YouTube Says UMG Had No 'Right' To Take Down Megaupload Video

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube Says UMG Had No 'Right' To Take Down Megaupload Video

Posted by timothy on Saturday December 17, 2011 @04:36AM from the layered-agreements dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Contrary to a previous story, Google played no part in the Megaupload takedown. From Wired: 'YouTube said Friday that Universal Music abused the video-sharing site's piracy filters when it employed them to take down a controversial video of celebrities and pop superstars singing and praising the notorious file-sharing service Megaupload.'"

220 comments

Google shouldn't had given them such right by InsightIn140Bytes · 2011-12-17 04:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

.. to begin with. That's just incompetent management. I don't have the right to delete anyones video at whim either, so why should big companies. Google needs to start running it's business better and hire people to process DMCA request. The worst thing is that they're doing much of this automatically. They have algorithms that look for the url from DMCA requests and automatically disables the video and sends the owner message. That just allows for abuse.
1. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2011-12-17 04:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The DMCA itself is what "allows for abuse". The law was written so that site operators are required to take down if they receive a DMCA notice. BTW, have you seen the new "tell your Congresscritter to vote for SOPA/Protect IP commercials? Pack of outrageous lies -- like "stolen TV shows are costing American jobs".
2. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 04:48 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  "and hire people to process DMCA request."
  This wasn't a DMCA request.
3. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by InsightIn140Bytes · 2011-12-17 04:49 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  DMCA itself is good. DMCA allows website owners protection against liability if some user of the service spreads copyright infringing content. It also puts liability against fake DMCA notices. Itself, DMCA is better thing than not to have it, because otherwise website owners would be liable for the action their users take.
  
  Now, SOPA/Protect IP is a completely different matter, and should not be passed.
4. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by InsightIn140Bytes · 2011-12-17 04:50 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  "and hire people to process DMCA request."
  This wasn't a DMCA request.
  That special access was given to Universal so that they wouldn't need to hire people to process DMCA requests.
5. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by AngryDeuce · 2011-12-17 04:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It also puts liability against fake DMCA notices.
  Not nearly enough to prevent abuse, though. There needs to be a financial penalty for obviously illegitimate DMCA claims. Fair Use seems not to mean a damn thing to them...
6. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 05:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  DMCA itself is good. DMCA allows website owners protection against liability if some user of the service spreads copyright infringing content. It also puts liability against fake DMCA notices. Itself, DMCA is better thing than not to have it, because otherwise website owners would be liable for the action their users take.
  Now, SOPA/Protect IP is a completely different matter, and should not be passed.
  No, DMCA itself is not good.
  Did you know that to be entitled for the DMCA 'safe harbor' you need to be REGISTERED FOR THE PROTECTION? If you are not registered for this DMCA safe harbor, anyone can sue you and you get no protection whatsoever.
7. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by betterunixthanunix · 2011-12-17 05:04 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  There are some good sections of the DMCA -- safe harbor provisions, specific protections for researchers, etc. Some good sections, but then there are the sections that need to be repealed as soon as humanly possible. The anti-circumvention provisions are nothing more than a hand-out to the copyright lobby, the blurring of software and hardware implementations severely restrict an entire class of otherwise protected speech, and the take-down-notice procedure has been widely abused.
  
  In all, no DMCA would have been better -- at least the public would have seen just how out-of-control copyright has become when their favorite websites were driven out of business by lawsuits. Right now the public is shielded from the consequences of overly-broad copyright -- only the hackers and intellectuals who do not fit the mold suffer. If we could keep only the good parts of the DMCA and get rid of the bad, that would be ideal -- yet without broad public support, that will never happen, and as long as it is only the hackers who suffer, there will never be such support.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
8. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 05:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Until there's a fine for fake DMCA takedown notices, the DMCA is broken and nothing more than a tool for massive faceless corporations to take down anything they like. Each time a corporation issues a misleading DMCA notice, and it's disputed, there should be a name and shame counter clocking on. Once it reaches a predetermined mark, the fine amounts should double. Sooner or later, this will be more expensive than the army of legal people abusing the system. Until there's a penalty that hurts the mega-corps' pockets, the DMCA will continue to be a tool against the small company or individual.
9. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Baloroth · 2011-12-17 05:07 · Score: 1, Redundant
  
  Exactly. The special access system is designed to fulfill Google's obligations under the DMCA. That makes this a DMCA takedown request under any reasonable definition of the term.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
10. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2011-12-17 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  why are you talking about the DMCA giving UMG the right to do this?
  It's YouTube. Youtube's letting them do this.
  Granted, it's due to DMCA threats but... The fact that there isn't any oversight on YouTube/google's part is scary.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
11. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2011-12-17 05:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You make it sound as though site operators have some kind of leeway regarding DMCA takedown notices - they don't - either they take it down, immediately, or they are in violation as well as the original poster.
12. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by InsightIn140Bytes · 2011-12-17 05:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  There is already heavy penalty for fake DMCA notices. It does require you to go to court to fight it, but you can't just assume that the original party should get penalty when it's only disputed. Remember that you have to look at it from the other side too. If someone was violating your GPL software and you sent the site hosting it DMCA notice, and the other party disputed it, you would now get financial penalty. We have courts to determine legal fights, and they give consequences for wrongful doing.
13. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  The DMCA requires the process to be automated... I'm glad I live in a (still) free(er) country...
14. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anthony+Mouse · 2011-12-17 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  DMCA itself is good.
  No it isn't. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is good. The fact that the CDA doesn't cover "intellectual property" in the same way it does everything else is what the problem is.
15. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 05:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There is already heavy penalty for fake DMCA notices. It does require you to go to court to fight it, but you can't just assume that the original party should get penalty when it's only disputed.
  Why not? They take down the content when it is only disputed. Why should one side have to provide proof when the other doesn't?
16. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by InsightIn140Bytes · 2011-12-17 05:16 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The DMCA requires the process to be automated
  No it doesn't. Hell, some sites only allow you to send DMCA notices by postal mail to their designated copyright agent (and this is the correct way to read DMCA law). Interestingly, Megavideo is one such site. You have to send your DMCA notice by mail to Hong Kong based address.
17. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe read rest of his post?
18. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by AngryDeuce · 2011-12-17 05:22 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Exactly. If they weren't just yanking down whatever the fuck they wanted to with impunity then there would be no issue. There isn't even a human being involved in the process as it is used now, a computer program scans for matches, and if something hits, it's automatically pulled down, even when it is clearly Fair Use. They obviously are abusing their power to pull videos without considering whether it is legally infringing or not.
19. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by InsightIn140Bytes · 2011-12-17 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Which goes back to the original point that Google should just hire humans to process DMCA notices. This isn't fault in DMCA, this is fault in Google and YouTube.
20. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 05:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Mod up. As someone who has done hosting for the past 15+ years, we have seen our share of DMCA-related requests coming from subcontractors (on behalf of large names like Atari, Nintendo, Sega, etc.) behaving exactly as the parent here says -- site operators are forced to take content down within 24-48 hours or are in violation. Refusal or ignoring the request will result in most of them reaching out to your co-location provider or uplink and demanding your entire connection be shut off. And that really gets folks' attention (including the co-lo or uplink provider considering terminating your contract on the spot, depending on how the takedown notice is phrased).
  TL;DR -- do not even for a moment think that the DMCA provides any sort of "safe-harbour" clauses for site operators/hosting providers. We are in the same shit-filled boat as the rest of the Internet. Set sail for dick.
21. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by ScrewMaster · 2011-12-17 05:29 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  DMCA itself is good.
  +5 Insightful? "DMCA itself is good"? Are you serous? It most definitely is not "good": that abomination should never, ever have been signed into law in its current form. Have you read it? If not, I suggest you do. Yes, SOPA is worse, but keep in mind that an MPAA law firm wrote the DMCA, and handed the thing to their tame Congressman for submission. We know this because a reporter extracted the metadata from the original Word document, and found the names of all the attorneys that had modified or reviewed it. It was not designed to balanced or fair, or to be a reasonable augmentation to copyright to accommodate technological advances. It was, purely and simply, all they thought they could get away with at the time. Look at the history of copyright extension in the U.S. the DMCA was only one of a long line of unholy modifications to copyright law that have done nothing but screw the American people, harm the public domain, and tie up an incredible quantity of court time on issues that often have nothing to do with copyright! It's an excellent period in U.S. history to become an "intellectual property" (whatever the Hell that actually means) lawyer, I suppose. That's another reason why these laws get passed: certain sectors of the legal profession make a lot of money.
  
  So now, a decade down the road, they're pulling out all the stops, buying all the Congresspeople they can, to finally and permanently remove copyright from its Constitutionally-mandated role to "promote the advancement of the useful arts and sciences." Remember who you are dealing with here: you cannot argue with them, you cannot reason with them, and they absolutely will not stop. Period. End of statement.
  
  Personally, I believe the practice of public officials taking bribes from foreign-owned corporations should be considered treasonous. But that's just me. I also have a fond wish that the Department of Justice would expel the ex-RIAA attorneys that our friend and savior Barack Obama appointed, and go after the corporations and corrupt Federal officials that have turned our patent and copyright systems into a corporatist welfare system.
  
  I don't expect to get much joy there either.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
22. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by cvtan · 2011-12-17 05:39 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  "I don't have the right to delete anyones video at whim either, so why should big companies. "
  That's right. Because a company is considered equivalent to a person like you and... Oh wait. Never mind!
  
