3 ms·

Not if it's anything like the Megaupload controversy recently. Here's the loophole. Your EULA with YouTube states that YouTube may take down your videos for an

by bo1024 15y ago

Not if it's anything like the Megaupload controversy recently. Here's the loophole. Your EULA with YouTube states that YouTube may take down your videos for any reason. YouTube also has a side deal with certain large rightsholders that they may take down videos at any time for any reason.[1] It is implied that these takedowns will be only for DMCA purposes, but since the companies never have to officially file a DMCA notice, there are never any legal repercussions for false takedowns. Nice, eh? [1] (Edit) Well, they are only supposed to take down videos for good reason, but we haven't seen YouTube enforce that. Either way, this is between YouTube and the rightsholders; the DMCA doesn't get involved.

jemfinch 15y ago
Do you have any links to substantiate your claims? I'd be interested in reading the background.
- bo1024 15y ago
  Here's a few news articles. As I understand it, the only way UMG would be in legal trouble is if they violated their contract with YouTube -- that is, they promised YouTube to only take down stuff they had the rights to. So the only enforcement here is if YouTube decides to sue UMG for breach of contract. (Which I wouldn't hold my breath on.) Either way, the DMCA never gets involved because they never had to file a DMCA notice to take down YouTube content. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/umg-we-have-the-right-to-block-or-remove-youtube-videos.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/umg-we-have-... http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/12/16/youtube-denies-that-universal-music-had-rights-to-attempt-removal-of-megauploads-video/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/12/16/youtube-denies-that... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/01463417102/explanation-why-umg-may-be-right-that-it-can-pull-down-megauploads-video.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/01463417102/explan... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/megaupload-viral-music-video-youtube-274659 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/megaupload-viral-mu...
  - reader5000 15y ago
    I'm not a lawyer but I know contract law does sometimes recognize third-party rights. Not sure if would be applicable here.
  - ubernostrum 15y ago
    Copyright law does have the tort of slander of title; if Rumblefish's actions are interpreted by a court as claiming rights Rumblefish does not have, that could be a quite serious issue separate from anything YouTube has in a contract or EULA.
    - bo1024 15y ago
      Ok, cool. How does that work? The original author sues in civil court? And what do we mean by "quite serious"?
      - wtallis 15y ago
        Probably the most notable case involving slander of title was SCO v Novell. Groklaw explained the slander of title aspect: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2004021116125699 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20040211161256... It looks like it's not the easiest claim to prosecute, but in the case of YouTube videos where the content is entirely original and thus cannot be owned by a music label, the only hard part would be proving lost income. If that can be done, then the label can be held liable for actual and punitive damages, and legal costs.
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>Your EULA with YouTube states that YouTube may take down your videos for any reason. // Shouldn’t this prevent YouTube from relying on the common carrier defence - they're are clearly manipulating and policing the content [to benefit their commercial interests] and not acting as a common carrier. What troubles me more is that they're somehow allowed to deny individuals their copyrights - they're putting other peoples advertising next to your content presumably without waiting for it to be acceded to. They should surely, to keep lawful, take down dubious content until the ownership of rights has been resolved. In some jurisdictions I'd have thought that they couldn't add a EULA that would allow them to use third-party copyright material without explicit permission. That is when a corp claims your uploaded material and YouTube simply decide to add ads for that corp and send earnings to that same corp then this should (and I contend probably is in some places where YouTube are operating) be unlawful. In short: Google are actively infringing copyright. Is a EULA statement really sufficient to make this lawful?

by bo1024 15y ago

jemfinch 15y ago

Do you have any links to substantiate your claims? I'd be interested in reading the background.

bo1024 15y ago
Here's a few news articles. As I understand it, the only way UMG would be in legal trouble is if they violated their contract with YouTube -- that is, they promised YouTube to only take down stuff they had the rights to. So the only enforcement here is if YouTube decides to sue UMG for breach of contract. (Which I wouldn't hold my breath on.) Either way, the DMCA never gets involved because they never had to file a DMCA notice to take down YouTube content. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/umg-we-have-the-right-to-block-or-remove-youtube-videos.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/umg-we-have-... http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/12/16/youtube-denies-that-universal-music-had-rights-to-attempt-removal-of-megauploads-video/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/12/16/youtube-denies-that... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/01463417102/explanation-why-umg-may-be-right-that-it-can-pull-down-megauploads-video.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/01463417102/explan... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/megaupload-viral-music-video-youtube-274659 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/megaupload-viral-mu...
- reader5000 15y ago
  I'm not a lawyer but I know contract law does sometimes recognize third-party rights. Not sure if would be applicable here.
- ubernostrum 15y ago
  Copyright law does have the tort of slander of title; if Rumblefish's actions are interpreted by a court as claiming rights Rumblefish does not have, that could be a quite serious issue separate from anything YouTube has in a contract or EULA.
  - bo1024 15y ago
    Ok, cool. How does that work? The original author sues in civil court? And what do we mean by "quite serious"?
    - wtallis 15y ago
      Probably the most notable case involving slander of title was SCO v Novell. Groklaw explained the slander of title aspect: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2004021116125699 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20040211161256... It looks like it's not the easiest claim to prosecute, but in the case of YouTube videos where the content is entirely original and thus cannot be owned by a music label, the only hard part would be proving lost income. If that can be done, then the label can be held liable for actual and punitive damages, and legal costs.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago

>Your EULA with YouTube states that YouTube may take down your videos for any reason. // Shouldn’t this prevent YouTube from relying on the common carrier defence - they're are clearly manipulating and policing the content [to benefit their commercial interests] and not acting as a common carrier. What troubles me more is that they're somehow allowed to deny individuals their copyrights - they're putting other peoples advertising next to your content presumably without waiting for it to be acceded to. They should surely, to keep lawful, take down dubious content until the ownership of rights has been resolved. In some jurisdictions I'd have thought that they couldn't add a EULA that would allow them to use third-party copyright material without explicit permission. That is when a corp claims your uploaded material and YouTube simply decide to add ads for that corp and send earnings to that same corp then this should (and I contend probably is in some places where YouTube are operating) be unlawful. In short: Google are actively infringing copyright. Is a EULA statement really sufficient to make this lawful?