Techdirt. Stories about "vevo"

YouTube Won't Put Your Video Back Up, Even If It's Fair Use, If It Contains Content From Universal Music

Mike Masnick — Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:52:00 PDT

Patrick McKay, who has been a harsh critic of some of YouTube's failings when it comes to the DMCA process and various takedowns, has highlighted a very serious issue with YouTube that has received little attention. YouTube now admits that, when it comes to some videos that contain content from certain "partner" companies, it won't repost those videos, even if the video uploaders file a counternotice and show that they're relying on fair use. YouTube claims that it will still keep some of those videos blocked due to "contractual" obligations:

YouTube enters into agreements with certain music copyright owners to allow use of their sound recordings and musical compositions.

In exchange for this, some of these music copyright owners require us to handle videos containing their sound recordings and/or musical works in ways that differ from the usual processes on YouTube. Under these contracts, we may be required to remove specific videos from the site, block specific videos in certain territories, or prevent specific videos from being reinstated after a counter notification. In some instances, this may mean the Content ID appeals and/or counter notification processes will not be available. Your account will not be penalized at this time.

If this sounds vaguely familiar to something in the past, you may recall that a few years ago, Universal Music and Megaupload got into a bit of a spat when UMG issued a questionable takedown of a song promoting Megaupload, which featured a ton of big stars singing the praises (literally) of Megaupload. Megaupload eventually sued UMG, but ended up dropping that lawsuit as a month or so later it had bigger legal issues on its hands, following the US's decision to shut down Megaupload. But, at the time, Universal Music made a strange claim that it had some sort of contractual agreement that allowed it take down videos like Megaupload's. YouTube quickly came out with a statement denying this, but the situations described in McKay's post certainly raise serious questions about this, and clearly suggest that YouTube has made at least some deals that effectively wipe out fair use for some users. I assume it will surprise next to no one that the key example that led McKay to discover this situation... also involved Universal Music.

As I noted at the time of that UMG/Megaupload spat that I believed the real issue might be YouTube's contract with Universal Music for Vevo -- and I suspect that's still the case now. As I said then, part of the "announced" deal was that as part of providing the backend for Vevo, YouTube would transfer over the videos of various UMG artists, such that they appeared exclusively on Vevo. I suspect that's the same thing happening here. Because part of the Vevo deal is a promise that Vevo gets exclusive rights to videos involving certain artists' works, it allows YouTube to simply ignore fair use claims from users on such content, and refuse to ever post them again.

Now, as McKay notes, this is (mostly) well within YouTube's rights. I remember, a few years back, seeing a discussion on some legal blogs about this question. The DMCA implies that if you file a legitimate counternotice following a DMCA takedown and if the copyright holder does not take further legal action, the service provider is obligated to put the work back up in no less than 10, but no more than 14 business days. But, to some extent, that seems questionable. After all, as a service provider, any site has the right to not allow certain content to be published if it doesn't want to. And yet, if read literally, some could make the argument that the DMCA obligates a service provider to put up content even if it doesn't want to. As McKay notes, in this manner, the only liability is to the person who filed the counternotice, and any such liability would likely be pretty limited.

Either way, there's no way to look at this that makes YouTube look good. Following so soon on our other story about YouTube taking down a video on a questionable "terms of service" violation and then refusing to repost the video, it's once again a situation where it seems like YouTube needs to do a much better job handling these situations. While we obviously don't know the details of the UMG contract, fair use rights cannot be signed away, especially by two third parties. It would be a shame if YouTube decided that it would arbitrarily give UMG the ability to deny someone's fair use rights in posting a video.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

No, The Major Labels Didn't Fake 2 Billion YouTube Views

Mike Masnick — Wed, 2 Jan 2013 05:24:39 PST

The record labels have a long history of knowing how to manipulate key numbers to their advantage. Look how labels have manipulated the various charts over the years and you'll find that it's a big part of how they do business. So it probably struck little by surprise to hear that the labels were now being accused of massively manipulating YouTube view counts to make certain songs look a hell of a lot more popular than they really are. The only problem? It's not actually true.

The DailyDot -- who normally does a fantastic job -- broke the story that got most of the attention, reporting:

Google slashed the cumulative view counts on YouTube channels belonging to Universal Music Group, Sony/BMG, and RCA Records by more than 2 billion views Tuesday, a drastic winter cleanup that may be aimed at shutting down black hat view count-building techniques employed by a community of rogue view count manipulators on the video-sharing site.

