Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the layered-agreements dept.

Google 220

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.'"

cancel ×

220 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Google shouldn't had given them such right (5, Insightful)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408840)

.. 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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (4, Informative)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408884)

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".

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (1, Insightful)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408914)

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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (4, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408962)

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...

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (5, Informative)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409078)

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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409118)

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?

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409136)

Maybe read rest of his post?

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (5, Informative)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409152)

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. [eff.org] They obviously are abusing their power to pull videos without considering whether it is legally infringing or not.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (0)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409176)

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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (5, Insightful)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409560)

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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409000)

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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (5, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409012)

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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409014)

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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (5, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409070)

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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409198)

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. [artware.qc.ca]

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (4, Insightful)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409088)

DMCA itself is good.

No it isn't. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (5, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409202)

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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (-1)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409238)

You had a long rant, but nowhere did you state why DMCA isn't a good, especially because it grants non-liability for website owners against copyright infringing users. If there was no DMCA then website owners would be liable for actions their users take, and we probably wouldn't even have YouTube.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409330)

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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (3, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409432)

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)

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (2)

NicknameOne (2525178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409590)

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...

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (4, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409048)

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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (3, Insightful)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409410)

"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!

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (3, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409680)

Pirates took err jerbs!

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38408910)

"and hire people to process DMCA request."

This wasn't a DMCA request.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (5, Informative)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408926)

"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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (1, Redundant)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409034)

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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409414)

they wouldn't need to hire people to process DMCA requests

But... but... job creators...

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (-1, Offtopic)

Jake73 (306340) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408972)

Glad they removed it just in good taste. Seriously, that's one stupid, long-ass ad. Dumb jingle. Dumb tune. Dumb message. Should have been 4 minutes shorter.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409080)

The DMCA requires the process to be automated... I'm glad I live in a (still) free(er) country...

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (5, Informative)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409122)

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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (1, Offtopic)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409284)

"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!

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (4, Interesting)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409460)

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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409626)

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.

Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409582)

Every sentence in that above paragraph is a lie. There's a special place in hell for idiots like you.

Gee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38408844)

Go figure that Google is abdicating responsibility...

Re:Gee (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408942)

That's a little like blaming Ford when somebody drives too fast in a Mustang.

Re:Gee (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409026)

Or blaming Ford when their gas tanks explode... hey, wait a second!

Way to Go Universal! (5, Insightful)

rotorbudd (1242864) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408850)

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

Re:Way to Go Universal! (0, Flamebait)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408858)

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.

Re:Way to Go Universal! (1)

rotorbudd (1242864) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408868)

I don't know. Don't you think just the news of a lawsuit will help get it out to the great unwashed?

Re:Way to Go Universal! (1)

ElBeano (570883) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408872)

It doesn't matter whether they've heard about it or not. The effect is still real, without the name.

Re:Way to Go Universal! (1)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408876)

I'm fairly sure most of the internet knows what the Streisand Effect is. It's not the one you're thinking of.

Re:Way to Go Universal! (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408898)

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.

The Streisand Effect Explained (3, Informative)

bornagainpenguin (1209106) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409262)

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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:Way to Go Universal! (4, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408992)

Ah, Universal ever heard of the Streisand Effect?

Hear, hear. I didn't know what Megaupload was until Universal did this.

Re:Way to Go Universal! (5, Interesting)

Existential Wombat (1701124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409010)

Me too.

Now I have an account.

Thanks UMG!

Re:Way to Go Universal! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409218)

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*

Re:Way to Go Universal! (4, Interesting)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409204)

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.

Re:Way to Go Universal! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409450)

Witness the power of internet drama....

Re:Way to Go Universal! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409498)

I didn't know about the video, until I read the news about UMG took it down.

And now we see... (5, Interesting)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408864)

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....

Re:And now we see... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38408908)

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

Re:And now we see... (4, Informative)

Intron (870560) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409052)

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.

Re:And now we see... (4, Funny)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409096)

I guess you could hire RIAA lawyers to calculate the damages for you.

