

    if we have indeed mistakenly been sent a claim by YouTube's Content ID system and are inaccurately claiming a video...we'll release it.

    He's treating it like a one-off. The claims so far are that the bird song was "reviewed" - if it was reviewed by a human then this should never have happened. Humans make mistakes, but confusing a bird song for a human performance is beyond the range of reasonable human error - suggesting a process where the human has been removed. Something we absolutely know happens with the big-time members of the MAFIAA in their over-zealous pursuit of pirates because they have admitted it in court in more than one case.

    So the real problem here is the process and simply "releasing" one falsely claimed video is to miss the forest for the trees. The only satisfactory response is to explain what happened and then to take steps to make sure that it never happens again.

  • Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hognoxious (631665) on Monday February 27, 2012 @01:17AM (#39169281) Homepage Journal

    This isn't the kind of thing that can be put down to an honest mistake.

    The claim that it had been reviewed by the content owner is obviously false becaue it's actually impossible for you to have done so.

    You lie, and you lie systematically.

  • Re:Profit & Lies (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27, 2012 @01:28AM (#39169323)

    "The *PROBLEM* is that Rumblefish is claiming copyright on other people's work. That's completely unacceptable--it's piracy. And that's what needs to be stopped."

    They need to be fined the same amount, or more, that any normal citizen would be fined for an act of piracy. But of course that's not going to happen, Rumblefish gets the high court treatment. Notice how they have CNBC at the bottom of their page, like I said, they get the high court treatment. They won't get fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per infringement, that only applies to us commoners.

  • Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whoever57 (658626) on Monday February 27, 2012 @01:56AM (#39169465) Journal

    Forgive us for being a little short in our responses -- it is a complex issue, and we're working through it on a Sunday evening. :)

    I suspect you are bing disingenuous here. Why have you and your CEO been posting here without first checking the YouTube video and "releasing" it? There are complex issues here, but there is one simple issue: whether this particular video has any copyrighted material that you control. The fact that you and your CEO have spent your Sunday evening posting in /. before checking the specific video speaks volumes about your priorities.

  • by old and new again (985238) on Monday February 27, 2012 @02:00AM (#39169479) Homepage
    i was having trouble with youtube flagging all my uploads of original live material as warner and other shitty faceless corporations properties every time i sent emails to the companies and youtube requesting the exact time of the video and infringing song after about 1000 emails, 1 got 1 reply, pointing me to an exact time in a video, so i listened to their track and the 22 seconds of my video my 22 seconds was a bass drum playing on every beat with a white noise filtered with a lowpass filter, no melody, no music (and there was nothing similar in the pointed song besides there was a kick on every beat) so i decided to test the content ID, i uploaded 15 minutes of ONLY a 909 bass drum playing on every beat (not even a 8th bar 4th beat 1/8th note, juste plain four on the floor it was flagged by 13 entities (my most flagged video ever) and they ALL confirmed their claim to my 909 playing alone while i was preparing supper that proves that: 1- the content ID system is crap 2- nobody ever listens to the content when you make a counter claim 3- youtube sides with the "record companies" and shit in their users face
  • Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by James_Duncan8181 (588316) on Monday February 27, 2012 @02:16AM (#39169567) Homepage
    Again: Your company lied on the review, and tried to claim birdsong as your own whilst defaming eeplox by accusing him/her of being a pirate. I hope you feel ashamed of the place you work for, and the way in which it just tried to misappropriate revenue from work you had no part in. I only wish there were criminal sanctions for the person at your company who made the false counterclaim refutation; it isn't at all reasonable to have believed it was copyrighted/represented by yourselves. Please explain how the decision to make a refutation was determined, given that it is a legal statement.
  • Re:Profit & Lies (Score:2, Insightful)

    by justforgetme (1814588) on Monday February 27, 2012 @03:06AM (#39169787) Homepage

    Your post should be a +5 by now...