Universal's channel is the one that took the biggest hit. According to figures compiled by the YouTube statistics analysts at SocialBlade, the record company's YouTube channel lost more than 1 billion views from its preexisting tally of 7 billion views Tuesday.

Lots of other publications then picked up on the Daily Dot version and suddenly the story was everywhere -- in particular claiming that the labels were being punished for faked video views. Only problem? That's not really true. The report suggests that YouTube has begun a big campaign against view inflation by YouTube users across the board. That part is true. But the untrue part is that the major labels were faking so many views. Instead, it turns out that most of the issue was just that the labels had moved their videos from YouTube to Vevo -- the online video site that the labels had started a few years ago (built on top of YouTube technology). As Billboard notes, the "de-spamming" effort did delete about 1.5 million views from Sony and Universal Music videos -- so there may be some funny business, but that's tiny compared to the 2 billion views that disappeared. But the reason those went away was much more mundane:

The answer comes in the second way that YouTube changed its view count. The company recently decided to remove view counts for videos that are no longer live on the channel, or so-called "dead videos." For Universal and Sony, that meant thousands of music videos that over the past three years slowly have migrated to the VEVO channel, which is jointly owned by the two companies. A senior label executive confirmed the migration....

That meant high-profile videos that once lived separately on the Universal and Sony YouTube channels have been relocated to Vevo. As a result, the views that those videos received during their time on the dedicated label channels were taken away in YouTube's latest "clean up" effort.

In other words, those views happened; they weren't "faked" or even double counted when they went on to Vevo. But because the videos are no longer on the channel, YouTube considers them "dead videos." They still live on in YouTube, just under a different channel.

Considering how many people have been sending this story over, I know lots of people would like to believe Sony Music and Universal Music faked 2 billion views and were now being punished for it, but it's just not the case.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Major Label-Owned Vevo Caught Publicly Streaming NFL Game Off Of 'Rogue Site'

Mike Masnick — Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:55:00 PST

Where's ICE when you need them? For a while now, ICE has been making the case that sites that merely link to streaming content -- especially sports content -- are the most evil kinds of criminals around. It's why they're trying to extradite Richard O'Dwyer from the UK to have him face criminal charges. It's why they recently arrested Yonjo Quiroa, who will soon be tried on criminal charges as well. Both ran sites that linked to streams of TV content, including sports content. So clearly, this is serious, criminal business. In fact, if you believe the propaganda from the RIAA, these sites contribute to gangland violence and terrorism.

But, of course, when those major label guys want to set up an illegal public performance of an NFL game, where do they turn? You guessed it! One of those rogue sites.

Jason Kincaid over at TechCrunch has the rather insane story of how Vevo, the music video streaming company created by Universal Music and owned by Universal Music and Sony Music, had a booth set up at Sundance a few weeks back, where they, quite clearly, live-streamed an NFL playoff game. Yeah. In their "lounge," they had computers showing the game, apparently sourced from ESPN America -- which isn't available in the US. And the stream came from TuTele.tv, which appears to be quite similar to many of the sites that have been seized and shut down. In fact, it sounds pretty similar to Rojadirecta, which is currently fighting the US Justice Department in court.

And the folks from these major record labels used this source to live stream the football game throughout their lounge area at Sundance. It gets even more ridiculous when you remember that Congress has been trying to pass bills that would make such streaming a felony in and of itself. Senator Amy Klobuchar's streaming felony bill, S.978 -- the one that would potentially put Justin Bieber at risk -- as well as SOPA, both had provisions that made public performance of infringing content a potential felony. Those were mainly supposed to be directed at sites that allow streaming, but I think people would find it hard to argue that what happened in that bar was not a "public performance."

Of course, what this shows is that these issues are never as black and white as the RIAA would have you believe. And, just like many others, when the industry doesn't give them a convenient way to do what they want, even the RIAA's strongest supporters stoop to making use of rogue sites to potentially do "criminal acts."

