Login
Ladies and gentlemen, it looks like we all had it wrong. When Universal Music Group censored Megaupload's star-studded promo video, it didn't send a DMCA request at all — rather, the company reached right into YouTube's content management system (CMS) and removed the video all by itself. According to a letter from UMG's lawyers, the music label has a special agreement with YouTube that allows it to directly remove content even when it doesn't infringe a copyright it holds, and they claim that UMG used YouTube's own content management system to pull the video directly rather than send a takedown notice.
Now, you're probably thinking that it seems a little crazy that UMG would have that kind of power — and we don't disagree — but according to lawyers, Universal is willing to let the courts decide that, and has been since the first (and only) time it used the CMS. You see, even though we all saw Megaupload's video repeatedly taken down and Tech News Today's news report censored as well, UMG lawyers claim that's the work of a "reference file" created when the original video was pulled, and that YouTube's automated removal process is responsible for all the other removals we saw. UMG says that after Megaupload disputed the removal, YouTube agreed to remove the reference file, and from now until the conclusion of the legal process, neither UMG nor YouTube will be censoring the video anymore. For its part, Google told Techdirt that UMG and other partners "do not have broad take-down rights to remove anything they don't like from our service," so hopefully UMG's actions were an anomaly here.
For now, we'll just wonder why Google would let an outside company have that kind of ongoing access to YouTube, and what it means for the freedom of speech when an automated system can (even briefly) remove references to material that might otherwise qualify for Fair Use. Read the whole letter for yourself at our source link.
Update: Ars Technica has a new, more specific statement from Google that suggests UMG may be exaggerating its rights here: "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," a rep wrote. We'd love to know what, specifically, YouTube originally agreed that UMG could do.
Comments
This makes me sick. :(
Junkie - December 16, 2011
Which is why SOPA can’t happen. This is exactly the kind of thing that will become commonplace if it passes.
Saad073 - December 16, 2011
Everyone listen to this guy. Call your congressman/woman to voice your position on SOPA. If every congressmen knows that their constituents won’t re-elect them if they vote for SOPA it can’t pass.
BrianTho - December 16, 2011
I’m from bloody Sweden, and even I’m aware of the dire consequences of the SOPA act if voted through. Guys, do what you can.
PunkJumpUp - December 16, 2011
This is probably the only time I’ve been happy to be to lazy to exit church of Sweden as they openly oppose SOPA.
Bagera - December 17, 2011
“since the first (and only) time it used the CMS”
Yeah no. More like the first time someone caught them using it.
Intel - December 16, 2011
this is screwed up.
alettyo - December 16, 2011
These days corporations have more power and influence then the US Government
xenetic - December 16, 2011
Corporations have had this sort of power for years, the East India Company is a prime example from the past.
d0mth0ma5 - December 16, 2011
too much power.
In other news, how many other content providers have this control over YouTube? How often is it exercised on YouTube and elsewhere? Did Viacom sue Google over YouTube because this system was not enough?
somnia - December 16, 2011
Thousands of companies have deals with Youtube. Each time Youtube does localisation of their site (i.e. hey launch youtube.de, youtube.nl etc) they make huge contracts with local record labels.
The music industry gets paid by Google and in return Google can feature their clips.
LolyPopBrigade - December 16, 2011
apparently I did not make myself clear enough. I am wondering if there are any other content providers that have this “DMCA+” CMS agreement with YouTube and others.
if only Universal has it with only YouTube, well that’s a very different free speech and fair use picture than if the entirety of the RIAA & MPAA members have and exercise this “DMCA+” CMS power on all content sharing sites.
somnia - December 16, 2011
I really can’t believe Google would give that kind of powers to them. Sounds so insane.
Zkal - December 16, 2011
I bet Megavideo wasn’t expecting their ad to have THIS large an effect.
