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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    DandonTRJ (profile), Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 5:28pm

    "The law works for everyone until it doesn't work for us!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 5:51pm

    Surprise, surprise, surprise.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Zot-Sindi, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 5:54pm

    their just mad that they weren't the only ones who got to file the claims

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 5:54pm

    "Record Label Execs Suddenly Upset That False Copyright Claims Can Take Down Videos"

    Well of coarse he's upset, he cant understand how somebody came into that the google place and took down the videos. This UToob building clearly needs a better security guard to protect the valuable vinyls he had his secretary mail them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Paul, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 6:06pm

    So does Youtube vett the ACTUAL OWNERSHIP of similar claims where the video is left running but the ad revenue is siphoned off and paid to the party making the copyright claim instead of the video poster? Sounds like a potential abuse!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 7:16pm

      Re:

      Vett how?

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 6:36pm

    The real precedent

    And for the really expensive question -- did YouTube, by putting the videos back up, jeopardize their DMCA Safe Harbor status?

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Atkray (profile), Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 7:11pm

      Re: The real precedent

      ^ this.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      NotMyRealName (profile), Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 7:23pm

      Re: The real precedent

      Look! an ac comment that's relevant, insightful, and free of grammatical errors :)

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 3rd, 2011 @ 9:40pm

        Re: Re: The real precedent

        I wish folks would stop categorizing the AC crowd as anti-techdirt. There are a lot of us that agree with arguments presented here. I have been a long time lurker, sometime contributor and, just because there are a couple new AC's that seem to have nothing more than an anti-agenda, don't throw all us anon posters under the bus.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PopeRatzo (profile), Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 8:22pm

      Re: The real precedent

      "Sure, the DMCA takedown procedures are heavily biased in favor of the (alleged) copyright holders"

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Gracey, Sep 3rd, 2011 @ 6:55am

      Re: The real precedent

      Well if it was "obviously bogus" and the issuer of the DMCA lied, that might negate the validity of the DMCA filing in the first place, which could mean that YouTube wouldn't be required to follow that procedure.

      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?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), Sep 3rd, 2011 @ 11:00am

        Re: Re: The real precedent

        as to points
        (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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 6:40pm

    And for the smaller, independent content creators?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    RD, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 7:00pm

    You Reap What You Sow

    Bwahahahahhaha.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 7:23pm

    This actually showed me one more flaw in the system.

    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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 7:28pm

    I believe this is a work for anonymous, this is just perfect "Operation ID_Content" LoL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 7:46pm

    Now that's some damned fine netjitsu.

    How does one go about filing a dmca takedown notice? can anyone do it?
    is it free?

    ....do they have a hotline?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Steve (profile), Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 7:46pm

    Surprised

    I'm surprised it took so long for someone to actually do this on a grand scale. I suspect we will be seeing a lot more of these attacks going forward.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 8:42pm

    Best prank in a LONG time!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 8:50pm

    DMCA takedown abuse 101

    1. Buy a disposable debit card and make sure everything you do is through a proxy. Not required but safer.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 10:50pm

      Re: DMCA takedown abuse 101

      This is stupid. The example given in the article is a far better example of DMCA abuse 101, because pretty much anyone can do it for any song/video/image.

      Scale this out, the DMCA is about to get used a lot more often.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 9:15pm

    genius of a move...

    What a conundrum for the MPAA/RIAA. File suit and if they win the suit, they lose the war. Don't file suit and watch it happen over and over and over again. At least it couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch of **it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 9:32pm

    A-HA Take me down

    Filling away
    I don't know what I'm to say
    I'll say it anyway
    today's another day to file at you
    Shying away
    I'll be coming for your videos O.K.


    Take me down
    Take me on
    I'll be gone
    in a day or two

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Sep 2nd, 2011 @ 10:25pm

    "Record Label Execs Suddenly Upset That False Copyright Claims Can Take Down Videos"

    Yet they want to push "Three Strikes" where false claims of infringement can take down someones internet connection.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    anonymous, Sep 3rd, 2011 @ 1:15am

    is always fine when it's happening/affecting someone else. as soon as they get bitten by the very same thing they want in place, the entertainment industries dont like it. if it's good enough for you to dish out, it's good enough for you to have to take it! preferably straight up the crap chute!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 4th, 2011 @ 8:55am

    "Suddenly" does seem a bit of an exaggeration given what is contained in the referenced article.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Robothustra (profile), Sep 4th, 2011 @ 1:34pm

    Brilliant!

    I think that even though it is somewhat childish, it's a brilliant idea to give these guys a taste of their own medicine. Suddenly it's wrong when someone else is doing it back to you (even though in this case it's just a prank to show how messed up the system really is). I'm glad someone had the gall to do it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Damien Sturdy (profile), Sep 5th, 2011 @ 5:49am

    This is funny, but I'm not sure it's going to be any good.

    All this is going to lead to is making it more difficult to file a claim. That might sound like a good thing, but what happens if little old me has one of his tracks used in another video? It won't stop the big guys filing a DMCA notice, but it'll prevent the small players from doing so, and you can argue that it's more important for us to protect our small revenue.


    It needs to be open, but it needs to be sensible, this much is true.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Sep 5th, 2011 @ 11:39am

    Isn't it great when it turns against the MAFIAA? I wonder when HADOPI will take down the first MAFIAA related ip. They already got their first innocent ppl ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This