Is Universal Music Using Bogus DMCA Takedowns As A Negotiating Tactic?

from the sure-looks-like-that dept

Wed, Jul 20th 2011 1:08pm — Mike Masnick

Last week, Bas called our attention to a report claiming that hip hop artist Skepta saw his own song taken down from YouTube via a DMCA claim from Universal Music... because Universal wanted to buy the song to give to Eminem. The details of the story are still a bit sketchy, and I didn't write about it at the time, because it does appear that whoever had the rights to the song (Skepta and some others) did agree to sell the song to Jimmy Iovine, head of Interscope Records, a Universal Music subsidiary. Even if Skepta apparently reacted with surprise to the takedown, he did appear to agree to the sale.

However, the reports certainly indicated some very questionable timing when it came to the takedown from Universal. If the various reports -- mostly based on Skepta's own tweets -- are accurate, then it certainly sounds as though Universal issued the takedown prior to buying the song, in an effort to keep the song from being seen as being out there. In other words, if the reports are accurate, then it sounds like Universal/Interscope/Iovine may have used the DMCA takedown as a negotiating tactic to try to buy the song from Skepta and crew. That would be a clear abuse of the DMCA, though one where it's unlikely to have any consequences, since Skepta and the others with copyright interest in the song agreed to sell. Still, if the reporting on the story is accurate, it's a pretty damning example of how certain parties view the DMCA.

Of course, it's also worth noting that if the point of the takedown was to erase the song "Dare to Dream," from the internet until Eminem could have his way with it, it's failed miserably. Because of the takedown (hello, Streisand Effect), the song is getting a ton of attention and is being uploaded all over the place.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: dmca, negotiating, skepta, takedowns
Companies: universal music

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

dave blevins, 20 Jul 2011 @ 1:19pm

Takedowns
Hey guys, isn't it WAY PAST time that false "takedowners" got more than a "darn you" here on Techdirt? Like a prohibition on ANY takedowns of, say, 30 days for the 1st one, 90 for the 2nd and forever for the 3rd? And these prohibitions should follow any name changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2011 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re: Takedowns
  what should Techdirt prohibit Universal records from?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 2:31pm
  
  Re: Takedowns
  ... a three strikes for false DMCA takedowns. That would be so karmically perfect.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lauriel (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 5:06pm
  
  Re: Takedowns
  If you are accused of DMCA takedown abuse, you may use one of the following pre-defined defenses:
  
  i) Misidentification of Account - the "it wasn't me" defense.
  
  ii) Unauthorised Use of Account - the "damn pirates hacked us" defense.
  
  iii) Authorisation - the "DMCA takedown request was authorised by management, who are totally clueless as to the correct usage" defense.
  
  iv) Fair Use - the "they're damn pirates, so our use of DMCA was fully justified" defense.
  
  v) Go on - plead the fifth. We dare you.
  
  vi) Misidentification of File - the "we actually meant to take down someone else's totally legal content" defense.
  
  vii) Work Published Before 1923 - the "issuing the DMCA was not copyright bullying, but simply conceding the fact that there is no such thing as 'public domain'" defense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2011 @ 1:19pm

Remember when this DMCA was coming up before vote as a bill? It was stated by the RIAA that it would be used as was intended and not abused.

Now we have the ProtectIP bill coming up with the same sort of statement. Be very wary if this passes as it is a law for all to use, not just the MAFIAA. Any and all vague uses will be put to use with company having a clear advantage to use it. Rest assured that will be abused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2011 @ 1:20pm

The DMCA is just another tool in the copyright lawyer's bag to seperate people from their money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 1:28pm

Not actually a "negotiating tactic" as much as a way to reduce competition from other labels, who could have found the song and started a bidding war with Universal.

Basically, this artist SO got screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Modplan (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 3:20pm
  
  Re:
  ^This. Reminds of of the point Cracked made about studios buying up scripts simply so no one else could have them (even if they had no intention of making the film).
  
  http://www.cracked.com/article_19012_5-hollywood-secrets-that-explain-why-so-many-movies-s uck.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 1:50pm

They know..
full well they can get away with the bogus DMCA takedowns, so why not go ahead and do it? Lawyers know full well that they will never suffer any punishment for bogus takedowns.

The music/entertainment lawyers know full well how to screw people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 2:26pm

I love when the abuse goes the other way the pro i-pea brains are silent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zot-Sindi, 20 Jul 2011 @ 2:52pm
  
  Re:
  Well, duh, of course they are, it's what they wanted in the first place, to screw people over and control everything. Never let 'em convince you otherwise.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 11:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So they have puppet strings tied to you to make you bend over?
    
    Yup, definitely accurate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]