MAFIAA at it again

[John Kramer]

So UMG appears to have privately negotiated a deal with youTube that allows them to just take down whatever they want from youTube, and it's not subject to the DMCA because it's a private agreement.

Looks like they misread the contract to me. Here are the details:

http://www.universalmusic.com/corporate/news35370

Looks to me like if I do a video fantasy baseball report and I've got a song playing in the background from a UMG owned copyright, UMG has the right to pull it down. Which makes sense. I don't see anything in there to suggest they can take down whatever they want, only something that incorporates something they have the copyright to.

Not sure why this is a story though. I can report a music video that someone uploaded that they don't own the copyright to and Youtube will pull it, but it is different if I were a company (such as UMG) instead of an individual?

[StlSluggers]

So UMG appears to have privately negotiated a deal with youTube that allows them to just take down whatever they want from youTube, and it's not subject to the DMCA because it's a private agreement.

Looks like they misread the contract to me. Here are the details:

http://www.universalmusic.com/corporate/news35370

Looks to me like if I do a video fantasy baseball report and I've got a song playing in the background from a UMG owned copyright, UMG has the right to pull it down. Which makes sense. I don't see anything in there to suggest they can take down whatever they want, only something that incorporates something they have the copyright to.

Not sure why this is a story though. I can report a music video that someone uploaded that they don't own the copyright to and Youtube will pull it, but it is different if I were a company (such as UMG) instead of an individual?

This is a story because it appears that there was no copyright infringement but the video of a hated rival came down nonetheless.

And I don't know that anyone misread the contract. UMG specifically says that they have power to take down content via youTube's CMS for non-DCMA reasons, specifically citing "Paragraphs 1(b) and 1(g)" of an agreement to which no one is privy to outside of youTube and UMG. Those paragraphs appear to be the crux of their argument for taking down something that doesn't even violate copyright laws.

[StlSluggers]

Wait... The last name of Megaupload's CIO is Dotcom?

[wrveres]

Wait... The last name of Megaupload's CIO is Dotcom?

Yeah I got quite a chuckle out of that this morning.

[John Kramer]

This is a story because it appears that there was no copyright infringement but the video of a hated rival came down nonetheless.

And I don't know that anyone misread the contract. UMG specifically says that they have power to take down content via youTube's CMS for non-DCMA reasons, specifically citing "Paragraphs 1(b) and 1(g)" of an agreement to which no one is privy to outside of youTube and UMG. Those paragraphs appear to be the crux of their argument for taking down something that doesn't even violate copyright laws.

How something "appears" to be and how it really is, is often confused (even you contradicted yourself in the quote above - "appears that there was no copyright infringement" in one case, yet "doesn't even violate copyright laws" in another. Pick one. Either be open minded, or show your mind has already been made up, and stick with the decision, whichever it might be). Anyway, "appearances" leading to incorrect assumptions happens millions of times every single day. In this case, I don't see any proof there was no copyright infringement, so for all we know, UMG took down a video that included at least a portion of music they hold the copyright to.

As to the "mysterious" contract, I'm sure Google has pretty decent lawyers (they are in court often enough). So whatever the clauses are, they can't be too shady and I'd gamble that they will hold up in court.

[StlSluggers]

Anyway, "appearances" leading to incorrect assumptions happens millions of times every single day.

I appreciate the concern, but it's not an assumption. Before today's events, this was the news on the matter:

The legal basis for the takedown requests isn't clear. Megaupload says that the music and artwork in the video are original, and that it has signed agreements with everyone who appeared in it. An early report suggested that Will.I.Am sent a takedown request, but this may have been the work of an over-zealous lawyer, as Megaupload CIO Kim Dotcom says that he "spoke directly with will.i.am," and confirmed that the artist "absolutely had not authorized the submission of any takedown notice on his behalf."

Link

In this case, I don't see any proof there was no copyright infringement, so for all we know, UMG took down a video that included at least a portion of music they hold the copyright to.