  --
  Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
23. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Bob9113 · 2011-12-17 05:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  DMCA is better thing than not to have it, because otherwise website owners would be liable for the action their users take.
  The DMCA is a shit sandwich on good bread. The good bread doesn't make it a good sandwich. Websites that enable the public to distribute information are a Good Thing, and tossing them to the wolves to protect a copy of The Lion King does not make economic sense. The acceptance of the DMCA by a 2m+ user ID is a startlingly good example of The Overton Window in action (or you are a shill -- not unlikely given your quick +5 for that empty comment). Until we see some serious punishment for one of the serial abusers of the DMCA, it cannot remotely be considered a law in the public interest. It is a weapon of abuse, exactly as so many of us warned it would be when it was getting shoved down our throats, and exactly as so many of us are warning about SOPA now. The fact that they are now even bigger bastards wanting to be even more abusive to protect their little industry does not make the DMCA good.
  Quick question: If you had to give up the Internet for a year, or had to give up TV, music, and movies for a year, which would you do? I suspect the answer is, "I could not give up the Internet for a year, because it would cost me my job." We are protecting (poorly, I might add) one small industry at the expense of the most important technological advance in history, which is instrumental to every other industry and even to the small industry that is being protecting. The past 15 years of copyright law have been a nearly unmitigated loss for United States and global economic progress. To pretend otherwise is to betray a lack of sober reflection or understanding of the bigger picture.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
24. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Stiletto · 2011-12-17 05:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "Costing American Jobs" is simply today's "Supporting Terrorism". If you want to convince idiot voters to oppose something, just tell them that it TAKES AWAY JOBS!
25. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2011-12-17 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  they wouldn't need to hire people to process DMCA requests
  But... but... job creators...
  
  --
  Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
26. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by russotto · 2011-12-17 05:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  DMCA itself is good. DMCA allows website owners protection against liability if some user of the service spreads copyright infringing content.
  Liability which wasn't there pre-DMCA, see RTC v. Netcom
  The DMCA was a case of copyright owners giving up what they never had in order to get something they wanted, namely the takedown process. When the takedown process proved insufficient, they just grabbed more (automated content filtering, and now SOPA and PROTECT-IP)
27. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by arbiter1 · 2011-12-17 05:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  They even used the DMCA removal tool on a streaming news program that uploads their videos to youtube when they had a clip of the video on their show and talked and Criticized it. Show in question is called TNT (Tech News Today). Its a week day program on Twit.tv. UMG claimed copyright in that video even though they used the clip under the fair use provision to discuss the story and comment. Clear violation of of the Fair Use Act that reads "Section (V) is similar to a broader version of the third prong of fair use and allows circumvention that enables access to public interest works for the purposes of "criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research." Since they are a News program.
28. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Local+ID10T · 2011-12-17 06:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You miss the point. Google is required by law to take down anything that a DMCA notice is filed against. It is irrelevant whether the DMCA notice is correct or not. The law states that they MUST TAKE IT DOWN. It is up to the owner to file a DMCA counter-notice to have it put back -at which point it legally becomes an issue between the poster, and the filer of the DMCA notice to resolve in court -leaving Google out of it.
  Having humans employed to process the DMCA notices would not change the fact that they are required to take it down, irrespective of their feelings on the validity of the notice.
  
  --
  "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
29. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Every sentence in that above paragraph is a lie. There's a special place in hell for idiots like you.
30. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by NicknameOne · 2011-12-17 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  You are directly contradicting your top comment. I'm surprised that Microsoft would employ such an idiot as you for their marketing purposes. It's a new low for Microsoft. Oh well...
31. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Endo13 · 2011-12-17 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Because a company is considered equivalent to a person like you
  Yes, they are, in many ways they shouldn't be. And they keep pushing those limits all the time.
  Nice try, troll.
  
  --
  There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
32. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Sponge+Bath · 2011-12-17 06:26 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Pirates took err jerbs!
33. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by NicknameOne · 2011-12-17 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  DMCA is designed to make it easy for content owners and make it difficult for YouTube to have oversight. Do you know how many people Google has to hire to police the insane false requests of content owners? Exactly. It's not feasible. Idiots like you blaming the wrong people are not helping. If you are really concerned, go talk to your representative and change the law.
34. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  "There is already heavy penalty for fake DMCA notices."
  The penalty is hardly heavy enough. It's small and pales in comparison to the potential penalties for infringement. Those penalties need to be expanded and they need to be greater than the penalties for infringement, especially given that an IP holder is in a better position to know if something is infringing than a third party.
35. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by surmak · 2011-12-17 06:49 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  One problem with the perjury remedy is it a criminal matter, and thus takes a the government to initiate litigation. There is no private right of action, and you are pretty much SOL unless you can convince the US Department of Justice to prosecute someone fora false DMCA take-down request. The way I always thought this should work, is that if an infringement claim is made and the poster does not contest, the material is taken down and the issue is closed, if the poster does contest the remains accessible, but the person who posted it accepts liability is the alleged content owner decides to sue, and the material will remain visible until the poster or a court orders it removed. This way, anyone can post anything without fear of a takedown, as long as they are willing to defend their actions in court.
36. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 06:50 · Score: 0, Interesting
  
  I'd say a million dollars per violation sounds about right. with a 50% upswing per additional violation, if multiple violations in a day.
  1st violation in a 24 hr period 1 million, 2nd 1.5 million (2.5 total), 3rd 2.25million (4.75 total), 4th 3.375 million (8.125 total), etc...
  Maybe that will get their attention...
37. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 07:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No. It IS the DMCA giving them the right to do this. The DMCA explicitly says that the content hoster MUST remove the 'offending' material and go through the subsequent procedures. If the content hoster were to do research on the material and disregard the takedown notice as a result then they would be in breach of the DMCA and would lose all Safe Harbor protections regardless of whether the material was actually infringing or not.
  This is why there is an automated system in place. An automated system is ideal for takedown notices that require automatic takedown of the allegedly infringing material. There is no room for interpretation or investigation on the part of Youtube if they don't want to be liable for copyright infringement on the service.
38. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 07:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I get disappointed when I hear statements like this. Protections could be implemented without DMCA or the other provisions of it. Not to rag on you man, but I'm seriously tired of people having the we have to take the good with the bad view. It sucks. Period. It sucks even more because we didn't have to have it.
  Lawyers weren't launching mass lawsuits against website owners before DMCA. We can argue that they just weren't prepared, but there was really no legal precedent for it or any laws to describe how it should work. DMCA gave legal firms justification for pursuing lawsuits against website owners and people posting infringing content by further defining IP and its penalties.
  While copyright owners were given a couple of more ways to profit, i.e. launching lawsuits to make up for failing sales from poor products, at the end of the day the real profit came from the realization that they had to adapt their business model.
39. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by slimjim8094 · 2011-12-17 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Can you post a link with details about that? My understanding of the law was that any site with user-uploaded content got safe harbor, on the condition that they complied with takedown requests.
  
  --
  I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
40. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  Pirates took arrrrrr jerbs!
  FTFY
41. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by SuricouRaven · 2011-12-17 07:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  One flaw: The poster can just keep reposting under new identities or on new sites under that model. Well, I don't consider that a flaw, but the copyright holders would. If they are to have any hope of enforcing copyright, they need some way to impose a more serious penalty upon the posters.
42. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by hedwards · 2011-12-17 07:22 · Score: 2
  
  Were any website owners previously being sued for content that was posted by third parties? I don't recall that happening prior to the DMCA except in cases where the service was set up specifically for piracy.
  Additionally, the court system does have requirements for what can be considered infringement and there is such a thing as innocent infringement. The DMCA might have made it explicit, but that's basically just a sugar pill for the icky medicine.
43. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by InsightIn140Bytes · 2011-12-17 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, only in the US penalties can be that insane. And it's not going to change when both sides demand millions in damages for such inane things. It only makes you just as bad as RIAA/MPAA. If you developed a GPL'd software and requested takedown of some company that abuses your rights, without fully knowing the laws and made some error during it, your life would not be ruined because you would now have to pay $1 million.
44. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by shentino · 2011-12-17 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Just require notices to have the same "penalty of perjury" requirements that counter-notices are already bound by and I'd be satisfied.
  I don't think the UMG lawyer who wrote the notice would want to risk getting disbarred just to backstab the competition with legal trickery.
  As a side note, the fact that notices and counter-notices are treated unequally with regards to perjury as it is smells like a deliberate arrangement to give content producers the upper hand in the market. Just spamigate the competition with DMCA notices and see what sticks.
  Presently the only good thing about the DMCA is that innocent bystanders that happen to be hosting something uploaded by someone else don't get caught in the crosshairs. Everything else is utter and complete bullshit.
45. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by shentino · 2011-12-17 07:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The penalty is not heavy enough.
  And big corporations can still spamigate the competition with DMCA notices and not worry about splitting hairs if the people they hit are too scared or broke to fight back in court.
  Now if the same perjury penalties for sending a false *counter* notice also applied to the original notice itself, we'd see a lot less frivolous use of DMCA notices.
  Lawyers facing disbarment and jail time would think twice before they send a frivolous notice.
46. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by dkuntz · 2011-12-17 07:32 · Score: 2
  
  like "stolen TV shows are costing American jobs".
  Well, if they mean North American by "American", it's sorta true... since a fair number of TV shows are filmed on the continent of North America... generally in the country of Canada, in the city of Vancouver.
  So yes, lets save those Canadian's from unemployment!
  
