[pyre]

The strawman is that I'm not building a legal defense for UMG, whereas that seems to be what you've pegged me as doing.

My message can be summed up as:

Don't get carried away with conspiracy theories that UMG saw this successful viral campaign and felt that they needed to do something illegal to stop it. This video just ran afowl of UMG's "shotgun approach" to take-down notices, which just happens to be an illegal activity of theirs. I also find it highly probable that this was a targeted effort to get the video into the sights of whatever process it is that UMG uses to issue notices.

UMG's 'shotgun approach' to take-downs is not limited to just UMG, and it is also nothing new. This has been going on for a long time. If you're only getting outraged about it now you're years late to the party.

[chairface]

> Don't get carried away with conspiracy theories

Followed by a conspiracy theory of your own:

> I also find it highly probable that this was a targeted effort to get the video into the sights of whatever process it is that UMG uses to issue notices

Classy.

[pyre]

That's not a conspiracy theory, no matter how much you think that you want to 'win' this Internet argument with me.

You think that there was no thought put into the fact that if they put a video up on YouTube with a bunch of well-known artists in the name that they might get taken down for 'copyright violations?' It perfectly demonstrates their case, and with all of the publicity around the video itself brings the issue to a lot of the general public. Even if it wasn't a targeted effort, it seems like it turned out really well for them, IMO.

[chairface]

You posited a situation where a group of people (the artists and/or their representatives) got together for the purposes of tricking UMG into illegally issuing a DMCA takedown notice. You don't have even the slightest shred of proof. That is a conspiracy theory. Do I really need to give you elementary school lessons about your own words?