8 ms·

UMG claims "right to block or remove" YouTube videos it doesn't own

143 points by binarybits 15y ago

eof 15y ago
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..
- regularfry 15y ago
  The problem with that kind of contract is that it means YouTube can't take advantage of the DMCA provision which limits their liability to uploaders. You're right, it is interesting. Ball's in YouTube's court.
- danmaz74 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    They won't get sued by UMG. They could in theory be sued by uploaders.
    - officemonkey 15y ago
      Or worse yet, abandoned by their users.
    - FireBeyond 15y ago
      For what? Being denied their natural right to have content hosted by Google at no charge? Wait, hang on...
      - regularfry 15y ago
        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.
  - ersmi 15y ago
    I would guess that the additional take down rights were in exchange for VEVO posting the official music videos on Youtube. The videos would increase traffic to Youtube, but the company would obviously want significant benefits for posting their protected content in a public area.
  - brudgers 15y ago
    >"this could have a really nasty effect on free speech rights." Youtube is a business unit of a publicly traded company. It has users, not citizens. Free speech rights are irrelevant to the way in which it establishes policies.
    - CWuestefeld 15y ago
      This is generally true, but not always. - - - Quote [1] Shopping malls are an exception to the rule. In California, the courts recognize big malls as the modern-day "functional equivalent" of a traditional public gathering place, because they have "common areas that would invite the public to meet, congregate, or engage in other activities typical of a public forum. . . ." The California Constitution does protect your free-speech rights in privately owned shopping centers—as long as your activity doesn’t interfere with the primary commercial purpose of the mall. - - - End Quote I don't think it's crazy to imagine that a web space that's universally used for people to sound off, and to post comments on others' contributions, could become recognized as a public space for First Amendment purposes. (IANAL) [1] http://www.aclunc.org/issues/freedom_of_press_and_speech/rights_of_demonstrators/location.shtml http://www.aclunc.org/issues/freedom_of_press_and_speech/rig...
- tsotha 15y ago
  I wonder why youtube would sign an agreement like that at all.. I'm guessing penalties for hosting copyrighted content are so severe they're trying to establish a legal trail to show they made every effort to comply with the law.
ck2 15y ago
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.
X-Istence 15y ago
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 15y ago
  > 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.
  - X-Istence 15y ago
    Yeah, I wasn't questioning that. I was simply stating it, one because I find it hard to believe that YouTube would sign such an agreement and second because it means an corporation can censor what they deem to be damaging for them.
  - eftpotrm 15y ago
    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.
mikeknoop 15y ago
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.
binarymax 15y ago
Well, surely, DMCA invoke or not - that is anticompetitive.
- pyre 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      Civil RICO gets ugly fast.
nextparadigms 15y ago
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.
- chadzawistowski 15y ago
  Maybe this is a trick to exploit the Streisand effect? It's in such close proximity to the SOPA hearings that I'm sure it will make waves regardless. If you can find an image of what the page looked like when initially blocked, it said "removed by UMG", using the group's initials. In the past, videos have been blocked under the name "Universal Music Group". Why the alternate name? Maybe someone other than UMG intentionally triggered this. Either to bring attention to SOPA or MegaUpload itself.
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    If they can already do stuff like this, the damage done under SOPA in the next few years could be unimaginable. Now I really don't want SOPA to pass, even if it has 30 "improvements"/amendments. The content owners have clearly demonstrated us that they are not responsible enough to use such power over the Internet. It confirms what I've been thinking that even though they talk high and mighty that they do care about having an equal partnership with Silicon Valley and they want to help innovation, and freedom of speech - those are just words. They really don't give a f*ck about anything else. They just want supreme power to take down anything they don't like at will. Any new music oriented site or video site that don't pay them as much as they are getting now from their most lucrative businesses per unit of content, would be shut down at launch. Why bother with new business models that could be great for the consumer, but give you less revenue, when you can just maintain the status quo? And no wonder the TV cable companies want SOPA, too. If they had it in the past Youtube wouldn't exist now, and they wouldn't have had to create Hulu, which has been mainly a painful experience for them, because they really just want people to keep watching TV. Hulu was just a reaction to Youtube.
rmc 15y ago
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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
TheCapn 15y ago
"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 15y ago
  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...)
smackfu 15y ago
I thought the video was also taken down from other video sites too. Do they also have the private agreement outside the DMCA?
cninja 15y ago
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.
Ryanmf 15y ago
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?
teyc 15y ago
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.