    BUT: No, he didn't lie. He didn't mention the review or the review panel at all. I'm not saying that he is a saint I'm just saying that he just posted the usual office politics that calms masses down.

    "It sucks when things don't go right"

    It does. But who went blindly claiming copyrights?

    "I'm around to answer technical questions about how the pieces fit together "

    Well, he waists our time by writing prologue but doesn't actually explain a thing.

    "We're working on resolving the issue with eeplox's video"

    Again: politic speech comes to mind. Again: who went shoot first and why isn't he punished?

    This guy is just there to waste people's time by appearing helpful. PR faggot in other words.

    My 2c? Make false copyright claims of companies a major human rights offense and shift responsibility to the person who published the claim. In the matter of months no IP behemoth's employee will be pushing those buttons.

  • Re:Profit & Lies (Score:4, Insightful)

    by andymadigan (792996) <amadigan.gmail@com> on Monday February 27, 2012 @03:26AM (#39169847)
    As someone else has said, you need to explain how the "review" didn't catch an obvious error, and you need to fix your process.

    Making automatic claims of ownership (a.k.a robosigning) recently resulted in a lawsuit in all 50 states against the biggest banks in the nation, and New York virtually has a tradition now of having AGs that sue big companies to get their names in the paper (their last two elected governors were both former AGs).

    Want to have an automatic system flag potential copyright violations? Fine, but you need a real human reviewing it, and if they screw up, your company should be fined for making false claims. That's the only way to keep companies accountable for their actions. Otherwise, you have incentive to claim you own everything.
  • Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rk (6314) on Monday February 27, 2012 @05:19AM (#39170311) Journal

    All the emoticons typed since the internet began won't change the fact that this is, in fact, what you do. Your company is engaging in scummy behavior and you're defending it with a shrug off "It sucks when things don't go right."

    Oh, I just quoted you. Maybe you can come after slashdot for the ad revenue whenever someone reads my post.

  • Re:Profit & Lies (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Alranor (472986) on Monday February 27, 2012 @06:26AM (#39170631)

    You say that the necessary actions were taken shortly after you became aware of the issue, but how can you reconcile that with the "All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content" answer that the video uploader was given when he disputed the takedown notice?

    Either Google are lying about you having responded by confirming that you own the copyright to the birdsong, or you're lying about having reviewed the video.

    Which one is it?

  • Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alranor (472986) on Monday February 27, 2012 @06:35AM (#39170661)

    As soon as it came to our attention today that people were drawing attention to the fact that we had made a mistake.

    Fixed for accuracy.

  • Re:Profit & Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by paper tape (724398) on Monday February 27, 2012 @07:39AM (#39170891)
    The folks from Rumblefish are trying to do damage control - which at this point, any reasonable company would do.

    It is possible that the "reviews" were done by an automated system on their side, which would be bad.

    It is also possible that the "reviews" were done by a lazy human on their side who if there is any justice in the world, is in the process of being fired.

    If the former case is true, it was a bad business model by the company which is now coming back to bite them.

    If the latter case is true, then the company representatives posting here may just be decent people trying to make the best of a bad situation.

    Either way, I'd say give them the benefit of the doubt. If the bogus infringement notices continue after this, we can break out the pitchforks and torches - otherwise it can be counted as a lesson learned.
  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Monday February 27, 2012 @03:51PM (#39176437) Homepage Journal

    Jesus H. Christ, can't you Dawkins-worshiping antitheists give it a goddamned rest for fuck's sake? It's old and tiresome. The GP may not even believe in god; it's a figure of speech, no different than saying "mother nature" (another deity, worshiped by Wiccans).

    I don't know who's worse, you fools who throw a fit any time anybody says the word "god" or the goddamned Jehova's Witnesses. The only differece is to avoid the JWs I just don't answer the door, but I'd have to stop reading slashdot to avoid you clowns. Give it a rest. Nobody likes evangelists.

    I'm pretty sure neither birds nor the FSM can hold copyright.

: is not an identifier

Working...