YouTube’s Deal With Universal Blocks DMCA Counter Notices | TorrentFreak

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

YouTube’s Deal With Universal Blocks DMCA Counter Notices

When content is removed from the Internet following a DMCA complaint filed by a rightsholder the user who uploaded the content gets a chance to file a counter-claim. If successful this should reinstate the content but on YouTube things now appear to be working somewhat differently. It transpires that YouTube has a special deal with Universal which sees content taken down at the record label’s request and DMCA counter notices blocked with no chance of appeal.

utubetakedown1Over the past few years and during the last 12 months in particular the DMCA notice has become a key tool for rightsholders to fight copyright infringement online. However, on thousands of occasions the original notices are flawed, targeting incorrect or non-infringing ‘fair use’ content.

In these instances someone targeted by a wrongful DMCA takedown is usually given the chance to file a counter-claim stating why content should not have been removed. Content then has the opportunity to be reinstated or removed if the dispute cannot be settled.

While counter-claims provide a balance to a DMCA complaint, there is evidence to suggest that YouTube, one of the biggest receivers of copyright notices online, is in some cases disallowing them.

When a video is uploaded to YouTube it’s put through the company’s Content ID system and compared against digital fingerprints provided by copyright holders to check for infringement. YouTube user John McKelvey has discovered that if you fall foul of signatures provided by certain rightsholders then your content gets taken down – and remains down – even if no copyrights have been infringed.

Here’s what happened. McKelvey has been publishing an ongoing series of hip hop history videos, each taking a look at classic, rare or overlooked records. One featuring Eric B. & Rakim caused the latest issues.

Fair Use

“This video, like all my other videos in the same vein, are Fair Use in a number of ways at the same time,” McKelvey told TorrentFreak.

“First of all, I only play a short portion of the songs (in this video, I play clips of three songs, though UMG’s claim was only against one of them), within the context of a scholarly, critical review of the record. The video is non-commercial/non-profit; I didn’t even have YouTube ads on the video.”

Furthermore, McKelvey has gone to some length to ensure that his videos feature only incomplete clips, all of them deliberately recorded at below MP3 quality so no one will be inclined to rip them. At every available opportunity he encourages people to buy content and refuses to upload MP3s, even though he says viewers are constantly asking him to.

Unfortunately Content ID doesn’t understand the concept of fair use (or being ‘fair’ in general) and when the system scanned a video of McKelvey chatting about an old Eric B. & Rakim vinyl it was flagged up as infringing and disabled.

EricDown

McKelvey sent TorrentFreak copies of his correspondence with YouTube as he tried to get his video back online. The responses from YouTube highlight a worrying development, one which means that certain labels are ALWAYS right in copyright disputes, even when they’re wrong.

Text of counter notice filed by McKelvey

My video is NOT a competitor to sales of the [Eric B. & Rakim] song. It directly encourages viewers to buy it for themselves. Anyone seeking a pirate copy would in no way be happy with my video as a substitute.

YouTube email to Universal advising of McKelvey’s counter-notice

We received the attached counter notification in response to a complaint you filed with us. We’re providing you with the counter notification and await your notice (in not more than 10 business days) that you’ve filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the counter notifier’s allegedly infringing activity. Such notice should be submitted by replying to this email. If we don’t receive notice from you, we may reinstate the material to YouTube.

YouTube mail to McKelvey 11 days after filing of counter-notice

Thank you for your counter-notification. The complainant has reaffirmed the information in its DMCA notification.

YouTube has a contractual obligation to this specific copyright owner that prevents us from reinstating videos in such circumstances. Therefore, we regretfully cannot honor this counter-notification.

——————

McKelvey was then invited to sort the matter out with Universal directly via the youtube@umusic.com email address and was pointed to this page as explanation. It appears to have been published or updated April 2 and contains the following text:

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.

In some instances, this may mean the Content ID appeals and/or counter notification processes will not be available.

——————

No right to reply

So, it seems that where YouTube has a record label deal (and that could be any label, no list is provided), those labels are allowed to take down any content they like for any reason they like – infringing or not – and YouTube will block its users from having the right to reply.

