Judge gives Universal Music 24 hours to explain takedown spree

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/judge-gives-umg-24-hours-to-explain-takedown-spree.ars?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+Featured+Content%29

by gldalmaso • 15 years ago

163 33 15 years ago

arstechnica.com

Vivtek5• 15 years ago

a site must wait at least 10 days before restoring the material.

(This in reference to UMG's taking down a news show about the video in question...)

That blows my mind. That means anything at all can be taken down for a couple of weeks without the slightest repercussions to the fraudulent party.

SideburnsOfDoom2• 15 years ago

Welcome to 1998. That was when the DMCA was passed - signed by president Clinton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Ac...

It hasn't gotten any better since.

jaryd• 15 years ago

Actually, it's in the process of getting worse!

Vivtek5• 15 years ago

Yes, I know, I was none too happy about it in 1998, either - but I didn't know about the ten-day mandatory waiting period. Also, we didn't have YouTube yet or video blogs yet, so the issue of direct interference with free speech was not nearly so dire.

andrewpi• 15 years ago

The original purpose was to give an aggrieved party time to file a lawsuit, but clearly the process is ripe for abuse.

iamandrus• 15 years ago

I can't tell you how many times I've seen YouTube videos taken down by "companies" with such names as "0wn3d Limited" and "Videosux Corp." The DMCA was broken from the start.

Vivtek5• 15 years ago

Why file a lawsuit? Takedowns issued by regexp bots are essentially cost-free.

mikeash• 15 years ago

There are potential repercussions. A false claim of infringement leaves the claiming party open to liability for it. In practice this may not be easy to take advantage of, but it is there.

Vivtek5• 15 years ago

Sure, because history is replete with small actors successfully taking huge corporations to court.

rokhayakebe2• 15 years ago

Sometimes I wonder how movie studios (and music labels) make money. I watch DVD quality new releases, as well as old movies, via sites such as Putlocker or Megaupload through 1channel.ch. I think they should simply partners with such sites and figure a way to make money with them. These guys won't stop their business.

mikegirouard• 15 years ago

I think perhaps it is a "too big to fail" kind of situation.

If the judge rules against UMG, it would still be business as usual after the dust settles. Contrast this to if a startup were to pull a stunt like this... I'd guess that you would never hear from them again.

xer0• 15 years ago

These laws are written for entities that are "too big to fight." Not us.

spdy• 15 years ago

They are too far down the alley so much money was spent on fighting these pirates they wont backdown. This industry rather goes down like a burning ship then starting to cooperate with these "rouge" sites. Look at what they do in the US with SOPA that is what they want and that is where they throw their money at.

gldalmaso• 15 years ago

I agree. If the industry had spent all that money in rethinking and reshaping their business model to something the consumers actually desired, maybe we'd be in a much nicer state right now.

ceol• 15 years ago

>Sometimes I wonder how movie studios (and music labels) make money.

The vast majority of people get most of their content legally.

sp332• 15 years ago

You mean like netflix, hulu, amazon video subscription, spotify, pandora, last.fm, turntable.fm, or all the ad-supported podcasts and blogs out there?

onemoreact• 15 years ago

Considering the rate of piracy in China and India, I don't know if that's true.

kahirsch• 15 years ago

> I think they should simply partners with such sites and figure a way to make money with them.

Oh, is that all? Simply...

Natsu• 15 years ago

They're not one of the sites listed in the grandparent post, but YouTube has a program where they share the advertising revenue. Though that would have been even more interesting if they had managed to do that in this case, because they'd be getting revenue for a something they do not own.

rokhayakebe2• 15 years ago

Yes.

gregschlom• 15 years ago

"M-E-G-A. Upload to me today"... and now this is going to stick in my head for the whole day.

I hope Universal Music is happy with the free promotion that their takedown notice is going to give to this stupid video.

hmottestad2• 15 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

tobtoh• 15 years ago

If it's so easy to abuse the DCMA, I'm curious why the 'unwashed masses' haven't been issuing DCMA takedown requests for all the official music industry music videos on YouTube. Wouldn't that quickly highlight how broken the model is?

hmottestad2• 15 years ago

Ohhh...that would be so fun. Is Anonymous still up and running, they should take the case.

gmaslov• 15 years ago

No one would ever attempt to prosecute a corporation for perjury (the penalty specified by the DMCA) if it sends out a piddling few hundred fraudulent takedown notices. On the other hand, I wouldn't put it past them to throw the book at any individual they catch sending one. Individuals have neither the stamina for a long legal battle nor any means of plausible deniability ("The notices were automated!", "We don't know who sent it.", "The guy who sent it has been fired, problem solved.", etc.), and prosecutors like winning cases.

IANAL.

yumraj• 15 years ago

Anticipating yet another Streisand effect.

Judge gives Universal Music 24 hours to explain takedown spree

Related Stories