Record label falsely sends takedown notice to try and censor a filelocker advertisement.

RomanNose · 10 Dec 2011 at 12:14

Earlier today, Megaupload released a pop video featuring mainstream artists who endorse the cyberlocker service. News of the controversial Mega Song even trended on Twitter, but has now been removed from YouTube on copyright grounds by Universal Music. Kim Dotcom says that Megaupload owns everything in the video, and that the label has engaged in dirty tricks in an attempt to sabotage their successful viral campaign.

http://torrentfreak.com/universal-censors-megaupload-song-gets-branded-a-rogue-label-111210/
This is really quite disgusting, using their power to censor a video. Obviously they have not heard of the Streisand effect but it's quite hilarious that they are allowed to get away with falsely issuing a take down notice. This just shows how dirty these record labels play. Under SOPA they legally do not have to provide any proof of infringement, so they would be able to do this all day.

StriderX · 10 Dec 2011 at 12:50

Megaupload releases videos now?

Al Vallario · 10 Dec 2011 at 12:58

RomanNose · 10 Dec 2011 at 13:04

Al Vallario said:
You're assuming the takedown order was issued:

1) Manually, not by an automated system;

2) Intentionally, and not mistakenly;

3) Maliciously.

It happened two times, megaupload disputed with youtube and after that Universal sent another request.

Al Vallario · 10 Dec 2011 at 13:07

RomanNose · 10 Dec 2011 at 13:09

Al Vallario said:
Same applies to the second takedown.

In fact, the second takedown — "just seconds later" — would lend credence to the hypothesis that this was the result of an automated process.

It does not matter if it is automated. It is illegal to send false take down notices, youtube just works with record companies to make it easier, still illegal nonetheless.

StriderX · 10 Dec 2011 at 13:11

RomanNose said:
It does not matter if it is automated. It is illegal to send false take down notices.

Illegal to who?

Its not like record labels cant just bribe their way out of this, they are completely untouchable.

Jambo · 10 Dec 2011 at 13:22

How would it be automated? Due to artists tagged, named in description or something?

Seems a bit nuclear.

Al Vallario · 10 Dec 2011 at 13:22

KIA · 10 Dec 2011 at 13:42

In May 2007, UMG was accused of abusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in order to squelch criticism, by forcing YouTube to remove several videos that contain UMG's music in it. This has caused much anger and frustration to many youtubers. One of the videos they took off is a Michelle Malkin video critical of singer Akon.[14][15] Eventually, UMG backed off its claims after being challenged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[16][17] In the same year, UMG was accused of using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to indiscriminately remove content related to the artist Prince, most notably a twenty-nine second home video in which children danced to one of Prince's songs.[18]

Good old UMG.

RomanNose · 10 Dec 2011 at 13:48

Al Vallario said:
It's not illegal per se, although a plaintiff may be liable for costs incurred as a result of a false takedown request.

The filing of a false takedown request does not, as has been erroneously bounded about elsewhere, amount to perjury.

Edit: Just to clarify, this is also assuming the video was taken down as a result of a DMCA complaint, and not through some extrajudicial agreement YouTube have in place with rights holders like UMG.

(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

Jambo · 10 Dec 2011 at 13:54

RomanNose said:
Copyright quote

That isn't what happened. That relates to someone claiming copyright on something they don't own.

RomanNose · 10 Dec 2011 at 13:55

Jambo said:
That isn't what happened. That relates to someone claiming copyright on something they don't own.

Are you sure there is not anything to stop this?
Surely nothing can be done if false dmca takedowns are sent and the defendant is not making any money?

Al Vallario · 10 Dec 2011 at 13:56

Glaucus · 10 Dec 2011 at 13:57

KIA said:
Good old UMG.

Well according to that quote it contained UMGs music. So what have they done wrong?

Does this new video contain any of the labels music, they own it not the artists in nearly all cases.

semi-pro waster · 10 Dec 2011 at 13:58

RomanNose said:
(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

Click to expand...

I suspect the key words will be those of "fraudulent intent" and that may be quite difficult to prove.

That might not be an issue in the instant case as it seems UMG had no reason for the notice but as a general point it can be hard to prove maliciousness in intent.

RomanNose · 10 Dec 2011 at 13:59

Al Vallario said:
Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt these copyright notices were filed with "fraudulent intent"?

We haven't even established intent yet, let alone fraudulent intent!

No, I have no proof but I was just wondering what kind of laws protect them.

RomanNose · 10 Dec 2011 at 14:01

Glaucus said:
Well according to that quote it contained UMGs music. So what have they done wrong?

Does this new video contain any of the labels music, they own it not the artists in nearly all cases.

No it does not contain any of the record labels music, mega owned it all according to them.
Also I think they are allowed up to 30 seconds of playtime under fair use, iirc that is how itunes are allowed to sample music for 30 seconds.

Glaucus · 10 Dec 2011 at 14:03

RomanNose said:
No it does not contain any of the record labels music, mega owned it all according to them.
Also I think they are allowed up to 30 seconds of playtime under fair use, iirc that is how itunes are allowed to sample music for 30 seconds.

Any of the artists under the label, again most contracts have clauses in that they own anything produced/can't do work for others.

I don't think 30seconds fair use applies in this situation.

YouTube and iTunes holds contracts and rights with most labels.
Labels have been very accommodating with YouTube. Allowing videos that have their music in to be uploaded and viewed with no need for obtaining permission.

Al Vallario · 10 Dec 2011 at 14:14