My other job is a database developer, and like you, I’ve had to write many, many procedures I didn’t necessarily agree with — procedures which I ultimately had no power in stopping or altering.

If I was writing anti-piracy code I’d at least check to see if the material in question could be pirated, i.e., the links linked to what I thought they linked to. I’d also be interested if the pirate in question had a legal claim to the material. For the person who designed the code in this case, that may or may not have been a concern.

So, sh*tty IFPI code person, you may or may not be off the hook, but, your boss on the other hand, well…

If a client (be it your boss or whomever you’re contracting with at the moment) demands something despite you pointing out the stupid, you grit your teeth and do it anyway because in most cases, you need your job / the money. It’s possible this was a case of a bad developer — but it’s also possible it was a case of a developer just doing what they were told.

Anyway, congrats on the new site. Media Temple is a good place to host a higher bandwidth site so you’ve made a good choice there.

Eliot van Buskirk of Wired did an excellent job describing the whole situation at the preceding link.

One of the questions which always seems to come up is why didn’t I file a counter claim as google instructed?

Part of the reason was that as of the fall of 2009 google/blogger appeared to be taking a more nuanced stance towards DMCA infractions. Instead of deleting posts and/or blogs outright, they’d move the infringing content back to draft status where one could make the necessary edits and re-publish.

Even in my case, where I was very much confident I wasn’t an infringer, this seemed harmless enough. Since, as you know I routinely rotate the mp3 links anyway. And if the link in question was already dead, as was the case more than once, then I hardly cared at all.

Additionally, as google themselves have noted, the process is far more easier for someone to file a claim than for someone to counter. As the current process stands, pen, paper and postage are needed to file a counter. Absurd for 2010.

Also to be considered is that the wording of the law seemed to indicate that the act of countering a claim could result in legal action should the claimant decide to re-affirm their rights. Who here would like to take their chances against a music industry lawyer?

Lastly, despite google’s assertion that I was warned about being a “repeat infringer” there was no indication that I was sitting on a time bomb. Had I known that the situation was one more strike and I’m gone, then, yes, certainly I would have taken all of those old claims, all of those claims where I did have rights, and start the counter claim process.

As for blame, well, read the Wired article, and you’ll see that all of us — the labels, the IFPI, the laws, myself, and yes, google, could have taken actions to avoid this situation.

In this link you can have the explanation, directly from Google.

Have a nice day.