Universal Music engages in illegal censorship

[BladeVenom]

Universal Music are using cease and desist orders to try to silence a song they don't like. http://torrentfreak.com/universal-censors-megaupload-song-gets-branded-a-rogue-label-111210/

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.

The order was disputed, Youtube put the song back up, and then Universal had it taken back down again.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

No surprise there. Companies like Universal are not there for the artists.

 

[Throckmorton]

Why would Youtube comply with the cease and desist when the song has nothing to do with Universal?

 

[Throckmorton]

http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/n6za7/umg_abuses_you_tubes_video_removal_system_to_take/

 

[BoberFett]

Abuse of copyright law should invalidate all copyrights held by the abuser. That would put a quick end to these shenanigans.

 

[drebo]

The first rule of unions is you do not talk about unions (negatively).

I wouldn't be surprised if Universal tries to claim that they own the "artists'" names and images. In fact, there's probably even a fine-print clause in their contracts that says so.

 

[Blackjack200]

Why would Youtube comply with the cease and desist when the song has nothing to do with Universal?

It's a "Safe Harbor" provision of the DMCA. Essentially, the DMCA holds Youtube responsible for any and all videos on its site that violate copyrights.

When the DMCA was written, sites that hosted user-uploaded content protested that they didn't have the ability to monitor all the content that users might post, so a special provision was left that as long as the site immediately removed any content that anybody claimed was a copyright violation, they could not be sued for failing to remove content that they were not notified about. To discourage fradulent DMCA takedown notices, I think they made it a criminal offense to knowingly submit a false DMCA takedown notice.

 

[Throckmorton]

It's a "Safe Harbor" provision of the DMCA. Essentially, the DMCA holds Youtube responsible for any and all videos on its site that violate copyrights.

When the DMCA was written, sites that hosted user-uploaded content protested that they didn't have the ability to monitor all the content that users might post, so a special provision was left that as long as the site immediately removed any content that anybody claimed was a copyright violation, they could not be sued for failing to remove content that they were not notified about. To discourage fradulent DMCA takedown notices, I think they made it a criminal offense to knowingly submit a false DMCA takedown notice.

According to the Reddit thread, DMCA allows for "mistakes" by the companies demanding takedowns. So UMG gets a free pass.

 

[BladeVenom]

Do you believe it was an honest mistake? Once maybe, but twice?

 

[bfdd]

According to the Reddit thread, DMCA allows for "mistakes" by the companies demanding takedowns. So UMG gets a free pass.

because they wrote the law lols. I agree with bober

 

[ThatsABigOne]

Why would Youtube comply with the cease and desist when the song has nothing to do with Universal?

This.

Why the fvck WMG would block some of Russian music videos?

 

[BladeVenom]

Now they keep trying to remove a tech show that reported it on YouTube.
https://plus.google.com/103207773865797007066/posts/M2yVb5ND3Su

You can't give the MAFIAA the tools to fight piracy, because they'll abuse them every time. They're already abusing the DMCA, and SOPA would far worse.

 

[HAL9000]

Here's the song (I believe), link works at time of posting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9caPFPQUNs