3 ms·
Youtube denied the ability for UMG to pull content that UMG does not own, but Youtube provided no evidence of why that ability doesn't exist. UMG cited portions
by SourPatch 15y ago
Youtube denied the ability for UMG to pull content that UMG does not own, but Youtube provided no evidence of why that ability doesn't exist. UMG cited portions of a particular contract, which makes me wonder if the contract has ambiguities in it or Youtube has been caught with its pants down.
- Natsu 15y agoYouTube also reinstated the video on its own. While I'm sure that UMG is able to remove things they don't own, saying that they're allowed to is something else entirely and we should reserve judgement on that until such time as the contract, or at least rulings concerning it, are made public.
- alexqgb 15y agoFrom what I understand, the peculiar deal with UMG is related to the VEVO channel on YouTube. The ability to 'pull' videos is really the ability to transfer them from the wilds into this marketing-friendly subdomain. In essence, it allows content owners a third option when dealing with unauthorized posts. Instead of yanking them and breaking inbound links, or ignoring them and losing any value from the traffic, these arrangements allow them to keep the post intact, while transferring it to their control - no DMCA notices required. The situation with Megaupload represented an abuse of this system. Because it's (apparently) possible to start the redirect process but not complete it (i.e. by having the Megaupload song appear on VEVO), UMG realized that they could 'disappear' the song from YouTube without having to file a formal DMCA notice asserting ownership. Obviously, this is a hack, and not at all what YouTube imagined when setting up the transfer system in the first place. So I imagine lawyers are busy rehashing contracts right now.