Slashdot Mirror
Google Deal Allegedly Lets UMG Wipe YouTube Videos It Doesn't Own
Sockatume writes "Ars Technica is reporting that Google has given music conglomerate UMG the right to arbitrarily eliminate YouTube videos. When UMG had Megaupload's 'Mega Song' removed from the site, it was assumed that they had made a DMCA claim, and that YouTube was responding under its 'safe harbor' obligations. Megaupload's legal response argues that UMG has no grounds to request a DMCA takedown. However in court filings (PDF), UMG claims that its licensing agreement with Google gives it the power and authority to unilaterally wipe videos from the site, bypassing the DMCA entirely. If true, that means that your activities on YouTube are not just curtailed by the law, but by the terms of their secret agreements with media conglomerates."
Big Content doesn't need a law to shut you down.
Again and again, Google proves that it's beholden to the big content publishers and does everything they ask. "Don't be evil," indeed.
How would it bite UMG in the ass? They made a deal with Google. You should blame Google for making such deals when they aren't required to.
I have to wonder if Google would agree with this. It's entirely possible (given that we do not have access to the agreement in question) that by one interpretation, it does allow UMG to do exactly that—but that this was never Google's intention.
It would be really fun to watch Google bring out the actual agreement and show how it doesn't, by a reasonable reading, permit this.
(And yeah, I know it's also possible that Google did, in fact, intend this, but in general, that seems unlikely, as it would be simply stupid for Google to allow something of that nature without heavy, heavy restrictions on it.)
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
I posted the solution in a comment to yesterday's story: leave YouTube behind.
Sounds like a reach around deal to me to keep each other happy. Youtube isn't a need or a right and they owe you nothing.
Can anyone recommend any Youtube alternatives that are just as fast and free storage and at the same time will not be bullied by UMG / MPAA / etc.?
Why wouldn't you expect that Google (a corporation) can control the content that you give them (youtube videos) any way they wanted?
You're giving them your content, common sense (maybe not so common?) dictates that they can control their service / business as they see fit.
Google has decided that their relationship with UMG is more important than their relationship with the users.
If you don't like it, boycott Google and all their services.
I would be amazed if Google truly signed an agreement with UMG that allowed UMG to basically shut down YouTube whenever they wanted. If there are no limits on UMG's ability to take down videos, why don't they just take down all the videos and eliminate youtube permanently?
UMG probably didn't want the public to know. If they took down everything, people would find out, protests would ensue, and ultimately Google would remove this "feature". However, my making it appear that the takedowns were a result of DMCA claims, nobody would be the wiser. Of course, they would have to selectively remove content, but they were probably removing a lot more than they could get away with using only the DMCA.
It's like the codebreaking that went on during World War II. The Allies had gobs of actionable intelligence but they couldn't act on everything because the Axis would know the codes were broken and switch to something more secure. The Allies resorted to stuff like planting a guy floating in the water with a suitcase full of secrets as a cover for how they learned what the Axis doing.
I'm astounded that people are, uh, astounded by this possibility. Do you seriously think posting things on YouTube is a right? The site is a service provided by a corporation and is almost certainly awash with "secret" agreements, just because of the subject matter of the site and how popular it is. I use sarcasm quotes for secret because Google has no obligation to disclose its contractual relationships with third parties because you, the user, aren't party to them.
Don't get me wrong, this is a pretty skeezy agreement, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that YouTube is different from any other business asset. Its operation is governed by a load of inter-party contracts, it is controlled with no external oversight, and it exists to make money. The only difference is that we are now both the resource and the consumer, and I don't think people have quite internalized the logical conclusion of that relationship. Google doesn't owe you anything or exist to safeguard some specious rights. Everything between you and them is business, nothing more and nothing less.
Lawsuit for what specifically? Why wouldn't Google have the right to take down content on it's websites at will? What law says they can't do this? I'm not saying Google or UMG is in the right ethically speaking, but everyone screaming, "ZOMG LAWSUIT!!!!!111oneoneone" is rather pointless.
