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.
This is the start of UMG's war against cats doing funny things
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.
So, does this mean that a corporate agreement can trump a national law? Not arguing if the law is good or bad, but allowing a corporate agreement an end-around to a law seems, well, illegal.
They don't want YouTube to disappear, because they want to make money off of it. However, they also want to keep Google under their thumbs, and Google will comply like they always do because they're wholly dependent on content publishers in order to have content to put ads around.
Yes, because there obviously is no way for YouTube to reverse damage like that. If UMG chooses to abuse, I'm sure they will just say "Well, that was it. Let's go home guys." instead of, you know, undoing the action.
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.
Lawsuit. Google as well. In fact, if I was Megaload, I'd be suing both of them.
Sue on what grounds? They took an action that is within their TOS that you agreed to. What is your basis for harm? Would a judgement refunding your full subscription price of a full service make you happy?
There is plenty to dislike about this story, but responses to stupid actions do not need to include even stupider actions.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
...The one you read and agreed to before uploading content to YouTube, and then there's the "secret" TOS you aren't allowed to read and agree to before uploading content to YouTube, yet you are held to both?
Methinks YouTube will have some 'splainin' to do to a judge as to how that's OK when all others must disclose their entire TOS.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I think Google needs to rethink either its corporate behaviour or its motto, because the two do not happily coexist.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
"Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor acts to prevent the plaintiff from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships. This tort may occur when a first party's conduct intentionally causes a second party not to enter into a business relationship with a third party that otherwise would probably have occurred. Such conduct is termed tortious interference with prospective business relations, expectations, or advantage or with prospective economic advantage."
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.
You underestimate the laziness and complacency of the average internet user
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.
That is the best name for a CIO ever.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
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.
Megaupload's song was removed from Vimeo as well as Youtube. Does that mean that Vimeo has a similar agreement in place, or was that one an actual DMCA takedown?
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.
Megaupload is a business, and this video is basically an ad for them. UMG is claiming that they've got an agreement that lets them shut down content they don't like, and they're using it to shut down ads for their semi-competition, similar to paying a newspaper or TV station not to carry ads for competitors. IANAL, and I don't know how strong a lawsuit that gives them, but it should at least be enough to subpoena the shutdown requests and the alleged agreement between UMG and YouTube. If the shutdown requests allege violation of copyright, then they're also on the hook for libel.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Fair Use. In other words, if UMG bought the copyright to "Happy Birthday", how many vids from YouTube would suddenly be taken down?
Fair use still doesn't matter. It is Google's property. It makes them giant assholes, but they didn't break any fair use or other laws.
According to this article on TorrentFreak: http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-video-reinstated-universal-says-you-cant-touch-us-111216/
The video is back. Google gave UMG an ultimatum: Show us a reason it should be pulled, or it's going back up. UMG didn't respond.
Google seem to be trying their best to the biggest douches on the net. I think I can safely say I won't be buying another Android phone again and I'm going to start migrating off of Gmail. I've already started using DuckDuckGo for all my searching.
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.
1) Message claimed that video was blocked on "copyright grounds". Not on grounds of deal with Youtube.
2) Does UMG have the same deal with Vimeo?
Google could do almost anything that it wanted to with respect to its own service by itself. Google is somewhat limited in what it can do with its own service through contracts with others. Moreso when one content provider seeks by contract to obtain the power to exlude other content providers from participating in Google's generally "open" service. The law -- section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, among others, limits how and to what extend you can do that.
Partnering with "all" content providers to generate money from content, and then permitting certain privileged content providers to have content from other content providers removed for private reasons strikes people as sketchy. I'd love to see the "rule of reason" analysis that prevents this from being an antitrust violation.
Waiting for the first Big Content vs. Big Content YouTube war!
That is, when one Big Content company that has this agreement with YouTube declares war on another Big Content company that has the same agreement with YouTube, and they take down all of each other's content.