  --
  OMG... I have a sig?
47. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by shentino · 2011-12-17 07:32 · Score: 2
  
  Take a look at Geohot in fact.
  Hackers and intellectuals get smeared by FUD in the eye of the public, and the intended target audience is led to believe that hackers and intellectuals are "nothing but a dirty rotten pack of cheaters and pirates"
48. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by shentino · 2011-12-17 07:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  People who file counter-notices are already certifying their innocence under penalty of perjury.
  Make the original party bound by the same requirements for sending the notice in the first place.
49. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Golden_Rider · 2011-12-17 07:39 · Score: 2
  
  Which goes back to the original point that Google should just hire humans to process DMCA notices. This isn't fault in DMCA, this is fault in Google and YouTube.
  That would not change anything, because even if they employed humans, they would not have a choice, either whether to take the videos down or not. Google MUST take down the videos affected by the DMCA notices, whether they want to or not, whether it is an obviously wrong DMCA notice or not. It is a flaw in the DMCA system, but one which is hard to fix. Even if the DMCA notice would require PROOF that the video is legally infringing, there still would be the problem that a video could be taken down wrongly, because the proof might be a fake/wrong, and it would be hard for the Google employees to decide that, they are no lawyers and it might be a financial catastrophe to accidentally deny a CORRECT DMCA notice. So the choice is either to a.) take the video down first and then let the two sides fight over it in court or b.) not take the video down and first let the two sides fight in court. And it was decided to go for a.), to go for the option which benefits the big companies more than the possible infringer.
50. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by jd · 2011-12-17 07:42 · Score: 2
  
  Precisely because corporations are defined by SCOTUS as being a person, they should have no rights a person does not have. I don't agree with the definition but that's immaterial. That's the definition and the corporations need to suffer the bad as well as take the good if they want it. If they decide that's not what they really want after all, then they can use the legal process to challenge it -- because, as individuals, they have no rights to change it any other way.
  What would be optimal is immaterial and no two people agree on it anyway. What we have is what we have and the corporations can be no less crippled than those they are equal to for it or they cease to be equal and the definition is violated.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
51. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  Did you know that you're FULL OF SHIT? No such requirement exists.
52. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by jd · 2011-12-17 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  It's far, far worse than that. The requests are fully automated and seem to use some sort of faulty hashing algorithm, to judge by what videos I've uploaded over time and the totally different content the challenge claims it to be. I'm not talking MD5 faulty - that would be reliable in comparison as the breakages there are mostly massaged content. My guess would be CRC32 at the very best (yes, best) and more likely lower-grade still. The aliasing is just too bad.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
53. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  They should allow Google to charge up to $100 to file a DMCA claim, and make the rebuttal free. They should also require up to a $1000 escrow payment to be paid to the uploader if the rebuttal succeeds.
54. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Elldallan · 2011-12-17 08:09 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  No a better punishment would be that if a court finds a DMCA notice to be illegitimate the copyright holder(assuming that the notice sender is either the copyright owner or acting on their behalf) permanently and irreversibly looses copyright over the work the DMCA notice claimed infringement upon. This would force copyright owners to think things through VERY carefully before taking any action.
55. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by NJRoadfan · 2011-12-17 08:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Has anyone bothered to look at this "Creative America's" website? I haven't looked at it, but I'm sure statistics like the music and motion picture industry ringing in higher and higher profits year after year aren't on there. Or anything about the movie industry's evasion of royalties and profit sharing through accounting tricks. Funny how they cry foul about piracy cutting into profits when they actively avoid paying other parties for the use of said party's IP.
56. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  why are you talking about the DMCA giving UMG the right to do this?
  It's YouTube. Youtube's letting them do this.
  Granted, it's due to DMCA threats but... The fact that there isn't any oversight on YouTube/google's part is scary.
  No, what's scary is that you seem to want some sort of magical fairy-dust "oversight" over YouTube/Google.
  Who'd do that? The US government?
  The very same one that gives us the TSA every day? The very same one where elected representatives are pretty much totally ignorant of technical issues?
  THE VERY SAME ONE THAT GAVE US THE DMCA TO BEGIN WITH!?!?!?!?!
  Why the flying fuck are you whining for "oversight"?
57. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  That would not change anything, because even if they employed humans
  Then a human will have made the decision that video X infringes on their copyright.
  If it doesn't, then it meets the requirements in the DMCA to extract a pound of flesh from that human.
  Computers can't be charged with perjury.
58. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Even if human employees at Google confirmed that any or every part of the DMCA notice was inaccurate ... they would STILL be required by law to take it down.
  There is no part of the DMCA that gives a person or organization in Youtube's position the option not to. Receive a notice, comply with notice. The DMCA places the burden on the uploader to prove they're NOT infringing.
  This is the part that you are consistiently NOT GETTING. This is what the opponents of DMCA were .. y'know .. opposed to.
59. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by im_thatoneguy · 2011-12-17 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  There was already at least one $150k fine for a fake DMCA notice. They certainly exist.
60. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  You're talking shit and you know it. Conventional binary hashing algorithms can't possibly survive lossy compression, and have nothing to do with audio fingerprinting methods.
61. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  The problem the DCMA does not specify a perjury penalty for the person submitting the DCMA notice. It's a "Good Faith Belief". The perjury comes in to play when the person who's content is taken down responds to a DCMA take-down. Only the person who's content is taken down is subject to perjury. This is why it's unbalance.
  If both sides were subject to penalties (i.e. if you issue a DCMA complaint, and it's proved I own the copyright - I get statutory damages) then it would be more balanced.
62. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by jd · 2011-12-17 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  What fools we have to suffer with. "Audio fingerprinting" is a fancy name of "a hash". A hash is simply a way of reducing a large chunk of data to a small chink of data. Nothing more. If the hash actually *worked* then I wouldn't be seeing the problem I'm seeing because there wouldn't be a collision, ergo it doesn't work, ergo it doesn't matter a damn if "conventional binary hashing algorithms can't possibly survive lossy compression" because it's bloody obvious that things aren't surviving. How much longer do I have to suffer such imbeciles? Come on sweet death, you can't be any worse than these cretins.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
63. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by guttentag · 2011-12-17 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  .. to begin with. That's just incompetent management. I don't have the right to delete anyones video at whim either, so why should big companies.
  UMG argued that any company that owns more than 110% of the creative works of the world should logically have the ability to delete whatever videos it wishes, and that there were at least 4 such companies. If you can convince them that you also own at least 110%, I'm sure they would be fine with giving you the sacred Deletion Suitcase.
64. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by grainofsand · 2011-12-17 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed there are some sections of the Act that make it less awful than it would be otherwise.
  But my understanding of Universal's in argument in this case is that the internal Google takedown system doesnâ(TM)t count as an official takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and thus Universal is immune from legal liabilityeven if they did "game" the system.
  Obviously Megauploadâ(TM)s attorney argues otherwise.
  
  --
  A dream is good. A plan is better.
65. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by grainofsand · 2011-12-17 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  No. Universal are arguing that the internal Google system falls outside of the Act.
  From the parent-linked article:
  "Universal said Googleâ(TM)s private system doesnâ(TM)t count as an official takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and thus it was immune from legal liability. Itâ(TM)s a position that Ira Rothken, Megauploadâ(TM)s attorney, said was preposterous."
  
  --
  A dream is good. A plan is better.
66. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by similar_name · 2011-12-17 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is it requires the accused to go to court to fight back against the accuser. This is opposite to almost every other situation. Regardless of penalties if I accuse Microsoft of infringing on my code they don't have to stop selling Windows until they prove that they didn't. If I get a call from what I believe to be a scam, AT&T has no obligation to automatically block that call and they are not liable for it either so saying the DCMA provides safe harbor is not a valid argument.
  
  DMCA has done little to stop actual piracy and declaring web sites a safe harbor could be done without it. IMO it provides little benefit while its abuse has done harm.
67. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by flonker · 2011-12-17 12:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html
68. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Baloroth · 2011-12-17 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I am well aware of what Universal thinks (well, on this issue). I don't give a shit. They're wrong. Their definition certainly does not count as "reasonable", especially since their actions clearly weren't.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
69. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Pseudonym · 2011-12-17 14:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The DMCA is a compromise. No compromise is perfect. Having seen it in action, we now know that it could do with a bunch of tuning.
  SOPA/PIPA is, by comparison, not a compromise. It's a one-sided deal.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
70. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Sun · 2011-12-17 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  Technically, the DMCA does not force YouTube to take down a video once a DMCA takedown notice is filed. This is just a technicality, however.
  The DMCA is offering Google a very lucrative price here, which is total amnesty from infringement done by YouTube users. This is referred to as the "safe harbor" clause. The price is, however, conditioned on Google taking down videos that a content owner says are infringing. Google may decide not to take down such a video, but it then loses the safe harbor. A service like YouTube cannot function if it is the target of law suites.
  The end result is that, while technically the DMCA does not force Google to take down videos based on an unsubstantiated take down claim, effectively that is precisely what it does.
  Having said that...
  The DMCA has a very simple procedure. Content owner files a take down notice, user files a counter notice. Once these two steps are taken, the video can remain up while Google still enjoys a safe harbor. We can therefor conclude that the blame for the first time the video was taken down is on UMG, but the second time is squarely on Google's shoulders, as is the threat to suspend the account.
  Shachar
71. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 15:15 · Score: 0
  
  Universal is right, this wasn't a DMCA takedown notice and they have no liability under that act.
  However they are practising restraint of trade, colluding with others to restrict trade and they used interstate wires to do so. Other laws say this is worth 39 months in a federal prison.
72. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 15:40 · Score: 0
  
  Well so you say but you are not a lawyer and guilt is determined solely by a judge or jury.
73. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by martin-boundary · 2011-12-17 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  You're absolutely right, up to a small detail. There's no reason that Google needs to make robot/scripting friendly systems available for DMCA claimants.
  Google itself should certainly have an automated system on its end for dealing with the incoming DMCA claims, but the system for reporting an allegedly infringing video should NOT be script or robot friendly. There should be no API for mass reporting ever, no login with predefined preferences, each claim should have its own individual CAPTCHA and there should be an enforced delay of a minute between claims from the same IP address, etc.
  Basically, the system should make sure that only a person can submit claims, and that each claim was submitted separately, and no bulk claiming can occur.
  The DMCA is a serious business, and those who submit a claim should be inconvenienced in proportion to the gravity of the damage they can do.
74. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Fieryphoenix · 2011-12-17 16:41 · Score: 2
  
  Google admits that this process that was used is not actually DMCA take down procedure. It's just a privilege they granted UMC that UMC abused.
75. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Belial6 · 2011-12-17 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  That term gets misused all the time. It isn't that "content producers" have the upper hand. It is that big business has the upper hand. When false DMCA take downs are happening, the person they are happening to is a content producer. If they were not, the take down notice wouldn't be false.
  
