civver_764
Deity
Yup this only makes me feel better about myself when I pirate from the likes of these ******.
Universal Music Group can take down YouTube videos, even if they don't hold copyright
- Thread starter Mise
- Start date
Now even more
. Streisand effect. I bet nobody has really heard of that song before.10/month, and i'll delete any users posts on request!
Hey, don't look at it me! If you pay you'll get whatever you want!
SouthernKing
crickety cricket
Things like these only want to make me pirate even more.
What does the contract do to me? If I want to see a video, YouTube may be the first place I go and if it is not there, I will search elsewhere.
How much do you charge to alter any users posts as I request?
CFC has the right to implement such a policy if they want to. I and many others would probably stop visiting the forums because we disagree with the policy, but that doesn't make the policy invalid.
Depends on the content, and who bids most.
But I think we can agree that it would be a bad policy, right?
Oh, and now back ontopic:
[URL="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/youtube-universal-megaupload/"]Wired: YouTube Says Universal Had No ‘Right’ to Take Down Megaupload Video[/URL] said:
Seems there was no such agreement.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Of two possibilities
A. Universal is lying, and submitted fake claims.
B. YouTube has just been exposed for engaging in backdoor dealing that, while legitimate, still involves lying to the public and to their users. (Remember, they told MegaUpload - and the world - that the video had been removed due to a copyright notice
Both of these possibilities are disquieting. One, when Universal is pushing for a law enablign them to do even more on a copyright claim. The other, when you ask the question, who ELSE is going to be able to hide secret agreements and ulterior motives under the claim of "receiving copyright notice"?
The government?
A. Universal is lying, and submitted fake claims.
B. YouTube has just been exposed for engaging in backdoor dealing that, while legitimate, still involves lying to the public and to their users. (Remember, they told MegaUpload - and the world - that the video had been removed due to a copyright notice
Both of these possibilities are disquieting. One, when Universal is pushing for a law enablign them to do even more on a copyright claim. The other, when you ask the question, who ELSE is going to be able to hide secret agreements and ulterior motives under the claim of "receiving copyright notice"?
The government?
NickyJ
Retired Narrator
Meh, I'm split. On the one hand, I don't like the idea of Youtube taking down just anything some other corporation wants to be taken down. On the other hand, YouTube signed a contract, and is simply enforcing it.
Spoiler :
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Wait, you mean we live in a capitalist society? When did that happen!? 
I mean, yeah, it's crooked as hell, but it's a crooked game. What can you expect but crooked players?
I mean, yeah, it's crooked as hell, but it's a crooked game. What can you expect but crooked players?
Akka
Moody old mage.
It's not because it's unsurprising that it should be considered okay.
What, did you think we imagined we were living in the Carebear world ? We're not. We're still allowed to react to things we consider bad - in fact it's better if we do, because these happens only when people let them happen, so the more people react, the more they can keep shady behaviour at bay, and the day they take a blasé stance and just shrug, they let these things advance and are even more subjected to them..
What, did you think we imagined we were living in the Carebear world ? We're not. We're still allowed to react to things we consider bad - in fact it's better if we do, because these happens only when people let them happen, so the more people react, the more they can keep shady behaviour at bay, and the day they take a blasé stance and just shrug, they let these things advance and are even more subjected to them..
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I entirely agree- that's why I'm a communist. 
I just don't think that this stands out above all the other cons being played in the world. As I said, it's crooked as hell, and is rightly condemned as such, but that just makes it par for the course in this lovely world of ours.
(Although I should say that I do find it to be an interesting case for other reasons, so thanks to Mise for posting it. Don't want to come across as too jaded!)
I just don't think that this stands out above all the other cons being played in the world. As I said, it's crooked as hell, and is rightly condemned as such, but that just makes it par for the course in this lovely world of ours.(Although I should say that I do find it to be an interesting case for other reasons, so thanks to Mise for posting it. Don't want to come across as too jaded!)
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
To repeat what I said: IF this is indeed a contract - and YouTube say it's not - then the problem is YouTube pretendign this was a copyright claim and trying to pass it off as usual business.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
The only problem I can imagine here is if UMG submits legal threats to YouTube if they refuse to take down videos not containing UMG content. If it's a voluntary relationship, it's fine, but once they start sending out the legal papers... not so much.
I do not see what is scary about this. Getting your video hosted on YouTube is not a human right. I would have expected you, of all people, to realize this. What is scary is how people have started perceiving YouTube as some neutral, public, non-profit organization service operating in general interests it absolutely is not.
Mise
isle of lucy
Again, I never said that using YouTube was a right or that it should always be free and equal. I see it similarly to if they had started charging for their service: they're well within their rights to do that, but I would be similarly pissed off. What makes this scary, and not just off-pissing, is that it happened through the back door.
As a believer in the free market, I believe in the free market's ability to respond to consumer demand. I believe in the power of shareholder activism on one side and consumer activism on the other. I believe in empowering market agents to act in response to new information. And I believe in information freedom, in order that people can make informed decisions on which service to use. There are countless examples of consumers ditching a company if they believe that the company is doing things they find wrong, but not explicitly illegal. Many people have said, "just use a different service if it pisses you off." Well, duh... But those same people are using the fact that they could use a different service to justify the fact that they're not pissed off in the first place...
I don't like the (general) argument that just because something is settled in a contract it somehow becomes legal and/or ethical. Contracts already have strict limits on what they can impose (you can't sell yourself into quasi-slavery for instance), and that with good reason. In this case, two large corporations conspiring to censure material is certainly a big deal. And simply saying one can move to other platforms is quite naive, seeing how dominant some of the big players are..
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I've always though that "consumer activism" is a bit like when Medieval serfs used to have rebellions with the intention of installing a better overlord.
Well this is not a copyright problem, this is an anti-competition problem. It is unsettling, but the only way this could be unenforceable is via some sort of anti-trust violation. Certainly, YouTube's huge presence in the online video market magnifies any anti-competitive behavior they engage in. E.g., if youtube pulls your video, goodbye to a huge chunk of viewers. Sounds like a good law school exam question...
