As you know, UMG's rights in this regard are not limited to copyright infringement, as set forth more completely in the March 31, Video License Agreement for UGC Video Service Providers, including without limitation Paragraphs 1 b and 1 g thereof.
As far as we know, the agreement isn't public, so we can only speculate on what's in Paragraphs 1 b and 1 g. But we plan to ask Google for a copy. When UMG removes a video via YouTube's CMS, a "reference file" is created that "in theory is supposed to identify other instances of postings of the same content. The recording industry is currently lobbying for passage of the Stop Online Piracy Act , which would create a DMCA-style takedown regime for advertising and credit card networks.
Critics may question whether it's wise to give new takedown powers to copyright holders that demonstrate such a cavalier attitude toward the rights of others. Update :YouTube provided Ars Technica with the following statement: "Our partners do not have the right to take down videos from YouTube unless they own the rights to them or they are live performances controlled through exclusive agreements with their artists, which is why we reinstated it.
Either way, given the ultimate result much more publicity , they'd have a hard time showing damages. G Thompson profile , 17 Dec am. They don't need to show damages just that they were maliciously interfered with and then punitive damages can be awarded.
Malice is the key, show that and then damages for economic losses if any are the least of UMG's concerns. I'm leaning more and more towards them megaUpload having a major cause of tortious interference against UMG.
See, generally, SCO v Novell. Maybe David Boies will take on MegaUpload's case. He could team up again with Kevin McBride. Another AC , 16 Dec am.
They must be stopped! They do whatever I tell them, and they setup Vevo for me to stream my hard work and it doesn't cost me a dime!
Left hand, meet Right hand. You two should talk sometime Stupid analogy. Youtube "as is" in the wild pretty much fits the term "rogue site" to a T. Unchecked uploads, tons of copyright violations plain for anyone to see, and so on. Youtube through Vevo is the perfect situation for labels and artists. It lets them control how their image is displayed, how their work is presented, while at the same time giving their fans the benefit of the exposure.
It's the difference between something that the rights holder can control, and the wild west mentality. The left and right hands know each other well. It's just hard sometimes for simple minded people to accept that. I am the general public, pleased to meet you. Do you care? Youtube "as is" complies with the law. How, then, is it a 'rogue site'? At least without SOPA in the law books, yet. Otheros , 16 Dec am. Remember this? DCX2 , 16 Dec am. If YouTube would start policing the content and removing things that didn't violate the law, they lose safe harbor, right?
If YouTube is allowing someone else to police their videos and make decisions on what's legit and what's not, can they still lose safe harbor? Anonymous Coward , 16 Dec pm. No, and that would be a bad idea comparable to the Fairness Doctrine.
Companies shuold legally be able to choose who they do business with and give special privileges to. Let them be judged in the court of public opinion That Anonymous Coward profile , 16 Dec am. People were discussing this over on BoingBoing and my thought remains the same as to why Google would have given in this way.
They did not want to start another battle like they have going with Viacom. Where a another massive corporation keeps them tied up in court throwing money at stupid accusations.
HotFile thought the same thing, and they gave in and let WB have a tool that they then proceeded to abuse well outside of the intended use. It would be nice to show these prime examples of these corporations running wild mad with power to the Congresscritters who seem to think the corporations would only use new laws as intended.
That the made up figure of 1. Much like the parents who "NEED" San Fransisco to pass laws banning toys from happy meals to keep their kids from getting fat, it might just be time to tell them to ignore the temper tantrum and tell them NO. Gavin Meredith , 16 Dec am. This does not stand up to scrutiny as YouTube send an e-mail explicitly stating that a DMCA notice was served and that the counter notice I and I would assume they, although maybe not filled was against said DMCA notice. If the agreement with YouTube is a private contract agreement, and any part of that contract contradicts "The Law", then that part is void and maybe the whole contract.
But in any case there is probably some other "interference" law that MegaUpLoad can charge them with. Same concept as Warranties being a form of contract agreement, that usually exclude consequential damages. But that exclusion is void in States where "The Law" indicates otherwise.
Nate Piper , 16 Dec am. Just because a contract says you can do something, does not mean that when you do, it is legal. UMG is saying that contractually they are allowed to remove any video from Youtube that they want, and it may very well be the case that they can.
Just because Google inadvertently gave UMG a contractual right to remove any video and not just videos in which they hold the copyright, does not make the removal legal. It only means that UMG did not breach their contract with Google.
After reading YouTubes terms of service it makes no mention that videos can be removed by a third party UMG. Only that Google can remove any video it wants and will remove videos with a corresponding DMCA claim. By not using the DMCA to take down the video they are no longer afforded the protections given by the law.
Megaupload can now prove maliciousness in their intent to interfere with Megauploads business. On a side note: Why doesn't Google or Apple just buy up the music labels. They have the cash and it would get rid of the thorn in their sides that is the RIAA.
Entirely correct. In fact, claiming copyright on something you don't have ie. Again, I don't believe UMG has the right to remove "any video. Not sure this works either.
Google has the right to remove any video it wants. That's what it did here. Nash has worked at the forefront of media and technology convergence for his entire career as an executive, entrepreneur and producer. Most recently, Nash served as a strategic advisor to Warner Music Group WMG , as well as several digital media startups and new technology companies. He received a MBA from … more. Thank you for registering! Click the link to confirm your email address.
Please check your spam folder for the email, if it does not arrive, click this link For more information on how Universal Music Group for Brands can create authentic connections for your brand, please contact us here. We exist to shape culture through the power of artistry. We are a community of entrepreneurs committed to creativity and innovation. Argentina Universal Music Argentina. Austria Universal Music Austria. Belgium Universal Music Belgium.
Brazil Universal Music Brazil. Universal UMG is one of the companies which is very aggressive in fighting piracy. They move quickly using tracking software to identify copyright infringement. Your other videos will probably be taken down, but it might take longer. Meanwhile, you should stop posting copyright material. The worst is being sued.
0コメント