-Trolling UMG
-Getting TnT and most of the TwiT army pissed at UMG/YouTube
-Exposing the Google-YouTube-Label censorship complex
-Discovery of a CMS backdoor
-Discovering how Youtube uses “References Files”
I say they got their money’s worth.
Intel - December 16, 2011
I really can’t believe people are surprised by this. UMG is Google’s customer, a high paying one. Youtube users/uploaders are not Google’s customers, they are the product (same with Facebook). How are so many people completely missing this nowadays?
egojab - December 17, 2011
How are you missing that BAD MORALS make the customers LEAVE.
Sure not many know about this at the moment, but perhaps this is where the LEAVE YOUTUBE movement started.
Rubikon - December 17, 2011
Yeah, just like “everyone” threatens to leave Facebook everytime they had a privacy blunder of epic proportions. It’s simply not going to happen.
But I think you missed the point of my post. No one should be surprised by the leeway google allows content providers, because the content providers are the ones paying google tons of ad money, not youtube users. Youtube users are the commodity being sold, not the customers.
egojab - December 17, 2011
wow UMG. wow.
and seriously, google? don’t do evil. like sell out to UMG.
frickandfrak - December 16, 2011
I’m kind of upset right now, not that big content owners shouldn’t have some expeditious way of taking down offended data, but that we’ve had to wait until now to learn about it. It’s like the whole carrier IQ thing, if Google said hey we don’t want to get sued for all of this copyright infringement so we’re going to have content owners be partially responsible for censoring videos, that’s totally OK. It’s when you do it behind people’s back that it get’s scary and there is much more potential for abuse. It’s time corporations understand that transparency is in everyone’s best interests.
iservin - December 16, 2011
Looks like a system of checks and balances is completely out the window here.
Al2x - December 16, 2011
“According to a letter from UMG’s lawyers, the music label has a special agreement with YouTube”
Every record company has a special agreement with Youtube. I remember when we got our own ‘local’ Youtube, it happened after deals with record companies and TV stations.
LolyPopBrigade - December 16, 2011
Thanks to Universal there are a lot more people that know about Megaupload now.
crichton007 - December 16, 2011
I hear it’s fast as hell.
ranhalt - December 16, 2011
“Do No Evil”, right Google?
rsanchez1 - December 16, 2011
Isn’t it ’Don’t Be Evil’?
Xavdog - December 16, 2011
Who cares, it’s a lie anyway.
rsanchez1 - December 16, 2011
Yeah, have you seen the Galaxy Nexus? That thing is so good it should be illegal.
Irrelevant Elephant - December 16, 2011
I saw one yesterday. I was surprised that I actually liked it. The Galaxy Note however…
Xavdog - December 16, 2011
Is your opinion of the Galaxy Note positive or negative? I’ve been thinking about buying one sometime
Account - December 16, 2011
Well I’ve never been an Android fanboy but I would say if you want Android then get the Nexus. The Note is just too big. My friend who is 6’2" had to hold it with two hands in order to be comfortable with it and it felt quite chunky. I tried the Nexus as well and stock ICS seems much better than TouchWiz and Sense (which I have on my phone) so I’d say that is the best of the two.
Xavdog - December 17, 2011
When they have contractually specified priveledges in the CMS, don’t call it a “backdoor”. That’s just bad journalism.
whatgoodisaroad - December 16, 2011
No no, they have a contract which apparently says they can use the backdoor instead of the front door that everybody not filthy rich has to use.
Rubikon - December 17, 2011
I’m sure there was plenty of courting before the use of the back door was allowed.
jquanmusic - December 18, 2011
Pathetic.
Just sickening behaviour.
cjschris - December 16, 2011
Money.
For all of the Google fans that are surprised by this, just remember that you’re not Google’s customers; Advertisers, content distributors, and phone carriers are; You are the product.
egojab - December 16, 2011
It’s a shame there aren’t any widely-supported Youtube alternatives out there :-/
BenDTU - December 16, 2011
They try, but Google pays huge sums of money to content providers, both big companies like the music industry and TV / Hollywood, and Youtube “stars”.