I eagerly await ICE moving in to arrest Vevo execs for this blatant criminal activity.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

An Explanation For Why UMG May Be Right That It Can Pull Down MegaUpload's Video [Updated]

Mike Masnick — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:58:00 PST

See the update at the end

The legal fight between Megaupload and Universal Music Group keeps getting more and more... odd. After the court gave UMG basically a day to respond, the company filed its response and made a rather surprising point: that a deal with YouTube/Google lets it take down videos it has no copyright over. This seems odd, and lots of people are screaming about some crazy clause that lets UMG censor anyone's videos. But I think I understand what's going on here -- and it's a very specific situation, where UMG sorta used a loophole -- so read on for the details. UMG is still being questionable, sleazy and short-sighted... but probably legal.

The key part of the company's legal response likely is accurate and probably kills MegaUpload's case. There are a few different ways that content can be taken down off of YouTube concerning copyright claims. One is via ContentID, the automated system that matches fingerprints. One is via a DMCA takedown notice. And one is via YouTube's Content Management System. This last one doesn't get much attention and isn't that well known, but it's basically halfway in between the other two (loosely speaking), granting partners the ability to spot and block videos that aren't matched by ContentID, but without sending a DMCA takedown. If you're familiar with the details of the system (which it appears MegaUpload and its lawyers were not), it was actually easy to tell this was a CMS block by the message that appeared on the blocked video. It said "This video contains content from UMG, who has blocked it on copyright grounds." That's the message that shows up on CMS blocks. DMCA takedowns say that the video is "no longer available."

So, on that point, UMG may very well be correct in its filing, that it's not subject to DMCA sanctions because it didn't actually file a DMCA notice. This is kind of a weak excuse, frankly, and really calls into question how YouTube's CMS system works, more than anything else. In theory, this also means that the only retribution that can happen for UMG wrongly taking down the videos of others is that Google cuts them off. But seeing as Google has a big partnership with UMG to build and run Vevo, that's unlikely to happen. That's a bit scary, but it suggests UMG more or less has a free pass to shut down certain videos it doesn't like without much recourse (well, beyond public ridicule).

That said, a part of UMG's explanation isn't entirely clear, but I have some guesses as to what happened. UMG claims that its agreement with YouTube goes beyond just copyright, and that it's allowed to pull videos for other (unnamed) reasons. This is new, in a sense, because YouTube has always suggested that CMS is for copyright issues -- and, in fact, the original message on the video, did, in fact, say that it was a copyright issue. YouTube later changed that message to say it was a terms of service issue. And that provides a clue.

I believe that part of the Vevo agreement is that UMG gets to "pull" videos of its own artists from YouTube for the purpose of putting them on Vevo. That's the intention anyway. I know when Vevo launched, that was part of the deal. All the YouTube videos of UMG artists magically jumped over to Vevo. So, I'm guessing that UMG basically used this loophole, which was supposed to be about taking videos off YouTube for the purpose of putting them on Vevo, and realized it could just "take the videos off YouTube" as long as they had UMG artists in them, without ever putting them up on Vevo.

In other words, due to the specific nature of the Vevo agreement -- which was intended to move videos from YouTube to Vevo -- UMG can pull videos that show its artists off of YouTube. Of course, in this case, it used it for an entirely different purpose, which was to try to censor this ad. That backfired in all sorts of ways, and it sounds like YouTube told UMG to knock it off, knowing that this was not the intention of the agreement at all. And, for what it's worth, UMG has stopped getting the video blocked, and says it will allow it to stay up for now.

This situation is messy and silly, but it seems like an unintended result of contract language over Vevo that UMG exploited. It may be legal, but in the end, it was pretty dumb by UMG. This whole thing, in true Streisand Effect fashion, actually drove a lot more attention to the ad. And even if it was legal, it sure makes UMG look petty and vindictive.

Update: Received a response from a YouTube spokesperson which makes this a little more interesting.

Our partners do not have broad take-down rights to remove anything they don’t like from our service. In limited cases, if they so choose, and based on exclusive agreements with their artists, partners can take down live performances.

That confirms some of what I thought: that UMG does not have the right to take down any videos (as people keep implying), but that it may be able to take down some videos. The new bit of info is that it's just live performances. So, that would suggest UMG is even slimier. They tried to claim that those video clips of artists in the MegaUpload song were "live performances." That's clearly bogus.

