
UMG claims "right to block or remove" YouTube videos it doesn't own - binarybits
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/umg-we-have-the-right-to-block-or-remove-youtube-videos.ars
======
mikeknoop
There are still questions concerning the Tech News Today takedown issue. From
the article:

UMG's response also sheds some light on another mystery: why Monday's issue of
Tech News Today was yanked from YouTube. When UMG removes a video via
YouTube's CMS, a "reference file" is created that "in theory is supposed to
identify other instances of postings of the same content." UMG speculates that
this "reference file" system was responsible for the accidental removal from
YouTube of a Tech News Today episode featuring the Megaupload video.

Now, this is plausible why TNT was taken down the first time. TNT then issued
a counter-complaint and was put back online shortly thereafter. Finally, it
was removed AGAIN in accordance to the DMCA because (according to the
speculation on how this works) UMG confirmed that the content in question
which was originally removed did infringe.

UMG cannot hide behind the "accidental" TNT takedown if they personally
_confirmed_ it twice to be infringing.

------
nextparadigms
Google is giving the labels way more power than they should. They
automatically announce them of infringing content with ContentID, when it's
not their obligation to do so under current copyright laws, and now this -
allowing the labels to remove even content of their competitors.

What the hell are you doing Google? Google entering the music/movie business
worries me, because it means they will give them more power over their _other_
services like Google Search, Youtube, or the Android Market, and they really
shouldn't. At least not if they ever want to use the "Do No Evil" line in
public again.

Also, can UMG really make their own private DMCA under a contract with Google?
Does that mean they could even take down domain names if they agreed to that
under a contract with the DNS providers? I don't think the law is supposed to
work like that, and hopefully the judge will recognize that.

~~~
Silhouette
> Google is giving the labels way more power than they should.

Should, by what standard?

Legally, under the DMCA, maybe Google has no obligation to provide this
facility to UMG.

But as far as I can see, no-one is paying Google to host the content under
debate on YouTube. That probably means Google has no contractual obligation to
anyone to do so and is free to throw the content out any time they want for
any reason they want, including any back-room agreement that might have been
made with any big media firm.

If you want someone to do something important for you, and you're relying on
free services on the Internet to do it, then you are typically entitled to a
full money-back guarantee. Anything else comes with a price tag one way or
another.

~~~
WettowelReactor
And what if I am a paying Google Apps Customer. Video through youtube is
included in what I pay for. Should UMG have the right to control that as well?

~~~
Silhouette
Interesting. Do you get something contractually guaranteed as a Googe Apps
customer that is different to Joe Public uploading a video to YouTube? If so,
are you able to link to exactly what your agreement says?

I think it would change the situation significantly if the organisation whose
video was pulled in this case had actually been paying Google to host it for
them on some sort of contractual basis, and the reason for Google's removal of
the content was not a legal obligation but another private commercial deal.

~~~
WettowelReactor
This is what I was going for. Everyone claims you get what you pay for but it
is important to remember that some users do pay for Google services. What is
worrisome is how Goggles actions in this case would apply to those users.

------
X-Istence
Except that when the video gets taken down YouTube says it was on copyright
grounds, not only that but when you get such a takedown letter it specifically
mentions the DMCA (or at least in the one case a client of mine received such
a letter due to using a 30 second clip from a song as background music) and
your rights associated with the DMCA including the ability to state that it is
fair use.

If YouTube did agree to letting UMG basically control content uploaded to
YouTube they have basically given them the ability to silence any and all
opposition to UMG on YouTube with the single click of a button.

~~~
mikeknoop
> they have basically given them the ability to silence any and all opposition
> to UMG on YouTube with the single click of a button

Which, unfortunately, seems to be a legal.

~~~
eftpotrm
But which should also open up UMG and / or YouTube to the restraining order
which MegaUpload have asked for. If the takedown wasn't anything to do with
the DMCA, then they can't invoke DMCA rules governing penalties for abuse of
the takedown system.

So, far as I can see as a non-lawyer, UMG are in trouble either way. If it's a
DMCA request then they've perjured themselves because they don't own the
content. If it's not a DMCA request then they're open to standard civil court
provisions and restraining orders, and will likely get sued for restraint of
trade or similar.

------
ck2
Just wait until they get their hands on things like the SOPA to abuse next
year - this is nothing.

Essentially, law in the USA has come down to bullying - "well try and stop us,
if you can afford it".