Normal sites don’t have that kind of money and can’t really compete.
Sites like Veoh aren’t that bad, stage6 was awesome but it’s gone now.
LolyPopBrigade - December 16, 2011
That’s a shame. Youtube is a monopoly at this stage.
BenDTU - December 16, 2011
You know while I think this is unfair in many ways, YouTube isn’t a born right for anyone. You’re subject to YouTube’s terms which I’m sure states this sort of action somewhere.
Transient Jet Lag - December 16, 2011
Seriously, nerds reacting to two legal corporations acting according to contact as if it were the end of the world is the ultimate first world problem.
Atasi - December 16, 2011
No, its this worlds problem, just because you are too stupid to understand it doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem.
Rubikon - December 17, 2011
Instead of being about Google giving this right to UMG you guys should be worried more about what kind of rights it gives the US Government, over all your accounts and info which they can take any time. Same with FB
zoha_flower - December 16, 2011
Why is everybody so quick to blame Google? I highly doubt this backdoor deal was Googles first suggestion it brought to the table…
brockorr - December 16, 2011
So? They’re the ones who agreed to it.
BenDTU - December 16, 2011
yes, but my gut instinct on this says telling Universal ‘no’ was somehow not an option.
brockorr - December 16, 2011
Oh, it was definitely an “option”, but it wasn’t an option that gave Google ad money from UMG. UMG probably threatened to take their ball and go home, and Google was too big of a pushover for ad money to tell them to go for it.
egojab - December 17, 2011
Didn’t take long for someone to start making excuses for the big G
egojab - December 17, 2011
So why isn’t the Tech News Today video back up yet?
gps4cam - December 16, 2011
Thats BULLSHIT if they can do that. Thats against fair use
MaZZacare - December 16, 2011
What this is saying is that it’s not copyright infringement in place here, so terms like “fair use” and “copyright holder” are irrelevant. It’s a separate area of law that handles this. The questions are whether Google can take down videos if they want to and if Google can enter into business agreements that let other companies ask them to take down videos.
gps4cam - December 16, 2011
They probably had to grant them that kind of power privately so that they (UMG) didn’t sue for it publicly after “infringing” content showed up on GoogleTV. You know it will…
backporchprophet - December 16, 2011
Larry Page whats up with that?
Matthew.Atkinson83@gmail.com - December 16, 2011
Vimeo is prettier than youtube ! As for megaupload, it’s quite interesting: you can upload anonymously up to a 1GB file and it will be hosted for 21 days minimum. Registering for free will give you 200GB space and 90 days of persistence. They claim 150 million registered users and over 50 million daily unique visitors…
Balrog_of_Feature_Phones - December 16, 2011
Seems Universal doesn’t have that special deal with vimeo : http://vimeo.com/33424808 ;-) In any case, the video seems to be back in full force on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9caPFPQUNs
Balrog_of_Feature_Phones - December 17, 2011
Are there any good competitors to youtube besides vimeo?
velcrow - December 16, 2011
Such bullshit. All these companies are such weenies. Grow a pair and just admit your a bunch d-bags and then kick your own ass out the door
Devin Birmingham - December 16, 2011 via mobile
I can’t re-iterate this often enough: people are pissed that a company run buy Kim Schmitz is getting shafted.
Sorry but to make this very, very clear: Kim Schmitz has been sentenced by courts multiple times. No matter what UMG did, I love that they do this to Megaupload. Because Kim deserves it.
Sebastian.de - December 17, 2011
People are pissed that Universal can take down a clip on youtube on a whim and without there being a copyright infringement in the content. The rules apply to everyone and this is not about your childish little dislike vendetta attitude.
Balrog_of_Feature_Phones - December 17, 2011
They’re watching us :/
gorskiegangsta - December 17, 2011
You must log in with your Verge account to post a comment.
If you do not yet have a Verge account, please sign up for one!