Universal Music Group can take down YouTube videos, even if they don't hold copyright

[Mise]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...e-right-to-block-or-remove-youtube-videos.ars

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

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 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.
...
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."
...

MegaUpload made a video featuring a whole bunch of pop-stars saying how awesome the MegaUpload video service is, in response to criticism from the music industry that it enables piracy. That video was uploaded to YouTube, where it got famous. The video was later pulled from YouTube following a request from UMG. It was initially believed that the request was filed under the DMCA, in which case, UMG may have acted illegally. MegaUpload sued UMG for abusing the DMCA takedown process, an offense for which UMG would have been required to pay damages to MegaUpload if found guilty. However, UMG have now said that the takedown request was not under the DMCA, but rather, via a private contractual agreement between UMG and YouTube. The details of that agreement are not public. But if I were to speculate, I would say that the agreement allows UMG to take down videos if it harms their brand or undermines their sales, or something like that.

Essentially, a large, private corporation has agreed with another large, private corporation that they can remove videos of other, private individuals, arbitrarily and without legal recourse. Now, presumably, the legality of such an agreement is what will be questioned when MegaUpload sues UMG, but I think we can all agree that this is pretty scary. For example, let's say you open a coffee shop in a mall. Can Starbucks make an agreement with the owner of the mall that your coffee shop is not allowed to advertise itself? Can Starbucks pay the mall to prevent your coffee shop from advertising in the mall? Doesn't seem right to me.

 

[The_J]

This is...outrageous.
Now you know where the scifi authors get their visions of the future, where the world is controled by evil mega corporations.

I hope Megaupload kicks their butt. They're big enough to draw some attention to it and to potentially win it. Just think this happened to some smaller company, nobody would have ever known, because of the lack of defense possibilities.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Just when I thought the copyright wars couldn't get any stupider.

* And by "stupid", I mean "friggin' scary".

 

[Maniacal]

Viacom took down the Official trailer for the game "Last of Us" which was hosted on youtube but posted on the developer's website (Naughty Dog) too, as wel las any video even loosely connected to the craptastic and embarrasing VGAs on SPike. It is kind of ridiculous how many videos they claim to own and pull down, even if the content isn't owned by them.

 

[innonimatu]

Good. People rely too much on mega-corporations for their communication. Let them start seeing the problems with it.

And, for the record, I think that they should have every right to strike such deals. Youtube is not a provider of services to viewing customers, it's an advertisement/propaganda/data collection service for which both posters and viewers are the product. The paying clients are the other mega-corporations, governments and suchlike.

caveat utilitor.

 

[stormerne]

YouTube is a business. Uploading to YouTube is not a right for anyone; it's a privilege granted by YouTube. It won't grant that privilege to anyone who is likely to harm that business.

YouTube is not in the business of providing a free video service. Really. It's in the business of selling audiences to advertisers. It simply catches the audience with its video service.

As has been said many times elsewhere, "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold." So if you don't like being a product, go elsewhere and use a different service, or make one yourself.

 

[emzie]

I think it's more along the lines that YouTube can take videos off YouTube for whatever reasons YouTube wants. That doesn't seem outrageous.

 

[NYHunter]

I have no problem with such contracts. And I definitely don't view them as scary. If people don't like that Youtube makes private contracts then maybe they shouldn't use Youtube.

 

[innonimatu]

I have no problem with such contracts. And I definitely don't view them as scary. If people don't like that Youtube makes private contracts then maybe they shouldn't use Youtube.

Oh, they are scary all right, because most people do understand, or care, how this worlds and think that they're getting some kind of neutral service from there.

 

[MantaRevan]

YouTube has the right to take down whatever they don't want on their site. It's unfortunate that this is happening, but all in all(you're just a brick in the wall) it's YouTube's right as a cooperation.

 

[Old Hippy]

CIV players should not be surprised
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public"

 

[Maniacal]

Er, YouTube doesn't really care about these videos, they aren't the ones demanding they get removed. UMG, Sony, Viacom and other companies are the ones demanding it get removed. Even, as in the case of the Megaupload song, when they don't own the rights to anything in the video!

EDIT: I just had to download something off of Megaupload, and it popped up a link (despite Opera's pop-upblocker...) right to another upload of the video


Link to video.

It is such a terrible song, but that isn't the point of it. It is a great advertisement for Megaupload though XD

 

[say1988]

Er, YouTube doesn't really care about these videos, they aren't the ones demanding they get removed.

YouTube may not directly care about these videos, but Google cares about its relationship with major corporations and the threat of lawsuits (even if it would win them). And the companies that Google cares about care about these videos.

Even, as in the case of the Megaupload song, when they don't own the rights to anything in the video!

So? YouTube has every legal right to remove whatever content that it wants to remove. How they choose to determine that is their decision. They provide people with a free service. They are not obligated to provide this service to any individual and have every right to choose how it is delivered.

Do I disagree with this policy? Yes. Should they be able to implement this policy? Yes.

 

[Maniacal]

So? YouTube has every legal right to remove whatever content that it wants to remove. How they choose to determine that is their decision. They provide people with a free service. They are not obligated to provide this service to any individual and have every right to choose how it is delivered.

Do I disagree with this policy? Yes. Should they be able to implement this policy? Yes.

While they do have that right that is NOT the point made at all in the article or the problem. The problem is that corporations are removing content that they do not own under the pretense that they do. No one from Youtube/Google is actually manually removing it anymore either, most of these claims from the big companies are streamlined and partially automated.

EDIT: Just like in my other example of Viacom removing the trailer for Last of Us, Viacom had employees scouring YouTube for any uplaoded videos of anything that was played during the VGAs, and among the things they removed were videos from Naughty Dog's official channel which they have no business removing (it is also the property of Sony, and not Viacom).

 

[GenMarshall]

The stupidity of corporations starts to show it's colors.

 

[say1988]

The problem is that corporations are removing content that they do not own under the pretense that they do

The article says no such thing. It only says that Megaupload assumed it was a copyright claim. As for a company removing content it doesn't own, they have every right to request for whatever they want to be removed, and Google has every right to agree to it.

Just like in my other example of Viacom removing the trailer for Last of Us, Viacom had employees scouring YouTube for any uplaoded videos of anything that was played during the VGAs, and among the things they removed were videos from Naughty Dog's official channel which they have no business removing (it is also the property of Sony, and not Viacom).

This depends on the agreement between Sony and Viacom.

 

[Maniacal]

Somehow I completely misread to read the part in the article about the contractual agreement. Derp a herp my bad.

 

[JollyRoger]

YouTube entered a private contract that is being enforced. What's the problem?

 

[Mise]

I have no problem with such contracts. And I definitely don't view them as scary. If people don't like that Youtube makes private contracts then maybe they shouldn't use Youtube.

Personally I hope people start using MegaUpload instead. Would be pretty funny.

Anyway, a lot of people have said "use a different service". That's what I hope will happen - that there is enough competition and the market is free enough that competitors such as MegaUpload and Vimeo can take market share from YouTube if it continues to piss people off. But what I don't understand is why people aren't pissed off by it... I mean, what if this was about overcharging? What if YouTube started charging people to upload or view videos: I would agree that this is perfectly within their rights as a private business, and they shouldn't be forced to remain free. But I would still be pissed off. And I'd switch to a different provider. So why aren't people more pissed off about this? You may not have a problem with the concept of a contract between two companies, but you can surely still have a problem with a particular contract and its implications for you as an individual...

 

[Akka]

And people wonder why so many don't give a crap about piracy and even support it ?

Here you have a solid first part of the answer.