143 points by binarybits 15y ago

eof 15y ago

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..

regularfry 15y ago
The problem with that kind of contract is that it means YouTube can't take advantage of the DMCA provision which limits their liability to uploaders. You're right, it is interesting. Ball's in YouTube's court.
danmaz74 15y ago
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 15y ago
  They won't get sued by UMG. They could in theory be sued by uploaders.
  - officemonkey 15y ago
    Or worse yet, abandoned by their users.
  - FireBeyond 15y ago
    For what? Being denied their natural right to have content hosted by Google at no charge? Wait, hang on...
    - regularfry 15y ago
      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.
- ersmi 15y ago
  I would guess that the additional take down rights were in exchange for VEVO posting the official music videos on Youtube. The videos would increase traffic to Youtube, but the company would obviously want significant benefits for posting their protected content in a public area.
- brudgers 15y ago
  >"this could have a really nasty effect on free speech rights." Youtube is a business unit of a publicly traded company. It has users, not citizens. Free speech rights are irrelevant to the way in which it establishes policies.
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    This is generally true, but not always. - - - Quote [1] Shopping malls are an exception to the rule. In California, the courts recognize big malls as the modern-day "functional equivalent" of a traditional public gathering place, because they have "common areas that would invite the public to meet, congregate, or engage in other activities typical of a public forum. . . ." The California Constitution does protect your free-speech rights in privately owned shopping centers—as long as your activity doesn’t interfere with the primary commercial purpose of the mall. - - - End Quote I don't think it's crazy to imagine that a web space that's universally used for people to sound off, and to post comments on others' contributions, could become recognized as a public space for First Amendment purposes. (IANAL) [1] http://www.aclunc.org/issues/freedom_of_press_and_speech/rights_of_demonstrators/location.shtml http://www.aclunc.org/issues/freedom_of_press_and_speech/rig...
tsotha 15y ago
I wonder why youtube would sign an agreement like that at all.. I'm guessing penalties for hosting copyrighted content are so severe they're trying to establish a legal trail to show they made every effort to comply with the law.

ck2 15y ago

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.

X-Istence 15y ago

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 15y ago
> 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.
- X-Istence 15y ago
  Yeah, I wasn't questioning that. I was simply stating it, one because I find it hard to believe that YouTube would sign such an agreement and second because it means an corporation can censor what they deem to be damaging for them.
- eftpotrm 15y ago
  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.

mikeknoop 15y ago

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.

binarymax 15y ago

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

pyre 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    Civil RICO gets ugly fast.

nextparadigms 15y ago

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.

chadzawistowski 15y ago
Maybe this is a trick to exploit the Streisand effect? It's in such close proximity to the SOPA hearings that I'm sure it will make waves regardless. If you can find an image of what the page looked like when initially blocked, it said "removed by UMG", using the group's initials. In the past, videos have been blocked under the name "Universal Music Group". Why the alternate name? Maybe someone other than UMG intentionally triggered this. Either to bring attention to SOPA or MegaUpload itself.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  If they can already do stuff like this, the damage done under SOPA in the next few years could be unimaginable. Now I really don't want SOPA to pass, even if it has 30 "improvements"/amendments. The content owners have clearly demonstrated us that they are not responsible enough to use such power over the Internet. It confirms what I've been thinking that even though they talk high and mighty that they do care about having an equal partnership with Silicon Valley and they want to help innovation, and freedom of speech - those are just words. They really don't give a f*ck about anything else. They just want supreme power to take down anything they don't like at will. Any new music oriented site or video site that don't pay them as much as they are getting now from their most lucrative businesses per unit of content, would be shut down at launch. Why bother with new business models that could be great for the consumer, but give you less revenue, when you can just maintain the status quo? And no wonder the TV cable companies want SOPA, too. If they had it in the past Youtube wouldn't exist now, and they wouldn't have had to create Hulu, which has been mainly a painful experience for them, because they really just want people to keep watching TV. Hulu was just a reaction to Youtube.

rmc 15y ago

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 15y ago

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 15y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

TheCapn 15y ago

"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 15y ago
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...)

smackfu 15y ago

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

cninja 15y ago

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.

Ryanmf 15y ago

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?

teyc 15y ago

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.