YouTube Says UMG Had No 'Right' To Take Down Megaupload Video 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.'"
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And now we see... (Score:5, Informative)
There is a penalty for filing false DMCA claims, perjury. Unfortunately it seems like it is never enforced.
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (Score:2, Informative)
"and hire people to process DMCA request."
This wasn't a DMCA request.
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (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.
Re:So why... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (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.
Re:And now we see... (Score:5, 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.
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (Score:5, Informative)
Re:so is that criminal, then? (Score:4, 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.
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (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.
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And now we see... (Score:4, 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.
The Streisand Effect Explained (Score:4, Informative)
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...
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:Google shouldn't had given them such right (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.
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Google shouldn't had given them such right (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html [copyright.gov]