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.'"

79 of 220 comments (clear)

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 04:50 · 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.
4. 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...
5. 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.
6. 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
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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?
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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
18. 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!
19. 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)
20. 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.
21. 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
22. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Sponge+Bath · 2011-12-17 06:26 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Pirates took err jerbs!
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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?
31. 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"
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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)
35. 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.
36. 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
37. 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});
38. 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.
39. 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.
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 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.
2. 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!
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
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 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.
4. 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!!!
5. 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.
6. 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...
7. 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?
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 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.
3. 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
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 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
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...
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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."
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!
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/
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: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.