As noted by FairUseTube, while YouTube has a legal obligation to remove allegedly infringing content on request the same cannot be said for accepting counter-notices or reinstating content. Nevertheless, the one-sided nature of the process is bound to increase frictions between those defending right to fair use and those who feel rightsholders are constantly eroding it.

“I was shocked when the reply came in saying how it didn’t matter if my video was Fair Use or not, because they had some secret contract with the labels and were refusing to honor my counter-notice anyway,” McKelvey says.

“It was very frustrating, because it showed me that it no longer mattered whether I had a legal right to post my videos. At least in this case, YouTube has stopped siding with the users because they’ve apparently been bought off by UMG. It’s also frustrating because this new policy was not disclosed to us, so we’re set up to file useless counter-notices only to have them work against our channels,” he concludes.

While YouTube now openly admits having preferential deals with labels, that hasn’t always been the case. In December 2011 the Google-owned company initially allowed Universal to blatantly censor Kim Dotcom’s ‘Mega Song’. It was later reinstated.


The “infringing” video (on Dailymotion)

Check out John McKelvey’s hip hop blog here.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • JAA

    Can’t copyright Trolls understand that freedom is what gives them money?

  • Czar Casm

    We can all give a golf clap to Bill Clinton and thank him for signing the DMCA into law. I highly respect you because if it weren’t for you DMCA wouldn’t be here today helping shape our world today for a brighter future and a better tomorrow .Thanks a lot Bill! =)

    • bobmail

      Without DMCA, You Tube would never have existed.

      Think about it.

      • antifud

        there is no correlation whatsoever.

        • bobmail

          Yes there is. Without DMCA, there would be no safe harbor, which would mean that YouTube would have been on the hook for every copyright violation from the word go. Their business model is predicated on being able to claim as a service provider / innocent host, which did not exist clearly in law before DMCA. Certainly there was no “notice and take down” system that would permit them to skate.

        • bobmailfail

          ha ha ha

          isnt that funny, that a position that got them their millions, then flipped the script.

          so by your own statement, this copywright and dmca bullshit has had a negative impact on the internet as a whole?

          like your brain bob, a black hole

        • afjlkfj

          Without DMCA, safe harbor would be irrelevant to begin with. Implying safe harbor is a requisite for YouTube to exist.

          You’re retarded.

        • PelouzeTF

          Oh jeez, you really don’t understand the DMCA or benefits of safe harbor at all do you.

          Without safe harbor, you would have a completely different internet. When will you bozo’s understand this.

        • ITakeAPotatoChipAndEatIt

          “When will you bozo’s understand this.”
          When you understand that if there were no copyrights to being with we wouldn’t have had these ‘problems’ in the first place.
          or
          When you understand that these companies are in no way ‘looking out’ for the artists, and are only there to leech from the artists themselves.

        • PelouzeTF

          When you understand that if there were no copyrights to being with we wouldn’t have had these ‘problems’ in the first place.
          There would also be so little media available to consume (because there is no incentive to invest in creating it) that the majority of media available to you would literally be clips of cats playing with wool balls and bedroom artists releasing what ever noise they can extract from sonar. What exactly are you spending your money, time or talent on to release for absolute free ? Anything ….anything at all ?
          So You get a whole different problem and that is a world devoid of media…..nice one ;)

          When you understand that these companies are in no way ‘looking out’ for the artists, and are only there to leech from the artists themselves.
          Of course they are lol, that is why so many artists jump at the chance of a label deal (major or independent) when they are offered one.I’m not for one minute saying that some deals don’t turn sour but, isn’t that exactly the same as an athlete who has a sports deal they no longer want for example ? or anyone who signs a contractual deal where they change their minds (and both parties can feel that way of course).
          Shit happens sometimes, learn to deal with it – it’s not like it involves you in any event.

        • There is no need to be upset

          “(because there is no incentive to invest in creating it)”

          You’re implying people don’t create art – whether in form of music, movie, graphics, software, books, etc – when they don’t have a middlemen organization backing them up. What is actually the case is that those who made a living out of art MAY be at risk but probably not even much since most revenue streams to the middlemen organisations anyway, whereas there will always be and perhaps be even more true artists, those who do without the incentive of making money, but just to share.