  If I write and record a song, and UMG issues a take down, how do I suddenly stop being a content producer?
76. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Toonol · 2011-12-17 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  No, anon was right. Your words simply aren't sensible. You don't fully understand what you are saying, or you may just not be saying correctly what you do understand. Either way, anon wasn't a fool.
77. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by ScrewMaster · 2011-12-17 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but unfortunately such automation is Google's claim to fame, and was naturally the direction to which they turned. Perhaps they underestimated the potential for abuse.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
78. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by ewanm89 · 2011-12-17 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  Oh dear, the CEO of big music label will have to miss out on his usual weekend pleasure flights in his private helicopter for a couple of weeks next year.
79. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-12-17 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  Why not? They take down the content when it is only disputed.
  Yes, and they bring it back up when the dispute itself is disputed by the other side. At which point it's up for the court - if the person or company that filed the original DMCA notice decides it's worth the bother.
80. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 19:54 · Score: 0
  
  But, and this is important, it does not make it a DMCA takedown request under the LEGAL definition of the term.
  Meaning that 512(f) doesn't apply.
81. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 20:18 · Score: 0
  
  The supreme court has turned our patent system into a corporatist welfare system. The USPO rejects an application and the offended mega-corporation uses IP lawyers to overturn the USPO decision.
82. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2011-12-17 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  This is my point. There's no right for UMG to wield the power they do on YouTube's service. There's a right for UMG to request takedowns and so forth, but, to just take down videos ad hoc? no way.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
83. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 21:48 · Score: 0
  
  And big corporations can still spamigate the competition with DMCA notices and not worry about splitting hairs if the people they hit are too scared or broke to fight back in court.
  You don't have to fight back in court, you just send Youtube an Anti-Takedown notice and they have to put it back in place. If the company who is complaining wants to take things further, it is up to THEM to take it to court, not you.
84. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 22:00 · Score: 0
  
  Take a look at Geohot in fact.
  Hackers and intellectuals get smeared by FUD in the eye of the public
  George got smeared because he was a pompous ass who couldn't handle the concept of not getting "street cred" under his real name. You need to understand that what he got in trouble for was NOT the cracking which allowed 'Other OS' to be available again. Hell, that wasn't even him it was a different group whose work he tried to take credit for. He got in trouble for using that group's method to retrieve and then publish Sony's private key, and did so under his real name like a complete fucking idiot. The only reason you need that key is if you want to distribute a movie or game which appears to be licensed and published by Sony- you don't need it for homebrew or anything like that, the ONLY reason for needing it is to produce counterfeit products.
85. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 22:48 · Score: 0
  
  fuck the law and kill everyone in congress = problem solved
86. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-18 00:57 · Score: 0
  
  Or, you know, just move your business and servers outside of US Soil, ensuring that the short-sighted US Govt. lose millions in tax income whilst simultaneously allowing you to tell Uncle Sam to take that DMCA notice and shove it up his ass!
87. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by shentino · 2011-12-18 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Neither Sony nor the PS3 know OR CARE about the difference between unsigned indie works and pirated works.
88. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by archont · 2011-12-18 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  So basically I can file DMCA takedown requests en-masse against big-content promoted stuff like the entirety of WMG's channel and youtube would have to remove it?
  If so why hasn't anyone tried this already?
89. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-18 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  Remove the filing-charge and a couple of zeroes to the amount to be put into escrow and it might make a dent... Or maybe just make it $10000 multiplied by number of DMCA's filed last 12 months..
  If they are legal requests then sure... If not then they will be broke quite fast...
90. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-18 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  http://thepiratebay.org/legal
91. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-18 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  ehmm... so if they own the content they should risk loosing the right to it just because of a incorrectly filed notice??
  How about...
  Publishing something you don't own the rights to: 10% of your gross income.
  Filing a invalid notice for something you don't own the rights to: 10% of your gross income.
  Filing a invalid notice for something that is fair use of your content: 1% of your net income. (since it can be hard to determine fair use in some cases)
  Filing a notice incorrectly filled out, scrap the filing and ask them to file a new one...
  If the 2 parties are unable to come to an agreement on the amounts above will be fines to the legal system, if they come to an agreement then it's an agreement between the 2 parties... And make it up the the rights owner to prove ownership, since then it will probably not even have to go to court..
  Use the unsettled cases fines to pay for legal representation for people that cannot afford it..
  With an addition to all DMCA notices.. First request will be forwarded by the site to the user that uploaded the content, if uploader fails to reply within 48 hours then content will be removed...... forward must be done within 24 hours from the notice...
92. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by cduffy · 2011-12-18 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  'Ya know, I think you're the lowest-UID person to hit my idiot filter.
  Let's take a very simple case -- let's say you wanted to implement soundex but without storing the entirety of the data in the word being matched. Now, would you be using a conventional one-way hash in this algorithm, or doing something bespoke?
93. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by jd · 2011-12-18 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  If I'd not hit your "idiot filter" before (I've been posting longer than I've had an account here) then either by your own admission I'm not an idiot or you're a damn fool. Either way works with me.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
94. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by cduffy · 2011-12-18 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. My guess is that you're not an idiot but that you're in the mood for trolling.
  Turning a discussion on a technical point into a rant regarding the incompetence of the people who disagree with you? In the case where the position taken on said point is clearly incompatible with reality it's idiocy or trolling; parent argument mitigates towards the latter.
  I mean, seriously -- binary hashes are only good for exact-match algorithms by their nature. If you're implementing a distance-search algorithm, the idea of using one is insane.
95. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by uninformedLuddite · 2011-12-18 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  The sockpuppets aren't even trying to be covert
  
  --
  The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
96. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Trogre · 2011-12-18 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Buying Chinese-made stuff is costing American jobs.
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
97. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Kalriath · 2011-12-18 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  The whole swearing under penalty of perjury that you represent the copyright holder bit, that's what.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
98. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Kalriath · 2011-12-18 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it does. Safe Harbour requires you register with the copyright office. If you followed the Righthaven mess, you would have seen the comments from the guy that ran the EMT forum that he didn't know this (which he found out after the court informed him that as he didn't have a registered agent, he had no safe harbour).
  See page 11 of http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf - specifically this bit:
  
  In addition, a service provider must have filed with the Copyright Office a designation of an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement. The Office provides a suggested form for the purpose of designating an agent (http://www.loc.gov/copyright/onlinesp/) and maintains a list of agents on the Copyright Office website (http://www.loc.gov/copyright/onlinesp/list/).
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
99. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Kalriath · 2011-12-18 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  What in blazes are you ranting about? I don't know the GP from a bar of soap, but even I didn't read whatever you're in a burning rage about from that post - he or she clearly said "that there isn't any oversight on YouTube/google's part is scary" - which anyone with third grade English would know means "the fact that YouTube/google have no oversight [of the automated takedown process, and do not monitor content which is being taken down] is scary". Perhaps you would be well served considering the comments you are replying to more carefully prior to engaging in a misdirected rant.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
100. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Elldallan · 2011-12-18 14:09 · Score: 2
  
  ehmm... so if they own the content they should risk loosing the right to it just because of a incorrectly filed notice??
  Yes, at least when it should be obvious that the take down notice is illegitimate, for example things that are obviously covered by fair use (dancing babies with music in background etc). If a case is less obvious the first case should set a precedent and instead of copyright forfeiture the punishment should be a heavy fine, but any and all subsequent cases covered by that precedent should result in forfeiture of copyright.
  
  If you send out blatantly false take down notice, such as for content the notice sender obviously does not own the punishment should be forfeiture of copyright of the allegedly infringing work(only if the notice sender owns said work or is acting on behalf of the owner of course) as well as their most profitable copyrighted work(or in case of movies the one expected to be most profitable) at the time of the sentence(oh sorry you claimed you owned copyright on some random indie movie, well you don't and that's too bad because now you don't own copyright on the new transformers movie that went on the big screen 2 days ago either)
  
  Of course I don't mean incorrectly filed notices but those sent with blatant disregard of fair use where it should be obvious that the notice is invalid etc.
  If it's just a filing error then scrap it and have them file a new one but be sure to tell them not to do it again, if they persist and keep sending out incorrectly filed notices then that is a malicious behavior and should suffer the same consequences as any other falsely filed take down notice.
  
