"That's of great benefit to government, private or criminal entities that surely appreciate the easy new way to spy on, stall or even potentially kill via methods most police departments likely don't have the chops to adequately investigate."
Chops? The police are undoubtedly champing at the bit to use the exploit. Imagine, no more high speed chases; just hack into the fleeing car and take control.
"McGillis said he?s living off of savings and facing a $600 monthly car payment he can?t afford. "I?m a single guy. I don?t need an SUV," he said. ?Here I am in this big car."
Bogus. I own a Mitsu Outlander. It's a mid-size crossover ute. It seats four comfortably; you don't want to be number five, stuck in the middle on the hump. They now offer an optional third row seat bench; good luck trying to get into it back there.
Tricked out, mine was less than $30k new; monthly payment financed through Mitsubishi was ~$350. No way he has a $600 monthly payment, unless he's as much an idiot as his other described actions make him appear.
Understood about third-party licensing and ownership. (I did not know that YouTube doesn't let artists monetize their songs directly, which could account for the fact I've never gotten an answer to that very question every time I asked on YouTube.)
But in this case (if the original post is to be believed), Boydston had uploaded his own music video, and Rumblefish issued a takedown.
If I signed up for the Rumblefish deal, I could find myself in the same situation with my own uploaded videos, and might not be so lucky with an appeal.
Now, it could be possible that Mike got the details even more wrong than as posted. Maybe the Rumblefish deal worked as advertised, and a takedown wasn't issued, just the Rumblefish licensing notice appeared, and Boydston freaked. More information is needed for an informed opinion.
I see you found an answer. Which is good, because the answer I would have provided is "I don't know", because I have not signed up for the CD Baby/Rumblefish deal.
Actually, I wasn't even aware of the deal until this thread. On the CD Baby site, I looked it over, and on the face of it, I thought, seems like a good deal -- costs me nothing, and if a miracle occurs and someone wants to license my music through Rumblefish, I might get some fractions of cents (like I do from Spotify), which is better than no fractions of cents.
But then I myself have already uploaded videos with my own music, and I might find myself in the exact same situation as Boydston if the snooperbot found my work and auto-generated a takedown. So until Rumblefish fixes their dumbness, I think I'll pass.
"And... it turns out, mixed in with a long list of music stores and streaming sites, is Rumblefish."
I don't think it's that sinister, Mike.
I checked my artist account on CD Baby (artist name Geodesium). Turns out you actually have to make an effort to opt IN for the Rumblefish sync license deal; it doesn't happen automatically without you knowing about it, so that you have to opt-out after the fact to undo the damage. It's separate from the digital distribution CD Baby does, that gets an artist's music to iTunes, Amazon and such.
So while it doesn't negate the dumbness of the takedown situation, Boydston must have made the effort to sign up for the Rumblefish "service". And got less than he paid for. CD Baby offers this Rumblefish/YouTube thing to artists for free. If they do successfully wangle a music sync license with someone, they split the proceeds with the artist 50/50, it says.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by lazbo.