Update 2: And... MegaUpload has conceded that its restraining order request is moot, and so the judge has denied it (pdf), while giving the company the right to file for a preliminary injunction and for discovery. So, not much of anything, but the case will likely continue.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Record Labels, Once Again, Freak Out About Anyone Making Their Content Useful

Mike Masnick — Fri, 3 Jun 2011 19:39:00 PDT

Another day, another story of the major labels freaking out that someone (for free!) has helped make their content more useful and valuable. About a week ago, I was one of the folks who passed along the news (via Twitter) of a new service called Youtify, which took the YouTube API and built a neat media player on top of YouTube that looked quite a bit like Spotify, the popular music service that's not yet available in the US. The concept really isn't all that new. Muziic has been around for years, and has a YouTube-based media player, and TubeRadio has a YouTube-based music player that looks just like iTunes. Honestly, TubeRadio and Youtify are really quite similar, except one uses the iTunes look and feel, and the other uses the Spotify look and feel.

Either way, it's a pretty useful and neat setup for listening to and discovering new music on YouTube.

So, of course, the labels have to kill it. Adam Singer points us to the news that just days after Youtify's launch started spreading... the major record labels have somehow blocked their music from appearing. Note that most of this is via Vevo -- the major label-owned service for posting videos to YouTube. In other words, these are authorized videos that have been uploaded and made available on purpose by the record labels. And... then the Youtify guys went and made an interface to make it easier to access and consume that music... and the labels/Vevo freak out and block them.

Because, apparently, that's how the major labels roll. If something makes the music more enjoyable and more valuable for free, but doesn't "pay" the labels, then too freaking bad. Is it really any wonder why the major labels are struggling?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

YouTube Sensation Justin Bieber Blocked From Uploading His Own Music To YouTube By Copyright

Mike Masnick — Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:46:00 PST

Justin Bieber became "Justin Bieber" thanks to YouTube. His early YouTube videos of him covering various songs are what turned him into a huge sensation, leading to a recording deal and the somewhat scary unstoppable force that is the fanbase of Justin Bieber. So, it should seem perfectly natural that Bieber would head over to YouTube to upload a video of his latest song. What doesn't seem perfectly natural is that he was blocked from doing so thanks to Universal Music and YouTube's ContentID system. Google (correctly) pointed out that this is an issue between Bieber and his label, but like most normal folks, Bieber wasn't interested in understanding the intricacies of copyright law when all he wanted to do was upload his own damn video to YouTube. So, instead, he went and uploaded it to Facebook.

Now, to be clear, Universal is Bieber's label, and assuming he signed a recording deal like any standard recording deal, it does hold his copyrights. But this is the kind of screwed up situation you get when the entertainment industry works so hard to block various new and useful tools from sharing content. The people who want to use it for perfectly reasonable and legitimate uses get blocked (and pissed off).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Vevo Doesn't Put Ads In YouTube API, Gets Upset When Music Streaming Startup Uses That Fact

Mike Masnick — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:30:00 PST

I actually had decently high hopes for Vevo, the partnership between Universal Music and YouTube to create a website for official music videos (currently from three of the four major record labels). I mean, I always figured that eventually the labels would screw stuff up, but I thought it actually had a shot at maybe being useful. The fact that Universal put Rio Caraeff in charge seemed like a good sign as well, since Caraeff seemed like the sort of music industry exec who understood the new marketplace for music, and wasn't encumbered with the "old ways" of doing things. But rather than a useful site, Vevo has basically been a cookie cutter version of what you would do if the record labels created their own YouTube. That is, it took none of the good parts of YouTube. Hell, it didn't even take the ability to handle a lot of traffic. For the first few days after it launched, Vevo just didn't work at all.

Its latest screwup was that it didn't include its preroll ads in the YouTube API, meaning that others who used the API could access and repurpose Vevo content without the ads, and even show the content outside the US (which Vevo currently does not allow). It didn't take long for one enterprising startup, Muziic, to do exactly that. Muziic has received some attention for basically using the YouTube API to create an iTunes-like experience out of YouTube videos (it also gets attention for being founded by a 16-year old). Muziic sent out an announcement this week about how it was using the YouTube API to add Vevo content, meaning you could access Vevo videos without the preroll ads and outside the US.