          There are numerous examples of art created without commercial benefit, or that with commercial benefit without help of a middlemen company. People release art on specialized websites such as deviantART and YouTube, with the potential to benefit but in practise doing it as their hobby, next to their actual jobs. Sure, you can argue, deviantART and YouTube should benefit to stay alive. I agree. But they don’t need to have absurd high profit margins nor need to be influenced by the external third party middlemen organisations. Removal of the latter would even allow honest competition between services to keep the individual, the artist and the physically necessary distribution company (whether specialized site such as YouTube, a webhost in general, or a DVD-redistributor) in benefit, while no corrupt organization without any functional practical and society-improving skills can interfere.

          You, the middleman spokesperson, are part of a larger whole solely focused on limiting art and the free sharing of it for the benefit of itself. You are the perfect criminal organisation – I have to give you that, you’re one of the richest industries in the world. But you’re criminals nonetheless. No unjust law is going to change that fact. For someone who is so in favor of copyright, it’s funny how you are infringing upon the right to copy. When I say funny, I mean depressing.

          Sincerely,
          an artist

        • PelouzeTF

          You’re implying people don’t create art – whether in form of music, movie, graphics, software, books, etc – when they don’t have a middlemen organization backing them up.

          Not at all, I have no middleman organization behind me and I do just fine. Not as good as before reward driven cyberlockers but not too shabby either. Independents are a very important part of the creative media output and they rely on the ability to sell their wares as much a any major.

          What is actually the case is that those who made a living out of art MAY be at risk but probably not even much since most revenue streams to the middlemen organisations anyway

          Not in the case of those that don’t have middleman organizations, which involves more creators than that of the majors. They rely on copyrights just as equally.
          As for the majors……does anyone here truly appreciate how little media they would have available if the majors didn’t an incentive to create or monetize.

          $50 million for a season of Game of Thrones, does any seriously think that would continue when on release, another company could just entirely copy their work, stick it on their own companies cable network and monetize it across Europe with ad supported sales ?

          , whereas there will always be and perhaps be even more true artists, those who do without the incentive of making money, but just to share.

          And they are free to still do that, copyrights or not. Not one person on the planet is stopping a person or company from investing time, effort and talent into their own original creations that they wish to give away freely.

          You can bet your last dollar though, the few companies that invest then release media in that fashion are few and far between. And the current media hungry population would not like the environment when they see the absolute lack of regular offerings when they switch on their media devices.

          >There are numerous examples of art created without commercial benefit, or that with commercial benefit without help of a middlemen company. People release art on specialized websites such as deviantART and YouTube, with the potential to benefit but in practise doing it as their hobby, next to their actual jobs.

          And that can continue like it always has and always will, copyrights do not get in the way of that.

          Sure, you can argue, deviantART and YouTube should benefit to stay alive. I agree.

          I couldn’t care if Youtube folded tomorrow, they don’t actually create anything.

          But they don’t need to have absurd high profit margins nor need to be influenced by the external third party middlemen organisations. Removal of the latter would even allow honest competition between services to keep the individual, the artist and the physically necessary distribution company (whether specialized site such as YouTube, a webhost in general, or a DVD-redistributor) in benefit, while no corrupt organization without any functional practical and society-improving skills can interfere.

          Youtube or any website like them (I don’t actually put deviant in the same category) don’t actually need to exist at all. They only do because of safe harbor. There is a benefit I guess, where Youtube can be utilized for marketing purposes but the only reason that youtube are where they are today, is because at outset they benefited from the piracy allowed via their system from safe harbor provisions.

          You, the middleman spokesperson, are part of a larger whole solely focused on limiting art and the free sharing of it for the benefit of itself. You are the perfect criminal organisation – I have to give you that, you’re one of the richest industries in the world. But you’re criminals nonetheless. No unjust law is going to change that fact. For someone who is so in favor of copyright, it’s funny how you are infringing upon the right to copy. When I say funny, I mean depressing.

