UMG claims "right to block or remove" YouTube videos it doesn't own

There are still questions concerning the Tech News Today takedown issue. From the article:<p>UMG's response also sheds some light on another mystery: why Monday's issue of Tech News Today was yanked from YouTube. 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." UMG speculates that this "reference file" system was responsible for the accidental removal from YouTube of a Tech News Today episode featuring the Megaupload video.<p>Now, this is plausible why TNT was taken down the first time. TNT then issued a counter-complaint and was put back online shortly thereafter. Finally, it was removed AGAIN in accordance to the DMCA because (according to the speculation on how this works) UMG confirmed that the content in question which was originally removed did infringe.<p>UMG cannot hide behind the "accidental" TNT takedown if they personally <i>confirmed</i> it twice to be infringing.

Google is giving the labels way more power than they should. They automatically announce them of infringing content with ContentID, when it's not their obligation to do so under current copyright laws, and now this - allowing the labels to remove even content of their competitors.<p>What the hell are you doing Google? Google entering the music/movie business worries me, because it means they will give them more power over their <i>other</i> services like Google Search, Youtube, or the Android Market, and they really shouldn't. At least not if they ever want to use the "Do No Evil" line in public again.<p>Also, can UMG really make their own private DMCA under a contract with Google? Does that mean they could even take down domain names if they agreed to that under a contract with the DNS providers? I don't think the law is supposed to work like that, and hopefully the judge will recognize that.

Except that when the video gets taken down YouTube says it was on copyright grounds, not only that but when you get such a takedown letter it specifically mentions the DMCA (or at least in the one case a client of mine received such a letter due to using a 30 second clip from a song as background music) and your rights associated with the DMCA including the ability to state that it is fair use.<p>If YouTube did agree to letting UMG basically control content uploaded to YouTube they have basically given them the ability to silence any and all opposition to UMG on YouTube with the single click of a button.

Just wait until they get their hands on things like the SOPA to abuse next year - this is nothing.<p>Essentially, law in the USA has come down to bullying - "well try and stop us, if you can afford it".<p>Short of a supreme court ruling, they are going to do whatever they want - and you really don't want this in front of the current supreme court.

Well; I guess if they have a contract with YouTube that allows them to take down videos directly then technically they are in the (legal) right.<p>I assume youtube TOS allows them to pull down your video for 'any reason'; otherwise there might be some liability on youtube's end.<p>I did not expect this turn of events; and I wonder why youtube would sign an agreement like that at all..

"You can't place a restraining order because that's not in the DMCA!"<p>--<p>"The takedown wasn't a DMCA related takedown."<p>Am I missing something here? Are courts really so blind to the major label's bullying games that this wasn't IMMEDIATELY approved and an injunction placed until further proceedings?<p>I mean, no I'm not a lawyer but I have studied contract law and these just seems moronic.

There's some speculation on the Ars forum that if UMG aren't just making this up, their contract with Google could call into question YouTube's status as a primarily user-generated content-based site, and perhaps render them ineligible for DMCA safe harbor protection.<p>I just read some of DMCA Title II/OCILLA, and although it's mostly over my head, I'm not sure if I see how signing a contract with UMG allowing them to issue non-DMCA takedowns at will puts YouTube in breach of the safe harbor requirements.<p>Anyone with some DMCA expertise care to weigh in?

Well, surely, DMCA invoke or not - that is anticompetitive.

All these claims are coming from UMG. I am cynical of most things the major media companies say w.r.t. copyright &#38; internet based on their poor track record. So I would not put it past them to be exadurating the truth here.<p>Is there any word from YouTube confirming this?

This is pure speculation, but I would imagine this song is getting a lot more publicity because of UMG's attempts to remove it. I certainly doubt that I would have ever come across it without reading about the fight on countless blogs.

Here is my speculation about what really happened: YouTube has its infringing content tool designed to detect copyrighted content and notify the rights holder. That tool erroneously flagged the Megaupload video as being owned by UMG. UMG just does what it always does when it receives a notification of infringing content: it pressed the button to take it down. Now, UMG is saying the agreement it has with youtube is that if its youtube tool flags a video as infringing, then it is ok to take down the video, even if the identification was erroneous.

UMG will probably have to argue that MegaUpload is a criminal organisation that distributions disproportionately high infringing content, therefore, them producing essentially an advertisement that tells people about MegaUpload amounts to linking to infringing content. Under this circumstances, DMCA provisions apply because it is a method of circumventing copy protection.<p>In the end, this is not a battle over free speech. It is a battle by several private interests - YouTube, UMG and MegaUpload over content rights.

I thought the video was also taken down from other video sites too. Do they also have the private agreement outside the DMCA?