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

[V-Man339]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...es-umg-24-hours-to-explain-takedown-spree.ars
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...e-right-to-block-or-remove-youtube-videos.ars

So label executives must have been furious on Friday when the locker site unveiled a new promotional video featuring some of the music industry's biggest names singing the site's praises. One of the labels, Universal Music Group, went a step further and started filing takedown notices.
On Monday, Megaupload—doubtless relishing the opportunity to play copyright victim—filed a lawsuit in federal court against UMG for misuse of the DMCA takedown process. UMG, it said, is "abusing the DMCA takedown mechanism to chill free speech they do not like." It asked the court to declare that Megaupload had the right to post its video and to restrain UMG from submitting any more takedown notices.
But UMG apparently continued its takedown campaign, targeting an episode of Tech News Today that included a clip from the video in its coverage of the controversy. The host, Tom Merritt, says he filed a counter-notice under the DMCA, but as of Wednesday evening the show had not been restored. Under the DMCA, it will take 10 days for the video to go back up. "In 10 days a daily news show is worthless," he told the Verge, "so Universal was able to censor this episode of Tech News Today."

So on so forth, usual process here. Then it gets good.

UMG's response, filed late on Thursday, focuses on the narrow question of whether Judge Claudia Wilken should grant such a restraining order. The recording giant makes two principle arguments in opposition.

First, UMG says such a restraining order is not authorized by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA's notice-and-takedown safe harbor includes a provision for monetary damages against copyright holders who abuse the takedown process, but it does not give the courts the power to block copyright holders from sending takedown requests.

But more importantly, Universal argues that its takedown is not governed by the DMCA in the first place. In a statement supporting Megaupload's complaint, CIO Kim Dotcom had stated "it is my understanding" that Universal had invoked the DMCA's notice-and-takedown provisions. But UMG says Dotcom got it wrong: the takedown was sent "pursuant to the UMG-YouTube agreement," which gives UMG "the right to block or remove user-posted videos through YouTube's CMS based on a number of contractually specified criteria."

In other words, when UMG removes a video using YouTube's CMS, that might be a takedown, but it's not a DMCA takedown. And that, UMG argues, means that the DMCA's rule against sending takedown requests for files you don't own doesn't apply.

[video=youtube_share;pCkI5I8vsBg]http://youtu.be/pCkI5I8vsBg[/video]

Tl;dr megaupload legally trolled Universal in a video knowing Universal dislikes them (greatly), only for Universal to take them down under the pretenses of a contract between them and google that says they can take down any video they want, regardless of copyright.

 

[Bad^Hat]

[video=youtube_share;pCkI5I8vsBg]http://youtu.be/pCkI5I8vsBg[/video]

Which site is this for again?

 

[Acepilotf14]

Rapidshare?

 

[morgs]

Hey look a bunch of celebrities pretending to like something.

 

[V-Man339]

The irony inherent in that they are pretending to like something they are at the same time supposed to pretend to hate.
And the video got taken down for it, came back up, got taken down, got taken to court, then had some very questionable information leaked through it.
Watching the video alone is missing the point of this entirely.