          I’ll say it again, I’m fully independent, no middleman. I’m in the trenches along with hundreds of thousands of other creators that create for a living. You know what…..they don’t want to spend time, money, their creative talents and expertise for zero gain either. And as for copying, I don’t object to copying for home personal use. I object to individuals copying works and then re-distributing them to millions of others so that the value of those works and reason to purchase is effectively zero…..oh, and those that profit from piracy, man, they’re the worst lol

          You realize of course, if the majority of people were ever asked “What is your favorite movie, song, video game etc etc ?” 99.9% of them would reply with something that came out of the creative minds of the Majors or an independent that creates for a living wage.

          What they don’t reply with is “i dunno, i saw something on Youtube once and it was the best media experience I’ve ever had”.

          Just something to think about.

          Sincerely,
          an artist too :)

        • BuddhaFacePalmed

          …

          Pelouzy, you are such a lying sack of bullshit that not even dung beetles would even touch.

          “Youtube or any website like them (I don’t actually put deviant in the same category) don’t actually need to exist at all. They only do because of safe harbor. There is a benefit I guess, where Youtube can be utilized for marketing purposes but the only reason that youtube are where they are today, is because at outset they benefited from the piracy allowed via their system from safe harbor provisions.”

          Bullshit. Youtube, dailymotion, deviantart or any other site users don’t upload stuff because of safe harbors. They do it because they have something funny or awesome to share, whether it be a video of stoned cats after a visit to the vet or a video of a fat Asian man dancing horseback style.

          “And that can continue like it always has and always will, copyrights do not get in the way of that.”

          Right, and companies do not own automated DMCA notification systems that generally target everything on these websites that contained searched keywords which have absolutely nothing to do with copyrighted materials or fall under safe harbor. But you don’t care about that either, do you Peloser?

          ” I’ll say it again, I’m fully independent, no middleman. I’m in the trenches along with hundreds of thousands of other creators that create for a living. You know what…..they don’t want to spend time, money, their creative talents and expertise for zero gain either. And as for copying, I don’t object to copying for home personal use. I object to individuals copying works and then re-distributing them to millions of others so that the value of those works and reason to purchase is effectively zero…..oh, and those that profit from piracy, man, they’re the worst lol”

          So, you rely on scarcity to drive the value of your work… Too bad as an intangible, your work IS EFFECTIVELY WORTHLESS because it HAS AN INFINITE INVENTORY THAT CAN BE REPLICATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. The value of the works of an artist can only be determined by your consumers, not by the artist, not by his/her patron, and definitely not by restricting finite amounts of it on the web. That scarcity can retain value of your work may be true in the past, but the internet and technology pretty much rendered that moot. So, suck on that for awhile, Pelouis XVI.

          “You realize of course, if the majority of people were ever asked “What is your favorite movie, song, video game etc etc ?” 99.9% of them would reply with something that came out of the creative minds of the Majors or an independent that creates for a living wage.

          What they don’t reply with is “i dunno, i saw something on Youtube once and it was the best media experience I’ve ever had”.”

          So, Gangnam style wasn’t released worldwide on youtube?? Minecraft wasn’t made by an engineer with no background in the video games industry and had no budget?? L.O.L.Z.

          The best creative works are done DESPITE the system, not because of it. If you still think that copyright fosters creativity, go ahead. Release your works to the public, and find that you’ll not make an honest living wage out of it without suing others for copyright infringement.

          Sincerely,
          A cynical media Consumer.

        • PelouzeTF

          Pelouzy, you are such a lying sack of bullshit that not even dung beetles would even touch.

          Bullshit. Youtube, dailymotion, deviantart or any other site users don’t upload stuff because of safe harbors. They do it because they have something funny or awesome to share, whether it be a video of stoned cats after a visit to the vet or a video of a fat Asian man dancing horseback style.

          You can take Deviantart out because I already very clearly said that I don’t consider them in the same category as youtube or dailymotion. In any event…..what the fuck are you talking about “user don’t upload because of safe harbors” What comprehension deficiency allows you to interpret what I said that way ?

          Users of those services generally upload whatever they fancy, they have little to no idea about safe harbors and their uploads do include plenty of copy-right infringing material which right’s holders have to police the whole of youtube for. The safe harbors don’t benefit the uploaders, they benefit sites like Youtube which is exactly what I said. Jeebus.