Wait a minute.... wouldn't we wind-up with YouTube as originally envisioned?
The only way to win this game is to not play at all...
Pure capitalism has neither government oversight nor regulation. No nation has implemented such a thing and for good reason. Business acts absent ethics. The only way to elicit an alternative behavior is to regulate it in such a way as to make following desired behavior more profitable.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Would a judgement refunding your full subscription price of a free service make you happy?
There. Fixed that for me.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
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
Why wouldn't Google have the right to take down content on it's websites at will?
By doing so, they have demonstrated that they can exact editorial control over the content of videos. Meaning that they are now responsible for the content of every single video posted to YouTube.
Since google is required to respond to DMCA takedown notices anyways, does this even change anything?
Yes. Under the absolutely shitty terms of this agreement, the user is not allowed to respond like they are under the DMCA.
Shhhh..... Don't give them any ideas.
It took me a while to find this story
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/09/13/1811250/Hotfile-Sues-Warner-Bros-Over-Abuse-of-Takedown-Tool
The record labels were caught abusing the anti-piracy tools that Google gave them to police their own content.
I produced corporate videos. We properly licensed a piece of classical music for online use in a video from a major orchestra who specialise in tracks for companies such as ours.
When the video was uploaded Youtube slapped adverts all over it due to a copyright claim from UMG.
Our complaints and appeals to Youtube were ignored and in the end we ended up having to change the music. We even had assurances from the orchestra itself that UMG had no claim at all
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.
one of those asshole dump trucks that drives around dropping 2" pieces of rock out the back and has a sign affixed to it proclaiming "Not Responsible For Broken Windshields".
I love those asshole dump trucks!
Every time I see one, I throw a rock through their windshield.
You're confusing legality and morality here.
True, but feeling outraged by a bias is perfectly legitimate, and informs your decisions about whether to use a service. How would you feel if it were revealed that Slashdot had been secretly owned Apple for several years?
Taking down content at will which does not infringe on copyright means they could lose safe harbor protections because they are no longer a mere conduit for user-generated content.
:(){
In the Matrix, machines depend on humans for energy - that's just a metaphor.
Google's energy is content. Google keeps humans happy by providing them a lot of freebies. The whole purpose of the human race is to create content for google to index, serve etc.
Welcome to the Matrix.
IMO: complaining is one thing, posting mis-information is another.
But, in any case, nobody has denied you the "right" to do either.
Pay for your own website, and host your own content, if you don't like Google.
Nobody is censoring you. Please stop lying.
If YouTube has contract agreements that allow 3rd parties to actively monitor and approve posts, doesn't that invalidate its safe harbor status?
So if what you just posted was removed from Slashdot because of an agreement with Microsoft you wouldn't mind?
According TFA it's a secret agreement. That does not mean that UMG can do anything it wants.
What you describe is libertarianism, and Randism.
capitalism can be implemented different ways.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Google: Do no evil, unless contractually obligated, then it's okay.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
J. YouTube reserves the right to discontinue any aspect of the Service at any time.
What a bastard this "J. YouTube" fellow is!
Does the "J" stand for "John" or for "Jerk"?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Well this sucks, I already deleted all my Youtube channels and one was pretty big because they wanted me to connect my accounts and wanted my cell number, no thanks. So Youtube is out and Vimeo and Dailymotion is in BUT what the hell do I use instead of Google seach?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
...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.
Our partners do not have broad take-down rights to remove anything they don’t like from our service. In limited cases, if they so choose, and based on exclusive agreements with their artists, partners can take down live performances.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/01463417102/explanation-why-umg-may-be-right-that-it-can-pull-down-megauploads-video.shtml
So are this seems to be a question of UMG behaving like thugs (and who is surprised about that?) and their seeming ability to take down anything that they don't like on YouTube without resorting the the DMCA and the requirements and penalties for misuse of same. The unasked question is: And who else also has this ability wrt YouTube via secret agreements?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."