  This would force big media to start erring on the side of caution instead of sending out take down notices for everything even remotely related to something they hold copyright on and that in my opinion is a good thing, besides it benefits the public a great deal because all forfeited works are now in the public domain and free for everyone.
101. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-19 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, STFU don't give them any ideas!
Gee by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 04:38 · Score: 0

Go figure that Google is abdicating responsibility...
1. Re:Gee by Eponymous+Coward · 2011-12-17 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's a little like blaming Ford when somebody drives too fast in a Mustang.
2. Re:Gee by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Or blaming Ford when their gas tanks explode... hey, wait a second!
3. Re:Gee by houstonbofh · 2011-12-17 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, in this case, the law does not allow them to behave responsibly.
4. Re:Gee by CodeReign · 2011-12-17 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  When a third party (say an incompetent advertising rat) is smoking near the car while it's fuelling.
Way to Go Universal! by rotorbudd · 2011-12-17 04:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ah, Universal ever heard of the Streisand Effect?
I'm sure Megaupload can explain it to you.

--
A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
1. Re:Way to Go Universal! by InsightIn140Bytes · 2011-12-17 04:40 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  I'm also sure most casual people don't care nor didn't even heard about it. Yes, piracy circles did, but they're pirates to begin with.
2. Re:Way to Go Universal! by rotorbudd · 2011-12-17 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know. Don't you think just the news of a lawsuit will help get it out to the great unwashed?
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
3. Re:Way to Go Universal! by ElBeano · 2011-12-17 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't matter whether they've heard about it or not. The effect is still real, without the name.
4. Re:Way to Go Universal! by Skidborg · 2011-12-17 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  I'm fairly sure most of the internet knows what the Streisand Effect is. It's not the one you're thinking of.
  
  --
  Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
5. Re:Way to Go Universal! by AngryDeuce · 2011-12-17 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know, I've heard more non-techy people in my circle talking about stuff like SOPA and this Megaupload shit than I ever heard before. People generally don't care about these things because they don't know it's happening in the first place, which is why it is important for those of us that do know to keep people informed.
6. Re:Way to Go Universal! by dgatwood · 2011-12-17 05:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Ah, Universal ever heard of the Streisand Effect?
  Hear, hear. I didn't know what Megaupload was until Universal did this.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
7. Re:Way to Go Universal! by Existential+Wombat · 2011-12-17 05:04 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Me too.
  Now I have an account.
  Thanks UMG!
8. Re:Way to Go Universal! by DanielRavenNest · 2011-12-17 05:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  According to Alexa.com, the popularity of Megaupload seems to have increased about 15-20% in the last couple of weeks. Not only can we name the Streisand Effect, in this case we can measure it.
  By the way, Streisand uses Sony/Columbia for her music. It would have been ironic if she was signed with Universal.
9. Re:Way to Go Universal! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  Megaup-what? OMG THIS IS AWESOME! I'll start uploading all the complete UMG catalog right now... *mega song in my head... tururu... send me a fiiiile*
10. Re:Way to Go Universal! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  Witness the power of internet drama....
11. Re:Way to Go Universal! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  I didn't know about the video, until I read the news about UMG took it down.
12. Re:Way to Go Universal! by Daniel_Staal · 2011-12-17 07:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I have to admit, I'm starting to be impressed with Universal in this. A finer example of shooting yourself in the foot, I've never seen. I mean, most people manage to aim for a toe or something, but no, Universal had to aim directly for an artery. Nothing less would do.
  Really, they've managed to argue that they have the authorization to take down any clip on YouTube, for any or no reason. If they manage to win their argument, they'll prove they are arrogant douchbags, and prompt Google to re-do their DMCA takedown procedures to more closely fit the law. (And, incidentally, make it harder for Universal to use.) If they don't, they still manage to be arrogant douchbags, but they also manage to be the first case of someone being taken to court for abusing the DMCA.
  All of this over a video I'd have never heard of if they hadn't bothered to do anything. Give them a hand: when they aim for their foot, they make sure it's gone.
  
  --
  'Sensible' is a curse word.
13. Re:Way to Go Universal! by c++0xFF · 2011-12-17 09:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Give them a hand: when they aim for their foot, they make sure it's gone.
  
  Don't give them a hand. I'm sure they'd rather have their foot back instead.
14. Re:Way to Go Universal! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, Universal ever heard of the Streisand Effect?
  Nope - they took down the Streisand videos too (thank goodness.)
15. Re:Way to Go Universal! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 18:57 · Score: 0
  
  Then perhaps you would like to hear about www.filestube.com . It is a search engine for megaupload and forty other similar sites. It saves a lot of time searching.
And now we see... by AngryDeuce · 2011-12-17 04:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

This shit is why there should be penalties for abuse. These guys routinely do whatever the fuck they want regardless of Fair Use or any other rights the people have. I have seen this myself as every single video I have uploaded that had a DMCA claim made, when I challenged it, the videos were reinstated within a day or two. They know the claims are bullshit, but they're banking on the fact that people won't assert their rights.
Start hitting them with damages when they file these erroneous claims and watch how fast that shit stops....
1. Re:And now we see... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 04:48 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  There is a penalty for filing false DMCA claims, perjury. Unfortunately it seems like it is never enforced.
2. Re:And now we see... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2011-12-17 04:50 · Score: 2
  
  Please. This was obviously just a case of Universal's lawyers acting in good faith, and perhaps getting a trifle overzealous. /sarcasm
3. Re:And now we see... by Eponymous+Coward · 2011-12-17 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  Start hitting them with damages when they file these erroneous claims and watch how fast that shit stops
  The flipside to that coin would be for people who upload content for which they don't own the right to get penalized without notice. I think the claim / challenge method is better.
4. Re:And now we see... by betterunixthanunix · 2011-12-17 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  This shit is why there should be penalties for abuse
  No, because that puts the burden on the website operators or the users. Why should copyright holders get to shortcut the legal system with the takedown notice procedure? Let them go to court, prove to the court that they have a case, and get a court order. If the courts think the MPAA is overburdening them, overreaching, etc., let them deny the court order and demand that the MPAA pay court fees for wasting the court's time.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
5. Re:And now we see... by Intron · 2011-12-17 05:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You can sue them, but only for the damages that you suffered due to the takedown. I guess you could hire RIAA lawyers to calculate the damages for you.
  
  --
  Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
6. Re:And now we see... by AngryDeuce · 2011-12-17 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  I have no problem with DMCA, but I have a big problem with the abuse of it. Like I said, every single video I have had taken down, a challenge on the grounds of Fair Use has resulted in the video getting reinstated. You think they're actually checking to see if the video they're yanking may be acceptable under Fair Use guidelines? Of course not, they yank first, and the onus is on the uploader to assert their rights. That's bullshit.
  Why do they not respect Fair Use? Like I said, because they know that most people will just give up, or be scared away by the threat of a lawsuit present in the Fair Use challenge on Youtube. They're abusing the process.
7. Re:And now we see... by AngryDeuce · 2011-12-17 05:13 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I guess you could hire RIAA lawyers to calculate the damages for you.
  Eleventy Trillion Dollars!!!
8. Re:And now we see... by AngryDeuce · 2011-12-17 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  The burden is already on the users to assert their videos are indeed protected under the Fair Use clause. They're not checking the usage of their infringing material, their computers detect a pattern that matches something they own the rights to and automatically pulls the video, regardless. They are supposed to respect Fair Use, but they clearly do not. That is the abuse I'm referring to.
9. Re:And now we see... by InsightIn140Bytes · 2011-12-17 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  It's not up to the site owners to determine it. If someone sends a fake DMCA notice to your content, you take them to court and they get penalized.
10. Re:And now we see... by sjames · 2011-12-17 05:32 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Unfortunately, the whole perjury part is too softly worded and has never in the history of the DMCA been invoked. What is needed is a much stronger wording that makes the penalty explicit and prosecution mandatory.
11. Re:And now we see... by whisper_jeff · 2011-12-17 05:52 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is a corporation cannot be punished for perjury. Start holding officers of the company to account for their corporation's actions and we might see a change but until then, the corporation shields them from a lot of meaningful and established repercussions...
12. Re:And now we see... by shentino · 2011-12-17 07:37 · Score: 2
  
  nope
  Filing a false DMCA claim unfortunately is not perjury.
  Filing a false counter-notice is though.
  Seems a bit one sided doesn't it?
13. Re:And now we see... by shentino · 2011-12-17 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  You can still go after the lawyers for perjury and get them disbarred.
14. Re:And now we see... by Jay+L · 2011-12-17 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  I've been wondering if it was ever litigated. The actual language is:
  A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
  It sounds like the penalty of perjury might only apply to whether you're acting on behalf of the copyright owner, not about whether the information is accurate.
15. Re:And now we see... by sjames · 2011-12-17 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  That's exactly why I say it's too softly worded.
16. Re:And now we see... by ulricr · 2011-12-17 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  Or it wasn't worth their effort to fight it after it was reinstated. The fact that they didn't fight doesn't necessarily mean the videos were reviewed and cleared. Fair use is a defense in court, not a something defined by law.
17. Re:And now we see... by AngryDeuce · 2011-12-17 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  Or it wasn't worth their effort to fight it after it was reinstated.
  Then why do they yank them in the first place? To fuck with people? The DMCA take down notices are supposed to be filed in good faith when the rights holder has a reasonable belief that the content in question infringes on their intellectual property. If they did not have enough reasonable belief to defend the claim, or they're not interested in defending the claim, why the fuck are they allowed to make the claim and get the videos yanked in the first place?
  It seems to me by choosing not to fight every single Fair Use counter-claim they are either demonstrating that the original claim was not made in good faith, or that the intellectual property is not worth their time to defend...and if that is the case, why the hell are we playing this game to begin with?
  Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily want UMG's lawyer brigade to come repelling through my windows because I used 30 seconds of a song clip in a home movie, but at the same time, I don't want them yanking my fucking videos down if they don't even care enough about their copyrights to have a human being checking the results in their content detection programs before they fire off another batch of DMCA takedown notices.
18. Re:And now we see... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  exactly. This nation watched president clinton perjured himself in front of a federal grand jury and didnt spend a day in jail. You can bet your sweet virgin ass that if you would have been the one telling lies in front of a grand jury, you would be in federal prison before you could say "well, what about clinton?"
  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00001621----000-.html
  cornell's law department clearly states the consequences for federal perjury
  "be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States."
19. Re:And now we see... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-18 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  Or you can move your business outside of the USA where the DMCA has no legal bearing whatsoever.
20. Re:And now we see... by Kalriath · 2011-12-18 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Until the USA signs a "Free" Trade Agreement (an agreement where the USA promises... uh, nothing... in exchange for you introducing USA-based Big Pharma and Big Content friendly laws for them, usually in such a way that it bankrupts your local Agriculture and IT industries).
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
21. Re:And now we see... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  Followed immediately by summary execution?
so is that criminal, then? by Trepidity · 2011-12-17 04:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

Given the broad overreach [pdf] of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to count violations of Terms of Service agreements as "unauthorized access" (i.e. "hacking"), it be a criminal offense for UMG to violate Google's rules on how its piracy filters are to be used?