Short of a supreme court ruling, they are going to do whatever they want - and
you really don't want this in front of the current supreme court.

------
eof
Well; I guess if they have a contract with YouTube that allows them to take
down videos directly then technically they are in the (legal) right.

I assume youtube TOS allows them to pull down your video for 'any reason';
otherwise there might be some liability on youtube's end.

I did not expect this turn of events; and I wonder why youtube would sign an
agreement like that at all..

~~~
danmaz74
_I wonder why youtube would sign an agreement like that at all_

Most likely, this could be a settlement that gives UMG and the likes a great
latitude at taking down videos, and Youtube a guarantee not to get sued or
some other rights.

On the other hand, if this kind of practice (let me stop whatever content I
want or I'll sue you on unrelated matters) became widespread, this could have
a really nasty effect on free speech rights.

~~~
regularfry
They won't get sued _by UMG_. They could in theory be sued by uploaders.

~~~
FireBeyond
For what? Being denied their natural right to have content hosted by Google at
no charge?

Wait, hang on...

~~~
regularfry
That's why I said "in theory". If there is an argument that YouTube would be
liable for damages, following the rules of the DMCA would have given them
immunity. By not following those rules, they lose that immunity.

------
TheCapn
"You can't place a restraining order because that's not in the DMCA!"

\--

"The takedown wasn't a DMCA related takedown."

Am I missing something here? Are courts really so blind to the major label's
bullying games that this wasn't IMMEDIATELY approved and an injunction placed
until further proceedings?

I mean, no I'm not a lawyer but I have studied contract law and these just
seems moronic.

~~~
ianstormtaylor
Oxymoronic.

Yup don't get it at all. Unfortunately, the thing that would probably happen
is their first point would get ignored and the second point would be
investigated. (Even though it does throw a subjective shadow over the whole
thing...)

------
Ryanmf
There's some speculation on the Ars forum that if UMG aren't just making this
up, their contract with Google could call into question YouTube's status as a
primarily user-generated content-based site, and perhaps render them
ineligible for DMCA safe harbor protection.

I just read some of DMCA Title II/OCILLA, and although it's mostly over my
head, I'm not sure if I see how signing a contract with UMG allowing them to
issue non-DMCA takedowns at will puts YouTube in breach of the safe harbor
requirements.

Anyone with some DMCA expertise care to weigh in?

------
binarymax
Well, surely, DMCA invoke or not - that is anticompetitive.

~~~
pyre
anti-competitive how? MegaUpload might be competing for 'hearts and minds'
with their campaign, but I hardly think that it's possible to have a legally
recognized monopoly on them.

~~~
binarymax
You don't need to have a monopoly to be anti-competetive. Having the power to
take down content that doesn't belong to you, on the worlds largest video
sharing site because you disapprove of it - does constitute anti-competetive
behavior on UMGs part.

~~~
ahi
Civil RICO gets ugly fast.

------
rmc
All these claims are coming from UMG. I am cynical of most things the major
media companies say w.r.t. copyright & internet based on their poor track
record. So I would not put it past them to be exadurating the truth here.

Is there any word from YouTube confirming this?

------
mayneack
This is pure speculation, but I would imagine this song is getting a lot more
publicity because of UMG's attempts to remove it. I certainly doubt that I
would have ever come across it without reading about the fight on countless
blogs.

~~~
Peaker
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect>

------
cninja
Here is my speculation about what really happened: YouTube has its infringing
content tool designed to detect copyrighted content and notify the rights
holder. That tool erroneously flagged the Megaupload video as being owned by
UMG. UMG just does what it always does when it receives a notification of
infringing content: it pressed the button to take it down. Now, UMG is saying
the agreement it has with youtube is that if its youtube tool flags a video as
infringing, then it is ok to take down the video, even if the identification
was erroneous.

------
teyc
UMG will probably have to argue that MegaUpload is a criminal organisation
that distributions disproportionately high infringing content, therefore, them
producing essentially an advertisement that tells people about MegaUpload
amounts to linking to infringing content. Under this circumstances, DMCA
provisions apply because it is a method of circumventing copy protection.

In the end, this is not a battle over free speech. It is a battle by several
private interests - YouTube, UMG and MegaUpload over content rights.

------
smackfu
I thought the video was also taken down from other video sites too. Do they
also have the private agreement outside the DMCA?