Eleventy Trillion Dollars!!! [computerworld.com]

Re:And now we see... (3, Informative)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409234)

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.

Re:And now we see... (2)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409426)

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...

Re:And now we see... (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408924)

Please. This was obviously just a case of Universal's lawyers acting in good faith, and perhaps getting a trifle overzealous. /sarcasm

Re:And now we see... (0)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408964)

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.

Re:And now we see... (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409054)

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.

Re:And now we see... (1)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409156)

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.

Re:And now we see... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409038)

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.

Re:And now we see... (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409120)

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.

so is that criminal, then? (4, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408874)

Given the broad overreach [pdf] [volokh.com] 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?

Re:so is that criminal, then? (4, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408906)

You're assuming that the laws apply to UMG. They pay good money to our representatives to ensure that they never do.

Re:so is that criminal, then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409356)

Why is it that donations are not anonymous? Why is a name attached to the money?

Re:so is that criminal, then? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409072)

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.

Re:so is that criminal, then? (4, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409098)

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?

Re:so is that criminal, then? (3, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409110)

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.

Re:so is that criminal, then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409318)

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...

So why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38408882)

So why did they take it down then?

Re:So why... (4, Informative)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408936)

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...

Re:So why... (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409252)

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'.

UMG is harvesting our emotions for energy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38408904)

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.

Re:UMG is harvesting our emotions for energy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409184)

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.

Still guilty in my eyes... (4, Insightful)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408912)

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.

Re:Still guilty in my eyes... (1, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408968)

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.

Re:Still guilty in my eyes... (2, Interesting)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409022)

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.

Re:Still guilty in my eyes... (3, Insightful)

HiThere (15173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409178)

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.

Re:Still guilty in my eyes... (2)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409502)

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:Still guilty in my eyes... (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409610)

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.

Re:Still guilty in my eyes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409062)

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.

BUY THE MAFIAA OUT! (1)

bornagainpenguin (1209106) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409402)

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....

Re:Still guilty in my eyes... (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409060)

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").

Re:Still guilty in my eyes... (3, Insightful)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409170)

It's "do no evil", not "do not give other corporations tools for doing evil".

Actually, it's Don't be evil [wikipedia.org] . One could reasonably claim that providing tools to allow other corporations to do evil is, in fact, being evil.

I guess that they days of labels wooing... (3, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408940)

... artists are over.

Why bother with seduction when rape is allowed?

Re:I guess that they days of labels wooing... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409678)

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.

Let's hope 4 complete trial with verdict w/ lesson (2)

youn (1516637) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408976)

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.

Re:Let's hope 4 complete trial with verdict w/ les (2)

HiThere (15173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409240)

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.

So the Farmer let the Fox (5, Funny)

Grand Facade (35180) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408988)

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......

Re:So the Farmer let the Fox (0)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409166)

Your analogy is completely right, but keep in mind that the Farmer is Congress.

Re:So the Farmer let the Fox (4, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409216)

and that is precisely why I watch Chicken News.

it helps keep things fair and balanced..

(go fowl!)

Thank you UMG! (4, Funny)

wjcofkc (964165) | more than 2 years ago | (#38408996)

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

When SOPA reaches the Supreme Court... (1)

Kifoth (980005) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409092)

...hopefully this will be exhibit A for how SOPA could be used to violate the first amendment.

Megaupload should ammend their claims (4, Insightful)

Mr. Shotgun (832121) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409154)

IANAL but I think UMG's actions would fall under Tortious interference of business [wikipedia.org] . 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.

Google smear campaign? (4, Interesting)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409158)

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.

Re:Google smear campaign? (1)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409256)

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.

Re:Google smear campaign? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409310)

Yeah. Slashdot should immediately stop posting about Google. And Microsoft, and Apple, and the RIAA, and Linux too.

They played a large part in it (4, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38409162)

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:They played a large part in it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38409406)

In other news, mother "played no part" in her three-year old hurting someone with the knife she had given him.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>