4 ms·
Well; I guess if they have a contract with YouTube that allows them to take down videos directly then technically they are in the (legal) right. I assume youtu
by eof 15y ago
Well; I guess if they have a contract with YouTube that allows them to take down videos directly then technically they are in the (legal) right.
I assume youtube TOS allows them to pull down your video for 'any reason'; otherwise there might be some liability on youtube's end.
I did not expect this turn of events; and I wonder why youtube would sign an agreement like that at all..
- danmaz74 15y agoI wonder why youtube would sign an agreement like that at all Most likely, this could be a settlement that gives UMG and the likes a great latitude at taking down videos, and Youtube a guarantee not to get sued or some other rights. On the other hand, if this kind of practice (let me stop whatever content I want or I'll sue you on unrelated matters) became widespread, this could have a really nasty effect on free speech rights.
- regularfry 15y agoThey won't get sued by UMG. They could in theory be sued by uploaders.
- officemonkey 15y agoOr worse yet, abandoned by their users.
- FireBeyond 15y agoFor what? Being denied their natural right to have content hosted by Google at no charge? Wait, hang on...
- regularfry 15y agoThat's why I said "in theory". If there is an argument that YouTube would be liable for damages, following the rules of the DMCA would have given them immunity. By not following those rules, they lose that immunity.
- ersmi 15y agoI would guess that the additional take down rights were in exchange for VEVO posting the official music videos on Youtube. The videos would increase traffic to Youtube, but the company would obviously want significant benefits for posting their protected content in a public area.
- brudgers 15y ago>"this could have a really nasty effect on free speech rights." Youtube is a business unit of a publicly traded company. It has users, not citizens. Free speech rights are irrelevant to the way in which it establishes policies.
- CWuestefeld 15y agoThis is generally true, but not always. - - - Quote [1] Shopping malls are an exception to the rule. In California, the courts recognize big malls as the modern-day "functional equivalent" of a traditional public gathering place, because they have "common areas that would invite the public to meet, congregate, or engage in other activities typical of a public forum. . . ." The California Constitution does protect your free-speech rights in privately owned shopping centers—as long as your activity doesn’t interfere with the primary commercial purpose of the mall. - - - End Quote I don't think it's crazy to imagine that a web space that's universally used for people to sound off, and to post comments on others' contributions, could become recognized as a public space for First Amendment purposes. (IANAL) [1] http://www.aclunc.org/issues/freedom_of_press_and_speech/rights_of_demonstrators/location.shtml http://www.aclunc.org/issues/freedom_of_press_and_speech/rig...
- regularfry 15y agoThe problem with that kind of contract is that it means YouTube can't take advantage of the DMCA provision which limits their liability to uploaders. You're right, it is interesting. Ball's in YouTube's court.
- tsotha 15y agoI wonder why youtube would sign an agreement like that at all.. I'm guessing penalties for hosting copyrighted content are so severe they're trying to establish a legal trail to show they made every effort to comply with the law.