

YouTube Says Universal Had No ‘Right’ to Take Down Megaupload Video - pwg
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/youtube-universal-megaupload/

======
Vivtek
So, unless I mistake what UMG is saying, they maintain that this wasn't a DMCA
takedown, but that _due to the DMCA_ they must be held harmless?

If they used a computer system to commit fraud, doesn't that make them guilty
of the "computer hacking" we've all been told is the downfall of civilization?

But at the end of the day, their illicit actions have caused Megaupload actual
monetary damages - I hope Megaupload ends up owning them.

~~~
antiterra
It's common in law to make a legal argument based on a claim and then to
continue a conjectured argument even if that claim is rejected. For example,
they say they are not subject to the DMCA (17 512(f)) then claim that even if
they were, that the case would still not prevail due to caselaw and
requirements of the DMCA.

UMG also cites convincing caselaw arguing that irreperable harm has not been
done since the alleged infringing activity has ceased in a relatively short
amount of time. What damages can Megaupload quantify?

It seems possible UMG could only be on the hook for a contract dispute with
YouTube.

~~~
Vivtek
It cost Megaupload $3 million to make this video for their own advertising -
quashing that advertising fraudulently seems damaging to me. How you'd
quantify it I don't know.

~~~
antiterra
Except there's not necessarily a 'right' to have your video on YouTube, and
it's possible that UMG was acting, albeit with bad faith, in the capacity of
YouTube curator.

Megaupload's Friday filing seems to imply their current strategy is to hunt
for evidence of DMCA takedown requests sent to other sites like Vimeo, as well
as expose whatever they can about the agreement between UMG and YouTube.

~~~
Vivtek
UMG was acting in the capacity of YouTube curator in the same sense script
kiddies are acting in the capacity of security leak exposure consultants,
perhaps. I'd hate to have to make that argument to a judge that understood the
actual situation.

Doesn't this obvious bad faith have _any_ negative repercussions for UMG?

~~~
lotu
Theoretically YouTube could kick them form their automatic filtering program
for a period of time or put some other requirement on their continued use of
it.

~~~
Vivtek
Let me be more specific: "Doesn't this bad faith on UMG's part have any bad
consequences that aren't graciously bestowed by another large company?" I
thought we were a nation of laws, not corporations? Is fraud only a business
cost now?

------
joshuahedlund
So basically Universal lied to YouTube and said the video was copyright
infringement when it wasn't, and basically if SOPA passes Universal could do
this to entire websites and not just single videos?

~~~
rcthompson
A better explanation would be that YouTube gave UMG (and other 'content'
companies) a kill switch that works on any video and said 'Promise you'll only
use this on stuff that infringes your copyright, ok?' UMG then crossed their
fingers behind their back and said 'Sure, whatever.'

The second party of your comment is correct. SOPA would give these same
companies a kill switch for websites instead of YouTube videos.

~~~
Vivtek
And merchant accounts - don't forget the kill switch for merchant accounts.

------
matznerd
Taking down a video produced by a competitor is exactly the kind of problems
that come about when the "weapons" to stop piracy are handed over to corporate
interests. This is just the tip of the iceberg, it will be 100 times worse if
SOPA passes.

------
notatoad
what i don't understand about this is that clearly UMG has some special access
or privileges with youtube. why hasn't youtube taken that access away?

if i file a DMCA complaint as a random nobody, google reviews it at their
convenience before acting, right? and if google catches me abusing the system,
they're going to take some action against me. imho, if UMG is going to abuse
the process youtube should treat them like any other random dude. their
takedown requests can go into a queue and get reviewed by google rather than
being processed automatically, say at a rate of about one per day.

~~~
electromagnetic
I think it's a combination of UMG having a massive army of lawyers and
youtube/google not wanting to have to fight them.

However instances like this abuse of the DMCA might be grounds for
youtube/google to have a form of restraining order placed on UMG. It would
seriously hamper UMG's efforts if they had to prove conclusively that a file
was infringing. That would quickly put them to a one-a-day rate if they had to
give proof that the file in question wasn't under fair use/review/parody etc.

------
azernik
The oddest thing about this legal argument of UMG is that, while they claim
that this takedown mechanism is a purely private arrangement that is nothing
to do with the DMCA, the mechanism was pretty explicitly added to fulfill the
safe harbor clause of the act. Lawyer please: does the relationship between
the takedown mechanism and the DMCA invalidate UMGs defense?

------
thehodge
I tried reading the article but after 20 seconds or so a huge lightbox
appeared with an advertisement that wouldn't let me close until the video had
loaded...

I don't mind advertising on the web but that really takes the piss...

~~~
click170
That's a bug.

In their advertising policy, but a bug none the less. Treat it as such: if you
care passionately enough about that program (website) then file a bug report
(get in touch via 'contact us') to inform them of the problem. If you could
never visit that site again and be happier for it, maybe don't bother filing
that bug.

Also: Adblock Plus.

------
seanp2k2
Here was my idea: upload a bunch of music from Universal artists, then tag
them all as "auto-takedown". Breaking the YouTube detection system will be the
only way to get rid of it.

------
jgh
I sure hope UMG loses.

------
jrockway
What I find most interesting is that despite seeing this video linked here at
least five times, I still haven't watched it, because it's an ad and I hate
ads. Viral marketing fail.

~~~
piggity
Hypothetically speaking, just because you didn't catch a virus doesn't mean
that that virus can't be incredibly effective (or "viral").

------
hello_moto
I would like to see congress men get fired if SOPA incident is over.

