• UMG claims "right to block or remove" YouTube videos it doesn't own
    51 replies, posted
[release] Universal Music Group has responded to Megaupload's request for a temporary restraining order barring the music giant from further interference with the distribution of its "Mega Song." UMG insists that it had a right to take down the video—not under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as Megaupload had assumed, but under a private contractual arrangement between UMG and YouTube. UMG's filing raises more questions than it answers. Most obviously, the firm has not explained why it took down the video in the first place. But the filing also raises deeper questions about UMG's effort to essentially opt out of the DMCA takedown rules. UMG seems to believe it can take down videos even if it doesn't hold the copyright to them, and that when UMG takes a video down from YouTube, the owner of that video can't avail herself of even the weak protections against takedown abuse provided by the DMCA. [h=3]A different kind of takedown[/h]As we [URL="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/judge-gives-umg-24-hours-to-explain-takedown-spree.ars"]discussed on Thursday[/URL], UMG casts Megaupload as a major villain in the war over illegal file-sharing. Last week, Megaupload sought to bolster its image by releasing a [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8aUCnyKH2U"]pop-star-studded promotional video.[/URL] UMG's takedown request was an unexpected publicity coup. Megaupload took full advantage, suing UMG on Monday and asking the judge for an immediate restraining order to prevent UMG from further interfering with the video's distribution. UMG's response, filed late on Thursday, focuses on the narrow question of whether Judge Claudia Wilken should grant such a restraining order. The recording giant makes two principle arguments in opposition. First, UMG says such a restraining order is not authorized by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA's notice-and-takedown safe harbor includes a provision for monetary damages against copyright holders who abuse the takedown process, but it does not give the courts the power to block copyright holders from sending takedown requests. But more importantly, Universal argues that its takedown is not governed by the DMCA in the first place. In a statement supporting Megaupload's complaint, CIO Kim Dotcom had stated "it is my understanding" that Universal had invoked the DMCA's notice-and-takedown provisions. But UMG says Dotcom got it wrong: the takedown was sent "pursuant to the UMG-YouTube agreement," which gives UMG "the right to block or remove user-posted videos through YouTube's CMS based on a number of contractually specified criteria." In other words, when UMG removes a video using YouTube's CMS, that might be a takedown, but it's not a[I]DMCA[/I] takedown. And that, UMG argues, means that the DMCA's rule against sending takedown requests for files you don't own doesn't apply. [h=3]"Not limited to copyright infringement"[/h]UMG underscored the point by including a [URL="http://ia700808.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.cand.248875/gov.uscourts.cand.248875.14.5.pdf"]letter[/URL] UMG lawyer Kelly Klaus sent to YouTube on Wednesday. In that letter, Klaus wrote: Your letter could be read to suggest that UMG's rights to use the YouTube "Content Management System" with respect to certain user-posted videos are limited to instances in which UMG asserts a claim that a user-posted video contains material that infringes a UMG copyright. As you know, UMG's rights in this regard are not limited to copyright infringement, as set forth more completely in the March 31, 2009 Video License Agreement for UGC Video Service Providers, including without limitation Paragraphs 1(b) and 1(g) thereof.This appears to be a reference to the agreement underlying the [URL="http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/04/announcing-vevo-partnership-with.html"]VEVO partnership[/URL] between Google and UMG announced in April 2009. As far as we know, the agreement isn't public, so we can only speculate on what's in Paragraphs 1(b) and 1(g). But we plan to ask Google for a copy. UMG's response also sheds some light on another mystery: why Monday's issue of [I]Tech News Today[/I] 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 [I]Tech News Today[/I]episode featuring the Megaupload video. The recording industry is currently lobbying for passage of the [URL="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/house-takes-senates-bad-internet-censorship-bill-makes-it-worse.ars"]Stop Online Piracy Act[/URL], which would create a DMCA-style takedown regime for advertising and credit card networks. Critics may question whether it's wise to give new takedown powers to copyright holders that demonstrate such a cavalier attitude toward the rights of others.[/release] [URL]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/umg-we-have-the-right-to-block-or-remove-youtube-videos.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss[/URL] Douchebags.
Why can't Occupy blockade these assholes and give trouble to someone that really deserves it?
They're going to piss off Google
Goddammit, I finally got my bullshit detector repaired and this happens. I hope you're proud of yourself.
I can smell it all the way here... Utter bullshit.
Yup. UMG is up to it's usual tricks. They're universally hated by youtube users over their takedown spam, it was only a matter of time before they pissed someone off with the resources to actually do something about it. If this judge is worth his title he'll grand MegaUpload's request. And then rule in favor of them. And then award them a few hundred million in damages, this should be fine with UMG since the recording industry loves excessive fines, as well as removing UMG's privilege to use the CMS.