What law is being violated if this isn't using the DMCA? Since when does Google have any legal obligation to host your videos? They can remove any video they want for any reason they want.
You underestimate the laziness and complacency of the average internet user
And let's face it, most of the videos up there have a copyright-infringing music track. I made an infringing video with over a million views, and it's still up. Then I made an infringing happy-father's-day video for my dad which was NOT publicly posted, and it was taken down within 2 hours. Probably because it was a Beatles track (he is a boomer after all).
Anyways, my point is, policing youtube is a herculean task. Since the DMCA gives all the power to copyright holders anyways, I can see why google would want to shirk the costs of enforcement.
Just theoretically ... not knowing what I'm talking about, I might guess that MegaUpload probably has a basis for claiming that they are competition. Such a secret agreement, if it existed, would be in violation of antitrust laws.
It wouldn't give you anything against Google, probably, but it definitely would give you something against the media overlords.
The thing to do, actually, would be to search out all *others* who had similar problems, if they existed, and file a joint lawsuit. No, not class action -- only the lawyers benefit from that. Just a joint lawsuit.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
And I've never paid for any YouTube. At least not to see anything.
So better than complaining that free stuff has secrets, we'll complain that the secrets deny us free stuff?
If you want free speech, don't look to corporations to provide it. Eventually, this will come to the point where you'll pick up your truly free speech from a peer-to-peer connection, like a WiFi hotspot somewhere you happen to 'know about', then from phone to phone, or in the cafe. At least until they figure out how to block those outlets.
We are in the fight of our lives, to ensure we can preserve our freedom of speech, assembly, and redress. There is no assurance that we will prevail, either. It's a lot easier to suppress speech when it is under the guise of protecting other rights, despite those being largely the rights of corporations - as if they should have any. But that's another fight. Sort of.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Its a private website, Google is not required to host your content, nor to be unbiased about what content they show, nor are they forbidden from shopping your videos, or taking them down, or deleting them, or killing your whole google account if they want.
You need to take a step back and remember that "free video hosting by google" is not a constitutional right.
This alleged agreement isn't in conflict with the DMCA. The DMCA says that if you own some copyrighted material, and service provider's customer puts up content that infringes it, and you allege that it's a copyright violation, the service provider has to take down the content to avoid having you sue them, and if the content provider counters that it's not a violation, the service provider can put the content back up without risk of you suing them, until you give them more paperwork to make them take it down again. (I think "more paperwork" is defined as some kind of copyright infringement lawsuit against the alleged infringer, but I haven't looked at it in a while.)
UMG is alleging that their agreement with Google lets them demand that content to be taken down without there being a copyright violation. You can't do that, because you don't have that kind of agreement with Google and you don't have a law that lets you do it. It's not in conflict with the DMCA, though it may be in conflict with common sense or "not being evil", and UMG may be using it in ways that count as restraint of trade or are otherwise illegal or unethical, but that's not the DMCA's problem.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
This, by the way, very nicely shows how oppression works in a corporate-dominated words. There's no government censorship, everyone is just exercising their right to control their private property. It just so happens that all effective soap boxes are private, and building your own that would reach any significant audience is prohibitively expensive - and, in the meantime, you'll be drowned out long before you can make a point and be heard.
The full motto is 'Don't be evil to your customers.'.
UMG is their customer - Google isn't being evil to them - so where's the problem.
True, but a false claim of copyright violation ("this video was taken down because we accuse the poster of violating the law") can be libel. Someone doing a background check could come to the conclusion that the person they're checking cannot be trusted with copyrighted or confidential material, and make an employment decision on that basis. That could get expensive.
Violation of copyright isn't cool. Lying about someone is beyond that, though, and a lawyer making a reckless or false claim should be punished.
...is the fact US government probably can not remove a video from Youtube like this (and without generating huge shitstorm).
But a corporation can.
Welcome to the bright future.