I understand that you wouldn't have read around before taking an argumentative stance, so you almost certainly didn't know that it's widely considered to be true that Megaupload did not violate any copyrights. But even in that case, did you read the same thing I did? UMG specifically stated that they did not take the video down for anything at all related to copyright infringement:

Universal argues that its takedown is not governed by the DMCA in the first place. In a statement supporting Megaupload's complaint, CIO Kim Dotcom had stated "it is my understanding" that Universal had invoked the DMCA's notice-and-takedown provisions. But UMG says Dotcom got it wrong: the takedown was sent "pursuant to the UMG-YouTube agreement," which gives UMG "the right to block or remove user-posted videos through YouTube's CMS based on a number of contractually specified criteria."

In other words, when UMG removes a video using YouTube's CMS, that might be a takedown, but it's not a DMCA takedown. And that, UMG argues, means that the DMCA's rule against sending takedown requests for files you don't own doesn't apply.

As to the "mysterious" contract, I'm sure Google has pretty decent lawyers (they are in court often enough). So whatever the clauses are, they can't be too shady and I'd gamble that they will hold up in court.

... Okay. I don't know that this was ever up for debate. It's wrong that this whole process circumvents federal laws and provides unilateral discretion to a biased party.

[John Kramer]

I appreciate the concern, but it's not an assumption. Before today's events, this was the news on the matter:

Megaupload says that the music and artwork in the video are original

One person's word against another, but no facts. So yes, it is an assumption right now. You might be proven correct (or wrong) down the road, but for now you are assuming.

I understand that you wouldn't have read around before taking an argumentative stance, so you almost certainly didn't know that it's widely considered to be true that Megaupload did not violate any copyrights. But even in that case, did you read the same thing I did? UMG specifically stated that they did not take the video down for anything at all related to copyright infringement:

Universal argues that its takedown is not governed by the DMCA in the first place.

the takedown was sent "pursuant to the UMG-YouTube agreement," which gives UMG "the right to block or remove user-posted videos through YouTube's CMS based on a number of contractually specified criteria."

I did read around, but when did the "popular" opinion start overriding facts (of which, none have been given yet)? The world was believed by the majority to be flat once upon a time...

UMG said no such thing. They said the takedown was not governed by the DCMA. They did not say it had nothing to do with copyright infringement.

Stop assuming or reading what you want to read, read what is actually there. You'll be a much happier person.

... Okay. I don't know that this was ever up for debate. It's wrong that this whole process circumvents federal laws and provides unilateral discretion to a biased party.

Anything posted on a forum is up for debate and discussion. You're crying foul, I'm saying show me some proof. Sorry that's too much for you to handle.

Something else you seem to be forgetting is that Youtube (Google/whatever) is a company and they make the rules, not the American public. I could buy Youtube and ban all Eminem vidoes if I so chose. The opinion of the public and of the uploaders on the matter are 100% irrelevant. They have zero "rights" (real or imaginary) to upload anything. The site makes the rules, it's as simple as that.

[StlSluggers]

I know, I know... I must be wrong, because I've resorted to name-calling.

I have no concerns about the veracity of what I've posted, so you can go find the "proof" you want. I'm done getting trolled by someone who isn't doing anything more than just saying "yeah, but do you really know???"

[John Kramer]

I have no concerns about the veracity of what I've posted, so you can go find the "proof" you want. I'm done getting trolled by someone who isn't doing anything more than just saying "yeah, but do you really know???"

You can base opinions on "he said/she said" instead of actual facts all you like, but you'll often be called wrong. Might want to get used to it and grow some thicker skin.

Edit - Wow, over 14,000 posts and that's the type of response you give when asked to provide some factual basis for your assumption? You just made my day sir!

[Skin Blues]

Both sides confirm that there was no copyright violation... this seems pretty straightforward. I guess both could be lying, but that doesn't make any sense. Do they all have to make their statements in front of a grand jury? Otherwise it's just he said/she said, even though he and she said the same thing.