4 ms·

filed a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) takedown of the video An attempt to pre-empt some comments: this seems to be a misunderstanding. The DMCA is no

filed a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) takedown of the video An attempt to pre-empt some comments: this seems to be a misunderstanding. The DMCA is not involved at all with these private agreements between Youtube and record labels, Youtube is a private company and can remove any content they want for any reason. They have given these companies permission to remove content they believe breaches their copyright. Anyone can file a DMCA notice with Youtube, what Universal etc. do bypasses it entirely. If Universal etc. were doing this using a DMCA notice they would be breaching the terms of the DMCA.

chewxy 14y ago
Oh, many people don't understand DMCA at all. They think it's a shortcut to take down content they don't like. It's not only the big companies that are doing it. The DMCA is way too easy to misuse
gabrielrotbart 14y ago
Unless the time that sentence is referring to happened prior to any agreements between YouTube and Universal (the article states 2011). Your explanation is still valuable, however. Thanks.
decklin 14y ago
"And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are [corporations]. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."
- sp332 14y ago
  Is that Thatcher?
  - ptaipale 14y ago
    No, it isn't. Thatcher spoke about individuals and families, not corporations. And the sentence is of course a hyperbole which should be seen in the context of a longer speech. Yes, she was a divisive figure, but has nothing to do with this Youtube thing, really.
    - sp332 14y ago
      I knew it was out-of context hyperbole, and the word [corporations] was added to the quote. Anyway, thanks.
FireBeyond 14y ago
Exactly. As annoying as it is, this isn't a breach of DMCA in any way, shape or form - it's YouTube saying "it's more important for us to make the record labels happier than it is you". And, for better or worse, that's their perfect right.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  * cue someone arguing that YouTube can't do that, because it's a violation of the First Amendment
  - Tuna-Fish 14y ago
    It's not. The First Amendment guarantees you a voice, but not an audience. Youtube has every right to tell you to sod off if they don't like your content for any reason.
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
      Of course it isn't. YouTube isn't the government, so it doesn't even apply. My comment was poking fun at people who forget about that.
      - AgentConundrum 14y ago
        FWIW, I upvoted you back into the black, since I thought your intention was clear. Lots of people seem to make this mistake, that somehow the first amendment means that private companies aren't allowed to censor you.
        sageikosa 14y ago
        Technically, they are not censoring you, they just aren't providing you a free podium.
  - hawleyal 14y ago
    Just because they can legally, doesn't mean their not douchebags for doing it. If yours is the only press, it makes your level of shenanigans worse.
jaredmcateer 14y ago
So if it's the case that the user did not infringe on Universal's copyrights, merely the agreement Universal has with Youtube does that still count towards their two strikes?

chewxy 14y ago

Oh, many people don't understand DMCA at all. They think it's a shortcut to take down content they don't like. It's not only the big companies that are doing it. The DMCA is way too easy to misuse

gabrielrotbart 14y ago

Unless the time that sentence is referring to happened prior to any agreements between YouTube and Universal (the article states 2011). Your explanation is still valuable, however. Thanks.

decklin 14y ago

"And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are [corporations]. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

sp332 14y ago
Is that Thatcher?
- ptaipale 14y ago
  No, it isn't. Thatcher spoke about individuals and families, not corporations. And the sentence is of course a hyperbole which should be seen in the context of a longer speech. Yes, she was a divisive figure, but has nothing to do with this Youtube thing, really.
  - sp332 14y ago
    I knew it was out-of context hyperbole, and the word [corporations] was added to the quote. Anyway, thanks.

FireBeyond 14y ago

Exactly. As annoying as it is, this isn't a breach of DMCA in any way, shape or form - it's YouTube saying "it's more important for us to make the record labels happier than it is you". And, for better or worse, that's their perfect right.

sliverstorm 14y ago
* cue someone arguing that YouTube can't do that, because it's a violation of the First Amendment
- Tuna-Fish 14y ago
  It's not. The First Amendment guarantees you a voice, but not an audience. Youtube has every right to tell you to sod off if they don't like your content for any reason.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    Of course it isn't. YouTube isn't the government, so it doesn't even apply. My comment was poking fun at people who forget about that.
    - AgentConundrum 14y ago
      FWIW, I upvoted you back into the black, since I thought your intention was clear. Lots of people seem to make this mistake, that somehow the first amendment means that private companies aren't allowed to censor you.
      - sageikosa 14y ago
        Technically, they are not censoring you, they just aren't providing you a free podium.
- hawleyal 14y ago
  Just because they can legally, doesn't mean their not douchebags for doing it. If yours is the only press, it makes your level of shenanigans worse.

jaredmcateer 14y ago

So if it's the case that the user did not infringe on Universal's copyrights, merely the agreement Universal has with Youtube does that still count towards their two strikes?