          Right, and companies do not own automated DMCA notification systems that generally target everything on these websites that contained searched keywords which have absolutely nothing to do with copyrighted materials or fall under safe harbor. But you don’t care about that either, do you Peloser?

          I can’t help automated DMCA systems, they exist, just like DRM cracking software. There is all manner of software that cause issues for one party or another. That’s life and for now, you’ll just have to deal with it.

          So, you rely on scarcity to drive the value of your work… Too bad as an intangible, your work IS EFFECTIVELY WORTHLESS because it HAS AN INFINITE INVENTORY THAT CAN BE REPLICATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT COST. The value of the works of an artist can only be determined by your consumers, not by the artist, not by his/her patron, and definitely not by restricting finite amounts of it on the web. That scarcity can retain value of your work may be true in the past, but the internet and technology pretty much rendered that moot. So, suck on that for awhile, Pelouis XVI.

          You’re pointing out a potential obvious to someone who actually works and makes a living from creation. But you know, id still rather do this than be a low life bottom feeding freeloader like you clearly appear to be….so suck on that you sad waste of space.

          So, Gangnam style wasn’t released worldwide on youtube?? Minecraft wasn’t made by an engineer with no background in the video games industry and had no budget?? L.O.L.Z.

          Holy crap, I can tell you’re still at school, you have the reading comprehension of a kid in kindergarten. Where did i say that nothing gets created that gains a wide mainstream audience and goes on to become very popular from a non mainstream or financially backed labels/studio…..where did I say that ???

          The best creative works are done DESPITE the system, not because of it.

          Did you just pull that out of your ass…..you got a source ?

          If you still think that copyright fosters creativity, go ahead. Release your works to the public, and find that you’ll not make an honest living wage out of it without suing others for copyright infringement.

          Oh, you favor the “release everything for free and hope that enough people throw enough crumbs that you can pay your expenses” method. Hey that’s an option for some people (its kind of like begging really) and they’re welcome to it. I guess if you ever have the balls to create something you’ll be able to try it out for yourself.
          I wont be holding my breath for your results though, because if there’s one thing I know from torrentfrreak, its always talentless armchair quarterbacks that always feel they know the answers, without actually having ever done it themselves….weird that ;)

        • ITakeAPotatoChipAndEatIt

          “There would also be so little media available to consume (because there is no incentive to invest in creating it) that the majority of media available to you would literally be clips of cats playing with wool balls and bedroom artists releasing what ever noise they can extract from sonar.
          What exactly are you spending your money, time or talent on to release for absolute free ? Anything ….anything at al”

          Right, because artists only create to make a quick buck.
          So according to you there is no such thing as FOSS?

          My 2nd statement still stands.

        • PelouzeTF

          Right, because artists only create to make a quick buck.
          Where did I say artists only create to make a quick buck ? In my experience, the majority of creative people create with a much longer game plan in mind
          So according to you there is no such thing as FOSS?
          Where did I say that FOSS didn’t exist ?
          Obviously it exists but (as important as FOSS is) It’s not entertainment. If there is no incentive for media companies to create due to no copyright, only a minute percent of the worlds population are going to be happy to come home at the end of the day and click open MYsql for entertainment (that’s of course after they’ve watched all the cat videos) ;)

          My 2nd statement still stands.
          As does my reply to it.

        • icec0ld

          Claiming that “DMCA exists therefore YouTube” is like claiming anti murder laws are the reason you exist. However in your case bob it’s true since you can’t abort something that’s already been born.

        • bobmail

          If ignorance is bliss, then you are perhaps the happiest guy on this site.

        • icec0ld

          I started laughing at ignorance.

          It’s just way too rich coming from you.

      • Whatever

        I think you have used this reply before. This is getting boring so I would advise you to do on of the following:
        rm ./bobmail
        mv ./bobmail /dev/null
        dd /dev/zero ./bobmail (don’t know the block size of bobmail)

        Two of those create some useful space although some people might be sad because of the loss of their clown-toy.

