Record Label Execs Suddenly Upset That False Copyright Claims Can Take Down Videos
from the shoulda-thought-of-that-before dept
We already wrote about how a prankster used bogus copyright claims to takedown the videos of Justin Bieber on YouTube. It turns out that the mysterious prankster didn't just target Bieber, but also got videos by Lady Gaga, Rihanna and Shakira taken down. But what's funny is how some (anonymous, of course) record label execs are suddenly concerned about this process that involves taking down first and asking questions later. The article is a little strange in that it suggests a user needs to have "YouTube Partner status" to make a copyright claim. As far as I can tell that's not at all true. If it were, you'd see tons of copyright holders complaining that YouTube made them jump through hoops to be able to issue takedown notices. Either way, I'm still interested to see if the the labels actually decide to go after this guy. I'm guessing they won't, because the last thing they want to do is set a precedent over the filing of bogus DMCA takedowns.
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: copyright, dmca, justin bieber, lady gaga, pranks, rihanna, shakira, takedowns
Companies: youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: DandonTRJ on Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 5:28pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some of the worst violators of DMCA take downs gets their own taken down and all of a sudden, out of the blue, they now get what everyone has been saying all along? Makes you wonder if the tail wags the dog often.
It's about time they got bit with the hair of the dog. I mean you already can't tell what is what. The labels secretly authorize some new song to hype an album and that's ok. Yet someone else has a bit of a song in the background that can barely be heard and that is a big issue for them.
Glad to hear they are getting a small taste of what they've been dishing out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Record Label Execs Suddenly Upset That False Copyright Claims Can Take Down Videos"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The law only says Youtube must comply with any DMCA not to validate them, and that was done on purpose the studios didn't want to have to many hassles, so they didn't put any anti-abuse mechanism on it and now this is what they got.
Maybe is time for everybody to start sending bogus DMCA's to Youtube, Google is obliged to comply with all of them and I doubt they will be able to sort out what is what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real precedent
Under the DMCA, proper procedure would be for the record label to file a counter-notice, for YouTube to notify iLCreation of the counter-notice, then put the videos back up after 10-14 days unless iLCreation had filed suit. There's absolutely nothing in the DMCA that suggests that content providers are allowed to personally vet or review claims. Sure, the DMCA takedown procedures are heavily biased in favor of the (alleged) copyright holders -- but in this case, YouTube actually violated the provisions of the DMCA by putting the videos back up immediately. Can you imagine the furor if YouTube decided to automatically reject takedown claims filed by MPAA/RIAA?
Somehow, I doubt that YouTube will actually be prosecuted, in any way, for throwing out the DMCA and responding quickly to a obviously bogus takedown notice. But really, the most alarming precedent that's being set here is the one where the DMCA provisions are only enforced when it's a big label or lobbying group filing the takedown notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real precedent
In actual response, I wonder if **AA has an office nearby so they can put a large, steroid-enhanced body with facial scars and buzz-cut in an expensive suit and walk it to an executive VP's desk at the Youtube office so they can loom until it gets fixed. Or a squirrelly guy with horn-rimmed glasses and a heavy briefcase full of pre-printed lawsuit materials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real precedent
No, the procedures are heavily biased in favor of who's got the most expensive lawyers.
If the prankster who sent in the DMCA claims to get the Bieber and Gaga videos taken down had ACTUALLY BEEN THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, I don't think the outcome would have been one bit different unless he had as many lawyers and as much power as the record label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real precedent
I guess the questions (for me) would be (a) if it was "obviously bogus" int he first place, why the DMCA notices were even responded to via a takedown, and (b) if it wasn't that obvious, what was the factor that caused them to put up the videos again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real precedent
(a)
They have to treat every notice the same way, they are never placed in a position of having to judge if this belongs to party a or party b.
(b)
Music execs calling in on their private lines screaming at them got them put back up.
The entire system is setup to believe that anyone who files a notice is truthful and the actual owner. The system is weighted against the people who uploaded the content and they have to file a notice and then wait for up to 14 days to get the content restored.
Because this system was built to make it super easy for the **AA's to quickly protect their content.
The problem is when you have videos of children taken down because there was a song snippet caught on the radio in the background.
Google has built a system that listens to the sounds, and looks at the videos and compares them to known content. They did this to stop the **AA's from screaming and launching pointless lawsuits to make Google pay them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Reap What You Sow
Reap what you sow assholes. You wanted "ownership culture", you got it, now you get to live by the SAME rules YOU insisted were needed, bribed and bought congress for.
Stew in your own juices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently anyone can claim copyright on anything, Youtube and others don't have the means to confirm who is claiming what and if the claims are true or not.
Google didn't fallow the protocols to the letter here and could have been liable for something if 2 parties where in a dispute for some copyright, it could have been uggly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does one go about filing a dmca takedown notice? can anyone do it?
is it free?
....do they have a hotline?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA takedown abuse 101
2. Create a legitimate record label sounding domain name. Nothing too obvious like "dmcapranksterrecords.com".
3. Make up a fake CEO name, attorney name, artist name, and possibly a physical mailing address.
3a. Create a sound recording. Record your farts or something just don't place the mic too close to your butt.
4. Get an email signing certificate for the fake attorney email account.
5. Send an electronically signed "good faith" DMCA notice that the sound recordings on the referenced videos to are violating "artist - made up song name".
6. Watch the videos go down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA takedown abuse 101
Scale this out, the DMCA is about to get used a lot more often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
genius of a move...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A-HA Take me down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet they want to push "Three Strikes" where false claims of infringement can take down someones internet connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The tools can never be misused.
The tools can never be wrong.
The tool killed Jeeves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brilliant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is funny, but I'm not sure it's going to be any good.
It needs to be open, but it needs to be sensible, this much is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]