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
1. Re:so is that criminal, then? by AngryDeuce · 2011-12-17 04:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You're assuming that the laws apply to UMG. They pay good money to our representatives to ensure that they never do.
2. Re:so is that criminal, then? by betterunixthanunix · 2011-12-17 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  No because those laws were only supposed to apply to individuals. The courts try to figure out the intent of Congress when they interpret these laws, and it is pretty clear that the intent of Congress was to punish anyone who does not fit the "passive consumer" mold. Basically, if you are an individual, you are supposed to buy everything, and if you are a corporation the law protects you from individuals who try to save money by "gaming" the system.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
3. Re:so is that criminal, then? by houghi · 2011-12-17 05:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Don't be silly. They are a company and thus above the law. What are you? A communist to be even asking these kind of questions?
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
4. Re:so is that criminal, then? by girlintraining · 2011-12-17 05:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  it be a criminal offense for UMG to violate Google's rules on how its piracy filters are to be used?
  Unlike individuals, there really is no criminal law for corporations because you can't jail a corporation. So even murder becomes a question of how much money do they have to pay out.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
5. Re:so is that criminal, then? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  I believe the DMCA is structured such that a specific person needs to affirm on DMCA claims, under penalty of perjury. So, probably, some dope at UMG is now eligible for an all-expenses-paid trip to the Greybar Hotel. If only someone would prosecute...
6. Re:so is that criminal, then? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  Why is it that donations are not anonymous? Why is a name attached to the money?
7. Re:so is that criminal, then? by Fastolfe · 2011-12-17 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Murder isn't committed by a corporation, it's committed by a person. If a crime occurs, you should be able to identify the *person* that actually committed it, and send that person to jail.
  In the case of things like bad DMCA takedown notices, the crime would be perjury and it would be attributed to the person that actually signed their name to the DMCA notice.
  There's the possibility, though, that a corporation is pumping out hundreds of sketchy DMCA notices, that, individually, don't quite rise to the level of perjury, but as a whole, suggest a pattern of wrongdoing by the corporation. In that situation it makes sense to go after the corporation (financially or with an injunction) rather than the individuals.
8. Re:so is that criminal, then? by Warwick+Allison · 2011-12-17 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  They cannot be jailed, but they can be executed.
9. Re:so is that criminal, then? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  The same applies to insurance companies. If you were to lie to an insurance company about an incident in order to collect on a policy, you would go to prison for insurance fraud. If the insurance company lies to you about your coverage in order to collect premiums without having to pay out for your loss, good luck finding justice.
10. Re:so is that criminal, then? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  take workplace safety, people want to have jobs to get paid so they can have families and homes, If they die at work, they are not happy. But who is responsible, is it an accident, were proper safety procedures followed, did management try to save money by taking/ecouraging shortcuts. but management is a department in a big corporation. so we send CEO's, & Boardmembers to jail for Industrial manslaughter.
11. Re:so is that criminal, then? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  If the insurance company lies to you about your coverage in order to collect premiums without having to pay out for your loss, good luck finding justice.
  That actually happened to my brother with Geico, he bought a new car and signed up for full coverage, then a couple months later ended up getting deployed to Iraq when they sent the Marines in back in '03. He put his car in the lot on base in Fayetteville, set his bills up for autopay like most single deploying soldiers do, and didn't think anything of it. While he was gone, Geico took it upon themselves to change his policy; he comes home, calls up Geico to make sure he's still got insurance who tells him "Yup, you're all good Marine! Semper Fi!!" then he ends up getting into a accident a couple months after that, totaling the car. That's when Geico informs him that he was only paying for liability, Geico starts pointing fingers all over the place (including his command), and long story short, he ends up on the hook for a brand new car payment without the brand new car.
  He went to several lawyers and every single one of them elected not to take the case because the only proof of anything that occurred was sitting in Geico's computers or records somewhere (he was in Iraq and didn't receive anything on paper from them at all) and the whole situation basically boiled down to his word against theirs.
12. Re:so is that criminal, then? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 18:06 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, but corporations are people (except when they're not).
13. Re:so is that criminal, then? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 23:59 · Score: 0
  
  i think this video should be treated like political cartoons were/are. they didnt infringe but they did make a political statement. in the words of Cheech "you can do that in this country."
So why... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 04:45 · Score: 0

So why did they take it down then?
1. Re:So why... by AngryDeuce · 2011-12-17 04:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  UMG had admin privileges and was able to take videos down on it's own, Youtube gave them this ability in order to keep from getting hit with thousands of lawsuits. Of course, Youtube expected UMG to act in good faith with this power, and it is no clear that they have not. Hopefully, Youtube will be rescinding their privileges now that we see they can't be trusted with them...
2. Re:So why... by TheGratefulNet · 2011-12-17 05:35 · Score: 2
  
  things will delay, we'll forget about this and we'll all go back to loving google again.
  google just gets a pass, for some reason. they convinced people they are some golden do-gooder for the internet. mass delusion was successful; give some shiny things away and people will follow you and shout your name.
  this isn't the real issue. the real issue is all the rest of the sweatheart deals google made with this or that big company (or government!) that we do not hear about.
  true colors. uhm, 'google it'.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
3. Re:So why... by Undead+Waffle · 2011-12-17 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  This really isn't a "sweetheart deal". I'm sure Google gave them this level of access for practical reasons. Now that they've abused it UMG is in legal trouble. Any serious abuse of this access was bound to get noticed either by lawsuits or by a large number of people complaining about their video being removed.
UMG is harvesting our emotions for energy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 04:48 · Score: 0

UMG was created specifically for obtaining monoatomic gold, a mineral that increases the carrying capacity of the nervous system ten thousandfold. After ingesting it, they can process vast amounts of information, speed up trans-dimensional travel, and shapeshift from reptilian to human form. They use human fear, guilt, and aggression as energy.
1. Re:UMG is harvesting our emotions for energy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  Is it your intent to generate massive amounts of energy for them? Because this stupid post has me scared for humanity, guilty that I'm replying, and I'd like to punch you in the face.
2. Re:UMG is harvesting our emotions for energy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  See? It works!
Still guilty in my eyes... by thestudio_bob · 2011-12-17 04:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Google played no part in the Megaupload takedown.
Just because they (or you) say that, doesn't mean its true. They played a huge part in it. They are the ones that created the system and they are the ones that entered into an agreement with UMG. Wether or not UMG "wasn't supposed to do this", is irrelevant. Google's poor oversight and management of these takedown tools and not keeping an eye on how their partners use them, is just as bad in my eyes. If their system has a loophole for people to bypass the DMCA, then they need to fix it and manage their system and partners better, if "Do no evil" is still relevant to them.

--
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
1. Re:Still guilty in my eyes... by neokushan · 2011-12-17 04:58 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  And what exactly is Google meant to do? Hire loads of people to sift through every DMCA claim for validity and potentially end up in court themselves should one of them make a bad call?
  I'm not saying I agree with the system, but part of that is if Google doesn't comply then they're directly liable. The takedown notices are bullshit, it shouldn't just be taken down without question, rather the person who uploaded it should be informed of the infringement and given the chance to defend themselves, without Google having to get involved (or whoever runs the site in question - this doesn't just apply to youtube, after all).
  Or better yet, any frivolous and unfounded takedown should be immediately met with a fine that's proportional to the size of the company/person in question that's filing it - so say $100 for your average joe who earns what's on the breadline, yet $50,000 for a record company who is clearly abusing their power. Eventually the frivilous takedowns would stop as people would get wise and realise it's easy to make money, while the actual infringers wouldn't get shit.
  
  --
  +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
2. Re:Still guilty in my eyes... by InsightIn140Bytes · 2011-12-17 05:06 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  And what exactly is Google meant to do? Hire loads of people to sift through every DMCA claim
  Yes. They don't need to make sure if the actual content is infringing or not, DMCA is very clear on the procedure. If the original uploader think it violates others copyrights, then he can submit counter-notice and get it back. At this point Google doesn't anymore have any responsibility - now it's up to the two parties to fight it over, most likely in court.
  