        PS: “Think about it.”, isn’t that a different trolls trademark ?

        • bobmail

          How about you /dev/null yourself? You added nothing to the discussion except a personal attack. You are a waste of space.

        • bobmailfail

          ha ha ha

          ill take the odds that the waste of space was used againt u, many many times.

          troll gunna cry???

        • afjafa

          >”You added nothing to the discussion except a personal attack.”

          >Uses Ad hominem himself daily

          Hypocrite.

        • bobmailfail

          no doubt, i wonder just how he manages to stradel the fence, but still get nothing correct. ever.

        • afjafa

          I wonder that about you every day I read TorrentFreak.

        • afjafa

          Edit: Sorry bobmailfail, replied to the wrong person. I hate disqus.

        • DutchGuest

          To reply in a way you’ll understand better than any other : NO U !

      • Ruben

        Without DMCA , this post would never have existed.

        Don’t think about it ..

      • http://profile.typepad.com/6p0120a5509de8970c ミッコ

        bullshit!

      • Anyone

        of course it would have existed
        “safe harbor” would have been unconditional, as it is in the offline world

        tacking that onto such a bad bill like the DMCA will sooner or later kill the internet, if it isn’t revised

      • <~~~~~~ LookWutitDun2MeFace

        bobby the ol knobby.

    • Violated0

      There is nothing wrong with the DMCA in this case. It is only that UMG want to shirk their legal responsibilities by having YouTube go deaf and blind with a “La la la la la la la. I can’t hear you”

      They should both be ashamed of themselves.

      • Guest321

        I think its specially disappointing that Google made a deal like this with UMG. If they want to deny content owners and uploaders the right to contest a takedown, they might as well turn off the upload option for the public.

    • http://twitter.com/Anime4PSP Anime 4 PSP

      DMCA is good thing. To some extent at least. Misuse of it and blind eye on misuse is what bad.

      • afsadf

        It does more damage than it does good, unfortunately.

  • Pingback: YouTube’s Deal With Universal Blocks DMCA Counter Notices | The Travelin' Librarian

  • afjaklf

    Bye YouTube. It was fun until you started your death bed a few years ago, now I’m completely done with you.

    • YouNiversal

      In the meantime, add racist and hate-speech videos on Youtube and they wll be safe there. Just don’t dare to upload music, your account might be removed, promote your hatred and copy-paste the same message over and over again on every channel and video and nothing will happen.

  • bobmailfail

    really, a google owned company has prefferd deals w studios?
    and bobmail is as full of shit as the oceans are of water

    • bobmail

      Does the term “fuck off” mean anything to you?

      Get your own nickname.

      • bobmailfail

        ha ha ha , did i just retroll the troll!!!!

        i declare victory!,

        and bob, really is that such a singular name?, do u have the copywright?

        so u added mail, just as i added fail.

        so yes, it is an entirerly NEW name, if your dissatasfied w your name, may i suggest shiet head?
        amyother suggestions??

        • bobmail

          No troll… I just think you are being a prick. Is that such a big deal? Certainly your intention is to derail the discussion here (again).

        • bobmail

          bobmailfail is also not your friend smeagbob.
          golbob warned you about him.

          My PRECIOUS.

        • bobmailfail

          ha ha , ya im the prick trying to obfuscate, (its a link so u dont have to look it up) these disscussions.

          funny now that the tables have turned eh??

        • Guest321

          Not like you have ever added anything of value to the discussion here on TF. So why are you so concerned Bobby?

        • asfjasl

          “bobmail” is a trademark by Mailinator. By using the term “bobmail” you are directly violating their trademark and given your unprofessional attitude are subject to infamation lawsuit.

        • bobmailfail

          now thats funny!, and awesome!, so bobmail is indeed a pirate!, and not just of the fanny typ

        • IDIOCRACY

          Hey bobby, it is you who derails th discussions here by making continuous false claims and using data out of context or turned around. How may times you accuse someone of doing something while you actually post is just yourself without even realizing that… never saw the comment “mirror” come by? guess you forgot your medicine again… but please entertain me more, I am in for some fun as usual, hehe

        • markh

          that is funny since you were the trol
          baghdad bob

        • bobmailfail

          brilliant!!!, quick, trademark that name!, before he steals it from u

        • UraPhake

          He’s not so much of a prick as you are a big asshole.