[QUOTE=TestECull;33750716]Yup. UMG is up to it's usual tricks. They're universally hated by youtube users over their takedown spam, it was only a matter of time before they pissed someone off with the resources to actually do something about it. If this judge is worth his title he'll grand MegaUpload's request. And then rule in favor of them. And then award them a few hundred million in damages, this should be fine with UMG since the recording industry loves excessive fines, as well as removing UMG's privilege to use the CMS.[/QUOTE] Maybe they should take a page out of their book and sue them for more Money then currently exists on this Planet.
God damn it, they have been nothing but a right pain in the ass since the moment they came into existence.
OCCUPY YOUTUBE [editline]16th December 2011[/editline] wait no that wouldn't help at all
UMG and modern day copyright laws are complete idiotic bullshittery. It's a disturbing pattern that all these new "solutions" to "stolen" digital material by the government and big corporations only hurt the the good guys. [editline]16th December 2011[/editline] UMG and modern day copyright laws are complete idiotic bullshittery. It's a disturbing pattern that all these new "solutions" to "stolen" digital material by the government and big corporations only hurt the the good guys.
So wait, what the fuck else do they have agreement with youtube to pull. The politicians can yield all they want, if the fucking content hosters are rotten we're all boned.
Not all YouTube video files containing RIAA audio receive takedown notices. In some cases, all one gets is an email that simply informs one that the audio track in one's video might be copyrighted by MPAA, and the video continues to be available. I guess this was the result of the MAFIAA / Google compromise, some years ago. Google labels infringing videos, MAFIAA reserves the right to take them down at will, but leaves most / some of them online. It's very possible that in exchange for this the contract also included a clause allowing the MAFIAA to remove videos they don't own.
[QUOTE=zugu;33751011]MAFIAA [/QUOTE] Never has an acronym been more fitting
[QUOTE=Wilford Brimley;33750654]They're going to piss off Google[/QUOTE] I feel sorry for them if they do
These people are an unfortunate mistake, one that should be corrected. They have gotten in they way of progress too many times, and they need to be removed from the path.
Cyber bullies
[QUOTE=ironman17;33751679]These people are an unfortunate mistake, one that should be corrected. They have gotten in they way of progress too many times, and they need to be removed from the path.[/QUOTE] That sounds like the lyrics to a death metal song.
okay umm then i claim the right to be god everyone worship me because claiming rights is as easy like that right?
Great, the MAFIAA thinks they have the keys to the entire internet, and Congress is probably hours away from giving them exactly that. I'll bet Torrentfreak is near the top of the hit list, just for disagreeing with them.
Yeah, UMG, you don't own the internet so stop going about acting like you do, you big headed arseholes.
Wow MegaUpload laid the perfect trap and UMG fell for it gloriously.
I do not like UMG
Funny thing is that by reporting it as copyright infringement, UMG basically claimed that it was theirs, or that they were acting for someone who owned it and had given them permission to do so. So they're actually infringing the laws that they want passed. :v: The executives in UMG can go fuck a cactus.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;33752868]Funny thing is that by reporting it as copyright infringement, UMG basically claimed that it was theirs, or that they were acting for someone who owned it and had given them permission to do so. So they're actually infringing the laws that they want passed. :v: The executives in UMG can go fuck a cactus.[/QUOTE] this is why the DMCA needs to have something that sais if a company knowingly sends out a false takedown request, all takedown requests from that company from then on can be ignored, the person who handles the requests is the one who decides if it is fraudulent, it is up to the person/company who sends the request to provide proof that it isn't, of course, there would be punishment for falsely saying that the DMCA request is false, but let the law makers sort out that loop hole
They can take our pride but they'll never take our FREEDOM.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;33752778]Wow MegaUpload laid the perfect trap and UMG fell for it gloriously.[/QUOTE] I see what you did there. How the hell can they get away with this? They dont even fucking own the content in vids and they could take it down? Bullshit.
[QUOTE=Ridge;33750652]Why can't Occupy blockade these assholes and give trouble to someone that really deserves it?[/QUOTE] Because financial institutions have done more damage to society than Universal Studios has why did I even justify this retarded fucking question with an answer
This playlist is made up of ancient videos but it still applies because fuck UMG. [url]http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD02EA5FD0A62C535&feature=plcp[/url]
[QUOTE=Terminutter;33752868]Funny thing is that by reporting it as copyright infringement, UMG basically claimed that it was theirs, or that they were acting for someone who owned it and had given them permission to do so. So they're actually infringing the laws that they want passed. :v: The executives in UMG can go fuck a cactus.[/QUOTE] Fucking a cactus is too harsh man. Make them eat AND fuck a cactus, at the same time while shitting out cactus. That'll show 'em.
What The Fuck You know, I'm at a loss of words. Again. They manage to do that every day by now, making me speechless I mean.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.