  The takedown notices are bullshit, it shouldn't just be taken down without question, rather the person who uploaded it should be informed of the infringement and given the chance to defend themselves, without Google having to get involved (or whoever runs the site in question - this doesn't just apply to youtube, after all).
  It can't work like that because then all the copyright infringing person could do is not reply to the notice. How long should Google, or other site owner, wait for reply? 14 days? Maybe he is on holiday. One month? Half an year?
  
  DMCA already also has penalties for fake notices. It is already very good law. Thing is, Google has provided copyright owners EXTRA access on top of DMCA to remove videos and isn't processing DMCA notices (and especially counter-notices) as strictly as law allows.
3. Re:Still guilty in my eyes... by ifiwereasculptor · 2011-12-17 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  It's "do no evil", not "do not give other corporations tools for doing evil". See Android and Carrier IQ, this and a bunch of other stuff. To their credit, they have made the video available again (and release Nexus phones), but they really should use this to stop policing UMG's content on Youtube ("if UMG says our tool is not valid as a DMCA request, then we'll cut their access and let them scan for their own content and submit DMCA forms").
4. Re:Still guilty in my eyes... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  There's more to it than DMCA. If Google were following the minimum required by the DMCA, UMG would send takedown notices with which Google would then have to comply. UMG would be (at least somewhat) accountable for what they claim is infringing. What Google seems to have done is given UMG direct access to remove content themselves without any requirements that it be for a legitimate reason. This lessened the work required for both sides, but also largely removed the accountability.
5. Re:Still guilty in my eyes... by Bill+Dimm · 2011-12-17 05:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's "do no evil", not "do not give other corporations tools for doing evil".
  Actually, it's Don't be evil. One could reasonably claim that providing tools to allow other corporations to do evil is, in fact, being evil.
6. Re:Still guilty in my eyes... by HiThere · 2011-12-17 05:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No. The DMCA is a lousy law.
  You mentioned the penalties "for fake notices". Sorry, but that's not correct. There are penalties if the person who files the notice knows that the notice is fake. If they are following instructions from someone else that they can claim a "good faith belief" in the honesty of...like their client...then no penalties can be issued against anyone no matter how many fake notices are filed.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
7. Re:Still guilty in my eyes... by russotto · 2011-12-17 06:01 · Score: 2
  
  Yes. They don't need to make sure if the actual content is infringing or not, DMCA is very clear on the procedure. If the original uploader think it violates others copyrights, then he can submit counter-notice and get it back.
  
  Sure, the uploader can say "Sue me". That's what a DMCA counter-notice is, an invitation to be sued. Would you invite an RIAA lawyer to sue you? That's the price of being able to upload content nowadays, to literally invite lawsuits from entities far more powerful than you.
  But it's worse than that. Once they've told the service provider they are going to sue your worthless ass into the ground, the content gets taken down until the outcome is decided. Guess how long that will take? So they win even before they win. It's suppression of speech on a massive scale.
  
  It can't work like that because then all the copyright infringing person could do is not reply to the notice.
  Then they can leave it up until the copyright owner obtains an injunction. That's the minimum of what it should take to get the content taken down, an actual adversarial proceeding.
  
  DMCA already also has penalties for fake notices.
  No, it does not. The only penalty is for representing oneself as the owner of work one does not own. I could write a DMCA takedown notice against every video on Youtube saying it violates the copyright on this post I am writing right now, and I would not be subject the the penalties the DMCA sets out.
8. Re:Still guilty in my eyes... by houghi · 2011-12-17 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  So what we should do is all file a DMCA copyright claim on any of their songs. Once they put it back, somebody else claims it. That way we could abuse the system and get THEIR music away from Youtube.
  It is nice that you think that Google has give copyright owners extra access. However they are not the ones that decide who is the actual copyright owner. The law should do that.
  If I claim that I have the right of a song that I see and that Sony placed online, do you think they will take it down? They did nothing for copyright owners. I am a copyright owner, yet I do not have that access.
  It is all about the money. Companies have plenty and thus they make the laws.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
9. Re:Still guilty in my eyes... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  And what exactly is Google meant to do? Hire loads of people to sift through every DMCA claim for validity and potentially end up in court themselves should one of them make a bad call?
  You make it sound like Google is a company that is barely scraping by and couldn't afford this..
10. Re:Still guilty in my eyes... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 18:44 · Score: 0
  
  Interesting idea! If only somebody would come up with a template and instructions on how to send it...
11. Re:Still guilty in my eyes... by Whibla · 2011-12-18 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  And what exactly is Google meant to do? Hire loads of people to sift through every DMCA claim for validity and potentially end up in court themselves should one of them make a bad call?
  No. They should abide by the strictures of the law. When they receive a take-down notice they should take down the alleged infringing content. If / when they receive a counter-claim from the original uploader they should restore the content. Finally, if / when the case goes to court they should abide by any judgement made regarding the aforementioned content.
  That's the simple bit.
  Furthermore, given the bad faith shown (by UMG) in this instance they should revoke their (UMG's) access to Google's electronic 'internal take-down service', and insist that every future DMCA take-down notice comes via snail mail (at an incremental cost for each notice) in machine readable form, allowing Google to simply automate the scanning and take-down process. There is, unfortunately, a concomitant incremental cost to Google here, but then 'ethical' businesses often pay more to stand up for what they believe in - no-one said that being good was the cheap option. Additionally, they (Google) should file an amicus brief to the court stating that they felt that use of their internal take-down service (by UMG, in this instance) was the equivalent of them receiving a legal DMCA take-down request.
  Agree or disagree with the law (and I think we all know where the balance falls) it is still the law, and it would be against Google's best interests to flout it, but there's no 'good' reason for them to go beyond the letter of the law or to do more than is required in pursuance of it.
  Making a stand would, I suspect, go a long way towards winning back some of their waning support, as well as issuing a stern warning to other companies like UMG who might be tempted to similarly abuse their privileges.
12. Re:Still guilty in my eyes... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-18 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  Every comment you make seems to support the status quo of any situation. Looking through your history you seem to always look derisively at the victims and favorably toward the person committing the transgressions.
  Perhaps you should take a few weeks off of the news, take a vacation, and do some reflecting on what you're really arguing about.
I guess that they days of labels wooing... by forkfail · 2011-12-17 04:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

... artists are over.
Why bother with seduction when rape is allowed?

--
Check your premises.
1. Re:I guess that they days of labels wooing... by phantomfive · 2011-12-17 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  They woo the artists with money, and that only when drugs and women don't work. Never have they done whatever the artist wanted. They did whatever the artist wanted, when what the artist wanted made them money.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Let's hope 4 complete trial with verdict w/ lesson by youn · 2011-12-17 04:59 · Score: 2

this is a blatant abuse of the DMCA provisions to silence someone. Definitely not good if legal precedent is set where this is ok... not good for free speech, or anyone that has ideas other people do not like. I am not a lawyer but technically this could be extended to negative reviews or any content that someone thinks is troublesome... let s hope there is a real trial where they are actually get fined to discourage such behavior.

--
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
So the Farmer let the Fox by Grand+Facade · 2011-12-17 05:02 · Score: 5, Funny

So the Farmer let the Fox into the chicken house to cull the bad chickens!!!
Whoa, lazy Farmer!
But on top of that the Farmer is letting the Fox decide which chickens are bad!
But that's not all...
The Farmer is not even checking what the Fox is doing! WTF!!!
Glad I'm not a chicken......

--
Rick B.
1. Re:So the Farmer let the Fox by Anthony+Mouse · 2011-12-17 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  Your analogy is completely right, but keep in mind that the Farmer is Congress.
2. Re:So the Farmer let the Fox by TheGratefulNet · 2011-12-17 05:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  and that is precisely why I watch Chicken News.
  it helps keep things fair and balanced..
  (go fowl!)
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Thank you UMG! by wjcofkc · 2011-12-17 05:03 · Score: 4, Funny

I would have never heard of Megaupload if not for the loud bang of you shooting yourself in the foot!

--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
When SOPA reaches the Supreme Court... by Kifoth · 2011-12-17 05:13 · Score: 1

...hopefully this will be exhibit A for how SOPA could be used to violate the first amendment.
Megaupload should ammend their claims by Mr.+Shotgun · 2011-12-17 05:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

IANAL but I think UMG's actions would fall under Tortious interference of business. They gamed You Tube's system to have a 4 minute commercial for a semi rival company removed while knowing they had no claim to have it removed. That seems to fit the definition to me, though again IANAL. As for damages, I would think that Megaupload had a Return on investment planned for this commercial and maybe awarding triple that amount would serve to set an example.
Of course they could always use the MAFIAA's math and calculate it as $150,000 * (average video views per day after restoration * days video was taken down). As of 11:05 Dec 17 CST it has had 2,128,913 views for around 2 days of up time. so about 1 million per day. Date of take down was Dec 9th so 6 days down. 1064456.5 view times 6 days down times $150000 MAFIAA statutory damages gives us $958,010,850,000 or almost a trillion dollars. To bad it would never work that way, but if we could apply the same laws to the MAFIAA that they use against everyone else it would be a very, very interesting day.

--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
1. Re:Megaupload should ammend their claims by shentino · 2011-12-17 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  There was no contract between youtube and megaupload, so there is no tortious interference.
  Anything that UMG did technically is permitted under youtube's TOS, so as far as megaupload is concerned, UMG acted as youtube's agent.
2. Re:Megaupload should ammend their claims by Mr.+Shotgun · 2011-12-17 11:28 · Score: 2
  
  There was no contract between youtube and megaupload, so there is no tortious interference.
  There is not a requirement for a contract in order for there to be tortious interference of a business relationship merely a business relationship. I believe that if they can establish that without any action from UMG, YouTube would have hosted their commercial without removing it, then that could be considered a form of a business relationship, though a weak one. Some further research
  
  Anything that UMG did technically is permitted under youtube's TOS, so as far as megaupload is concerned, UMG acted as youtube's agent.
  Given YouTube's public statement that UMG had no right to take down the video, they would most likely not be considered an agent of YouTube. Again IANAL.
  