          The scale used is right there in the up/down below the comments. All of your comments are on the heavy, heavy side of down.

        • bobmailEPICFAIL

          woot you suck even more …
          everyone take a variation and say bobmail is a loser

      • Anon

        This guy has his own nickname. By the way your nickname is copyrighted so you have no grounds to claim that he is using your name even though he isn’t.

        • Anon

          That should have read “By the way your nickname is NOT copyrighted.”

        • bvcder56uj

          In many countries, the act of creation gives you a copyright by default (although proving it could be difficult)

          Also, a word would be a trademark, not a copyright.

          In a court of law bobmail would have a good chance of winning the case against bobmailfail – which is in this context obviously derivative and was created in bad faith.

          But who really gives a fuck?

        • Guest321

          Really? So only bobmail has the right to use the word ‘bobmail’ as a nickname? Are you really that thick? If that were true everyone in the world would have had unique names and every damn word could be trademarked.

        • UraPhake

          My real name is UraPhake THX1138.
          The other THX1138 is the real phake.

        • Barack Obama

          Usernames can’t be copyrighted.

        • Danny

          I actually own the copyrights to “bobfail” and “Barack Obama” so please cease and desist the pair of you!

        • Guest321

          I wonder how Tim Kuik managed to get a trademark for his name. It seems these days anything is possible if you have the bank balance. The politicians and judges are always ready to sell themselves to the highest bidder.

        • dramafreebrother

          username consists of “words”, so it can’t be copyrighted.

          but an idea can. nothing else.

          copyright is so fuckin specific, just like

          when you’re married, YOU’RE PROMISING THAT YOU ONLY FUCK YOUR WIFE. NO ONE ELSE.

          so F*CK YALL Bastards/Whores(cheaters) Who ruin other peoples’ lives by sleepin with others and cheatin them too.

          vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
          sorry, my example is pretty harsh, but

          life’s a bitch and then you die.
          that’s why we puff lye
          cuz you neva know when you gunna go…

          NaS- N!ggas Against Society
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
          see? that’s a good example of Nas’ content being copyrighted.

          he doesn’t care if we talk about it, but he DOES care that NAS(the artist) is the one WHO came up with THESE ideas.

          learn for the better is my motto.
          peace.

        • bobmailfail

          as shown above, his “name”is already trademarked!, so i wonder where that would then point the scary scary lawsuit too..

        • UraPhake

          Otherwise, he should send a DMCA takedown notice.

        • markh

          he should show us the copyright papers if he has any

      • lkltlfel

        he has his own nick… dumbass.

        • bobmail

          nah, he has a Trollname, not a nickname. He’s just here to troll. Icecold, I suspect.

        • bobmailfail

          and i wonder who taugh me just how to troll?
          so its ok for u to do to every and anything at all, but u wann cry when someone has something to say about you and your positions?
          mmmhmmmm, your moma

        • IDIOCRACY

          OR Mary impersonating me???? hehe didn’t take your pills again bobby….hehe

        • Bobmail

          FUCK OFF BOB EVERYONE HATES YOU

        • bobmailfail

          wrong again looser!,
          r u so slow as to think your continued rants wont get even more people, not just the same couple of people, to stand up to your bull

        • Bobmail

          LRN2 SPELL AND USE CAPTIAL LETTERS BOB OR ARE YOU TOO BUSY SUCKING COPYRIGHT LOBBY COCK

        • Bobmail

          lol you are even dumber than the real bobmail. Can’t you tell a fellow bobmail troll from the real thing? Jesus you must be retarded eh?

        • Guest

          “He’s just here to troll”

          So that makes him different from you how…?

      • Whatever

        And does this mean anything to you:46 55 43 4b 20 4f 46 46 20 42 4f 42 4d 41 49 4c

      • Jack Ryan

        Fuck off.

      • Bobmail

        YOU ARE THE TROLL CUNTFACE I AM THE ONE TRUE BOBMAIL

        • UraPhake

          I still want a chance to be Mary!

