Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on 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.'"

19 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. Google shouldn't had given them such right by InsightIn140Bytes · · 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 InsightIn140Bytes · · 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.

    2. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by betterunixthanunix · · 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
    4. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    5. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · 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.

    6. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by InsightIn140Bytes · · 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.

    7. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    8. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by InsightIn140Bytes · · 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.

    9. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by AngryDeuce · · 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.

    10. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    11. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by ScrewMaster · · 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.
    12. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Bob9113 · · 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
    13. Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right by Local+ID10T · · 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
  2. Way to Go Universal! by rotorbudd · · 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 Existential+Wombat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Me too.

      Now I have an account.

      Thanks UMG!

  3. And now we see... by AngryDeuce · · 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 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is a penalty for filing false DMCA claims, perjury. Unfortunately it seems like it is never enforced.

  4. So the Farmer let the Fox by Grand+Facade · · 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.