  --
  Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
Google smear campaign? by walterbyrd · 2011-12-17 05:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

It sure seems like it. All these articles come out with wildly sensationalist, and misleading, headlines about Google.
And it always turns out that the over-the-top "news" is just google smearing BS.
For example that article about "Google stores credit card information in plain text" and now this. Then that was that article that made such a big fuss about the update time-table for Android phones. And all that was just yesterday.
1. Re:Google smear campaign? by InsightIn140Bytes · 2011-12-17 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe these news come out because they are serious issues that Google has. Only a fanboy would think we shouldn't report bad things about Google.
2. Re:Google smear campaign? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah. Slashdot should immediately stop posting about Google. And Microsoft, and Apple, and the RIAA, and Linux too.
3. Re:Google smear campaign? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  I think the OP was more concerned with the "wildly sensationalist" and "misleading" parts of the posts, not the posts themselves. Reporting bad things about a company is fine, provided they're accurate. There is a lot of "OMG google is evil" crap appearing lately that is either blatantly and provably false, or misleading and sensationalistic to the point of disgusting.
4. Re:Google smear campaign? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  So much of the torrent of "bad things" that is reported are rushed out the door and debunked the very next day.
They played a large part in it by Hentes · 2011-12-17 05:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Google played no part in the Megaupload takedown
They gave them the tools to remove any video they wish in the first place. This is Google's fault.
1. Re:They played a large part in it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  In other news, mother "played no part" in her three-year old hurting someone with the knife she had given him.
2. Re:They played a large part in it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  They gave them the tools to remove any video they wish in the first place. This is Google's fault.
  Smith & Wesson sold me a gun...
3. Re:They played a large part in it by shentino · 2011-12-17 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Why did google do that?
  Was google intimidated by a legal threat?
4. Re:They played a large part in it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  Well, the DCMA is a tool to remove any video you wish, and it's not provided by Google.
5. Re:They played a large part in it by Hotweed+Music · 2011-12-17 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  what an ignorant comment. how was this modded up to 5?
6. Re:They played a large part in it by ulricr · 2011-12-17 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  The DMCA was not used here.
Re:Let's hope 4 complete trial with verdict w/ les by HiThere · 2011-12-17 05:33 · Score: 2

Who would you think would be sued on what grounds?
There's no action possible on the DMCA, because you can't show that the person who made the claim knew that it was fake. Under the law, as I understand it, the person who files must have a reasonable belief that the notice is valid. I think you need to show not that he should have known that it was invalid, but instead that he did know. And no penalties can be issued against the person who told him to file.
The only reasonable way around this that I can see would be to consider UMG together with its agents to be one person. Even then it would be quite difficult to show that they (i.e., it) knew this was a fake claim.
It might be easier to sue them for libel.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The Streisand Effect Explained by bornagainpenguin · 2011-12-17 05:36 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm also sure most casual people don't care nor didn't even heard about it. Yes, piracy circles did, but they're pirates to begin with.
Nice attempt to hand wave there. Despite your attempt to pretend it has anything to do with copyright infringement, the Streisand Effect is a real observable phenomena that can be seen over and over again. Usually as a result of someone powerful trying to pervert the Law and use their clout or money to buy the result they wanted--usually silence. As a result of the lawsuit even more attention gets paid to something that would otherwise simply blow over quickly and pass with little note. But here, let's let Wikipedia explain it, so you can understand better...

The Streisand effect is a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the perverse effect of publicizing the information more widely. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt in 2003 to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity. Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters, to suppress numbers, files and websites. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos & spoof songs, often being widely mirrored across the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks. Mike Masnick of Techdirt coined the term after Streisand, citing privacy violations, unsuccessfully sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for US$50 million in an attempt to have an aerial photograph of her mansion removed from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs. Adelman said that he was photographing beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the government sanctioned and commissioned California Coastal Records Project. As a result of the case, public knowledge of the picture increased substantially; more than 420,000 people visited the site over the following month.
You should really learn the value of the maxim of keeping your mouth shut, rather than opening it and displaying your ignorance to all who look in...
Oh and go ahead and read the rest of the Wikipedia article. Lots of examples of the phenomena at work there, and clearly not something that your corporate masters will be able to legislate away. The damage is already done. UMG now provides their opposition with the best possible example of why SOPA is bad and proof that it WILL be abused.
I mean really? Did they really think they could get away with this attempt to silence free speech in such a slam dunk example of fair use? Trying to categorize this as infringement is beyond ridiculous, this was a case of someone with money and lawyers on retainer who thought they could simply abuse the law and dare anyone to hold them accountable for it.
Well thanks to the Streisand Effect, everyone gets to hear exactly what UMG wanted silenced. Nice going. This is why your industry is going to fade away, not copyright infringement, but the fact that UMG and the rest of Big Media simply haven't got a clue.

--
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
BUY THE MAFIAA OUT! by bornagainpenguin · 2011-12-17 05:51 · Score: 1

And what exactly is Google meant to do?
I think Google and the rest of the major tech industry giants should create a consortium and collectively buy the MAFIAA out, so we can get on with living in the future and stop this nonsense of protecting one industry by penalizing another. This whole last ten twenty years has been ridiculous! Like the old laws that required all automobiles to have someone walk ahead of them at night with a lantern in attempt to slow them down to a level that horses could compete with. That's how silly this is..
Hell, half the time these days I wonder if that hasn't been the MAFIAA's strategy all along....

--
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
1. Re:BUY THE MAFIAA OUT! by shentino · 2011-12-17 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  The elites will never let their buddies in the FTC allow that merger to go through.
  Remember, the MAFIAA owns the government. Hell it even has its own lawyers running the DOJ.
  I think siccing the DOJ on any attempted buyout would work.
UMG about to shoot themselves again.... by DJ+Particle · 2011-12-17 06:32 · Score: 2

If UMG wins on their defense (that the automated system is not a DMCA notice), then YouTube can take down their automated system and require content rights holders to submit DMCA takedown requests in writing, right?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/universal-megaupload-video/
Re:Let's hope 4 complete trial with verdict w/ les by fnj · 2011-12-17 06:42 · Score: 1

So in other words if I tell my minion to violate the law, giving him to understand what I ask of him is legal, both he and I are exempt from prosecution for that action?
Woot by Galestar · 2011-12-17 07:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

How do I sign up to be a Youtube "rights holder". Going to register everything as mine and collect all the ad revenue. UMG here I come!

Universal said Google’s private system doesn’t count as an official takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and thus it was immune from legal liability.
So I can use Google's system to claim ownership of all your content and you can't sue me?? Dangerous position you take there.

--
AccountKiller
Re:Let's hope 4 complete trial with verdict w/ les by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 07:19 · Score: 0

If you're too lazy to spell out "for," why the fuck would I care what you have to say?
Mega Please by darkjohnson · 2011-12-17 08:11 · Score: 1

The video itself is WAY too long for something so redundant. I find it amusing that the video has such an obvious African american flavor for an ad for a site that has a reputation for aiding in the distribution of pirated material. Almost feels racist...almost. And they spent 3 MILLION on producing THAT video?? Holy shit snacks, I would have done it for 1.
Fools by Hotweed+Music · 2011-12-17 10:22 · Score: 1

I like how everyone is assuming YouTube is a profitable website. Google's doing the internet a service keeping it up.
Reading between the lines. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 10:51 · Score: 1

Reading between the lines of the UMG / Youtube agreement and fingerprint takedown system. So no DMCA notice was issued, but to take down the video via the fingerprint system UMG would have had to upload an exemplar for comparison so that the system could latch into the Mega-upload video.
This in itself is a violation of the original maker's copyright, in that a copy was made an uploaded to a third party. So following MPAA / RIAA agreed practice the full cost of the original is attached to the copy, i.e. does UMG owe Mr Dotcom $3?
Re:Streisand by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-17 11:27 · Score: 2, Funny

Streisand uses Sony/Columbia for her music.
I am sorry, but we are not in Soviet Russia. Here in Capitalist Amerika, Sony/Columbia uses STREISAND for HER music.
Change the contract by jklovanc · 2011-12-17 19:47 · Score: 1

UMG claims that their use of YouTube systems to take down the video was not an official DMCA takedown notice. Google needs to do the following to fix the issue.
1. Remove UMG's privileges on the grounds of breach of contract due to misuse of the content filtering system.
2. Renegotiate the contract so that UMG must file a DMCA take down notice any time they modify YouTube's database to remove content.
3. Renegotiate any other contracts that are similar to the one with UMG
That way companies like UMG can not hide behind contractual technicalities and can be sued under the DMCA for false takedown notices. In my opinion any system that has the same effect as a DMCA takedown notice is in effect a DMCA takedown notice
Re:Let's hope 4 complete trial with verdict w/ les by HiThere · 2011-12-18 06:36 · Score: 1

Yes. That's the way I understand it to be written, and that's the way it's been applied in every instance I've heard of.
Caution: IANAL. But that's the way it was analyzed at one time on Groklaw.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Thanks for the heads-up BigContent... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-18 11:02 · Score: 0

Apparently, from the second linked article,
Megaupload has some 50 million daily users, and the recording industry says it is a haven for music pirates.
Always good to know which sites are best...
Textbook Streisand-effect, 10/10