Google Deal Allegedly Lets UMG Wipe YouTube Videos It Doesn't Own 392
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the sounds-about-right dept.
from the sounds-about-right dept.
Sockatume writes "Ars Technica is reporting that Google has given music conglomerate UMG the right to arbitrarily eliminate YouTube videos. When UMG had Megaupload's 'Mega Song' removed from the site, it was assumed that they had made a DMCA claim, and that YouTube was responding under its 'safe harbor' obligations. Megaupload's legal response argues that UMG has no grounds to request a DMCA takedown. However in court filings (PDF), UMG claims that its licensing agreement with Google gives it the power and authority to unilaterally wipe videos from the site, bypassing the DMCA entirely. If true, that means that your activities on YouTube are not just curtailed by the law, but by the terms of their secret agreements with media conglomerates."
Which is more powerful? (Score:2, Interesting)
So, does this mean that a corporate agreement can trump a national law? Not arguing if the law is good or bad, but allowing a corporate agreement an end-around to a law seems, well, illegal.
Re:That would be surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't want YouTube to disappear, because they want to make money off of it. However, they also want to keep Google under their thumbs, and Google will comply like they always do because they're wholly dependent on content publishers in order to have content to put ads around.
Re:And you think the DMCA and SOPA are bad. (Score:5, Interesting)
So There's The "Public" YT TOS... (Score:4, Interesting)
...The one you read and agreed to before uploading content to YouTube, and then there's the "secret" TOS you aren't allowed to read and agree to before uploading content to YouTube, yet you are held to both?
Methinks YouTube will have some 'splainin' to do to a judge as to how that's OK when all others must disclose their entire TOS.
Strat
Tortious interference (Score:5, Interesting)
"Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor acts to prevent the plaintiff from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships. This tort may occur when a first party's conduct intentionally causes a second party not to enter into a business relationship with a third party that otherwise would probably have occurred. Such conduct is termed tortious interference with prospective business relations, expectations, or advantage or with prospective economic advantage."
Restraint of Trade, and/or Libel (Score:5, Interesting)
Megaupload is a business, and this video is basically an ad for them. UMG is claiming that they've got an agreement that lets them shut down content they don't like, and they're using it to shut down ads for their semi-competition, similar to paying a newspaper or TV station not to carry ads for competitors. IANAL, and I don't know how strong a lawsuit that gives them, but it should at least be enough to subpoena the shutdown requests and the alleged agreement between UMG and YouTube. If the shutdown requests allege violation of copyright, then they're also on the hook for libel.
Re:And you think the DMCA and SOPA are bad. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually this may be a very good thing. Talk about giving someone enough rope to hang themselves with.
The Megaupload video is so not important. Them taking down the TWIT video podcast really could be a freedom of the press issue and one that overrides their agreement with YouTube.
Re:And you think the DMCA and SOPA are bad. (Score:5, Interesting)
You just have to remember that everyone has different views on what is good and what is evil. So they are following their belief. Just because it's evil to you doesn't mean it's evil to them.
Re:UMG is screwed (Score:5, Interesting)
Why wouldn't Google have the right to take down content on it's websites at will?
By doing so, they have demonstrated that they can exact editorial control over the content of videos. Meaning that they are now responsible for the content of every single video posted to YouTube.
Re:That would be surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
Since google is required to respond to DMCA takedown notices anyways, does this even change anything?
Yes. Under the absolutely shitty terms of this agreement, the user is not allowed to respond like they are under the DMCA.
UMG (Score:5, Interesting)
I produced corporate videos. We properly licensed a piece of classical music for online use in a video from a major orchestra who specialise in tracks for companies such as ours.
When the video was uploaded Youtube slapped adverts all over it due to a copyright claim from UMG.
Our complaints and appeals to Youtube were ignored and in the end we ended up having to change the music. We even had assurances from the orchestra itself that UMG had no claim at all
Re:And you think the DMCA and SOPA are bad. (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems to me Google was using the "give them enough rope to hang themselves" strategy.
The problem with all this bickering over copyright is that, outside of tech circles like slashdot, the general public doesn't give a damn. The media companies, by definition, always have an open mic to broadcast their side of the debate to the public. The opposition does not have this luxury, at least not without paying for it. So they have to resort to stories which are juicy enough to overcome the pro-media bias of the press, and get them to run it. "UMG has power to censor your YouTube videos!" sounds like a pretty successful result in that respect.
The alternative would be for Google to fight the media companies in the courts, to be decided by judges and juries who've been indoctrinated by decades of single-sided "piracy is stealing" brainwashing. This is no longer a legal fight - the media companies have pretty much won that and have the law on their side. This is a public policy fight. The public needs to be educated why the pendulum has swung too far in favor of copyright holders, so that they pressure their legislators to change the law.
Re:UMG is screwed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:UMG is screwed (Score:5, Interesting)
Taking down content at will which does not infringe on copyright means they could lose safe harbor protections because they are no longer a mere conduit for user-generated content.