4 ms·

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.

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.