Vevo's first response? To send a cease and desist. At the very least, it wasn't a legal nastygram, but a more friendly cease & desist sent by Caraeff himself. But "cease" what? Muziic was using the API as designed, and even though Caraeff admits that Vevo is quickly scrambling to change the API, he still says Muziic needs to cease from using the Vevo logo or referencing the company's name. But Muziic used the name in an accurate and descriptive manner. It accurately noted that it was now offering Vevo content -- without ads and outside the US -- all legally via the use of the API provided by YouTube/Vevo itself.

Muziic's co-founder responded to Caraeff's email over at Hypebot, saying that he "was as shocked as anyone when I realized there were not yet any "pre-roll" advertisements for Vevo content in the API," but since it was how the company set up the API, it seems perfectly reasonable to use it that way. He also notes that he had reached out to Vevo prior to this to try to work out an arrangement with the company and got no response.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Shouldn't The Labels Be Paying YouTube For All The 'Free' Service They Provide?

Mike Masnick — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:52:10 PST

I recently wrote about Simon Cowell's conflicting statements expressing anger that YouTube didn't pay him for showing the Susan Boyle video millions of times, while then being happy that the same video will result in 10 million album sales. In my latest column for The Telegraph, I explore how the legacy music industry made a huge mistake in attacking YouTube and having videos pulled down off the site for not getting "paid" enough, when just a few years ago if they had wanted to put up music videos of their bands, they would have paid an arm and a leg for software, hosting and bandwidth -- and the consumer experience would have been a hell of a lot worse (RealNetworks media player, anyone?).

In thinking more about this, I was realizing how hypocritical the recording industry is on this particular topic. After all, they go on and on about how bad "free" is, and how they must get paid for any use of their content or they can't survive. And, yet, when someone gives them something for free (and YouTube provides free software, free bandwidth, free community and a bunch of other benefits), they complain that they're not getting paid. It's an incredible double standard. If the recording industry were actually being intellectually honest (I know, I know...), wouldn't they be demanding to pay Google for providing such a service, since (as they claim) you "can't make money from free"?

Separately, I had wanted to mention this in the Telegraph column, but ran out of room. It is worth noting that at least some of the industry has, in some ways, "embraced" YouTube with the launch of Vevo a couple weeks ago (though, that launch was completely bungled by apparently not expecting anyone to actually visit the site). I still haven't quite figured out what Vevo is, however. It's a joint venture of Google and Universal Music, with EMI and Sony Music as partners (Warner remains the major label holdout). As far as I can tell, though, it just seeks to be a separate platform to give the labels some more "control" over videos on YouTube. I still can't figure out why this needs to be a separate company, other than to play financial games. Isn't this just a feature of YouTube?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Universal, YouTube Collaboration To Be Run By Someone Who Sees The Bigger Picture

Mike Masnick — Mon, 11 May 2009 16:50:00 PDT

At the beginning of March, I questioned the wisdom of Universal Music and YouTube teaming up to create a separate site just for Universal Music, called Vevo. While I thought it could be interesting, it really depended on the execution, and the early talk about it seemed to miss the point. That is, it said that YouTube would supply the "technology" and Universal would supply the music. Of course, what that's missing is that much of the value in YouTube isn't in the technology (which many others have replicated), but in the community. So, if Vevo was to get anywhere, it would need to recognize that fact, rather than simply looking at YouTube as a tech vendor.

At the end of March, in a totally separate post, I wrote about my surprise at seeing my fellow keynote presenter at the Leadership Music Digital Summit, Rio Caraeff of Universal Music, present a reasonable vision for where the music industry needed to be: getting away from selling "music" and in creating better, more valuable experiences that simply can't be replicated by file sharing. This was in stark contrast to what Universal Music's own CEO had been saying for years. While Caraeff admitted that it was still a struggle to get this message through to everyone at Universal, he believed in it strongly.

That's why it's noteworthy that Caraeff has now been put in charge of the Vevo project. I'm still not convinced it's anything more than a boondoggle that will go nowhere quickly, but putting Caraeff in charge of it immediately makes it a much more interesting project to follow. The real question is what he does with it, and whether the bosses back at Universal Music actually give him enough free reign to let him turn the site into what it needs to be. I wish I could be optimistic, but given the major record labels' track record in dealing with such things, I still think the chances are pretty slim.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story