  • bobmail

    You need to understand something here. Youtube is a private company, and they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, provided it’s done in an equal manner. That means that yes, they can sign such a deal, and YES, they can enforce it, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do.

    You cannot compel a private company to host your video.

    • Guest

      So in other words companies can just decide when and where copyright law applies or don’t. Okay, then.

      • bobmail

        No… that’s the mistake being make here. It’s not an issue of DMCA or anything like that. Fair use doesn’t mean anything in this context, because Youtube is contractually agreeing to allow Universal to decide what is and what is no on their site, based on copyright ownership. Youtube is NOT obliged to provide service to anyone – fair use or not.

        There is no counter claim to “we won’t host videos with Universal material in them”. The guy can post his video somewhere else and claim fair use, but Youtube is NOT obliged to carry it.

        • bobmailfail

          like u have any single fact in your staements, go back to sitting under the bridge and instead of beating yourself, grab a book. learn something.

        • bobmail

          stop trolling, bitch.

        • bobmailfail

          ha ha ha

          check the mirror crybaby

        • Jack Ryan

          Go away, fucker.

        • Violated0

          YouTube may refuse to accept DMCA counter claims but if they receive one somehow then they are legally bound to act on it.

          A Judge would show YouTube no pity if they just ignored the law.

        • themerryreaper

          I’m kind of following bobmail’s line of reasoning here (even a broken analogue clock is right twice a day). I read youtube’s reply as follows: ‘You may or not be right that your video is not infringing copyright, but we are unwilling to be fucked harder up the arse, because it might start to hurt.’

          The only thing they’d need to do is change the message on the removed video into something like: ‘This video is no longer available, due to our unwillingness to stand up to bullies. We might invent some rules to support our stance if no applicable one exists. In short, screw you hippie!’

        • BCHL

          You can dislike bobmail, but that’s true,
          if Youtube wants to make their own rules,
          it’s up to them, now, if their public image is affected,
          that’s a different story, it’s just like the decisions
          made by Rapidshare, if they have decided to obey
          those silly laws, good for them, just don’t complain
          if you need to close your website
          thanks to your bad decisions.

        • Guest321

          Agreed! Youtube as a private enterprise has the right to deny freedom of speech when it comes to their service. Nothing we can do about it but be disappointed that a company like Google is turning towards the dark side.

          But not to worry, as it always happens, better alternatives will come up and take Youtube’s place.

        • DoobyDoo

          ‘But not to worry, as it always happens, better alternatives will come up and take Youtube’s place.’

          Keep dreaming pal

        • marxmarv

          … who will be racketeered into the same or similar agreements using Youtube as precedent…

        • Whatever

          They only applied their rules after the DMCA procedure didn’t have the desired outcome (as Ophelia Millais stated already stated and RTFA). If you do use this law than you should abide completely for better or worse.

          Google should state at the moment you post the video “All that you post on Youtube will only be posted after censoring by the MAFIAA to see if it fits their company policy”. And then remove it without invoking DMCA with the message “Universal didn’t like it so your video was removed”. That wouldn’t be very popular would it ?

          An example: An ambulance follows the law if they go through a red light ONLY on a rescue mission. If they are not rescuing anyone then they will still have to stop. They cannot choose themselves when the exception applies and will get punished if abused. The same should apply to Google.

        • UraPhake

          “You can dislike bobmail, but that’s true”
          -=-
          Yes, it’s true that I dislike bobmail.

        • Ophelia Millais

          Perhaps it’s just what they say in response to any rejected ContentID (non-DMCA) appeal, but YouTube wrote:

          “The complainant has reaffirmed the information in its DMCA notification.”

          They went on to refer to the complainant as the “copyright owner”. So that sure sounds like it’s a DMCA & copyright issue to me; fair use must apply. And fair use means the copyright owner’s rights do not extend to that particular type of use. YouTube may have the right to refuse to host videos with Universal material in them, but they weren’t exercising that right in this case; all along, they were saying Universal was claiming infringement of their copyrights. It wasn’t until the appeal was rejected that they made reference to their secret agreement.

    • Anon

      Well then Kim Dotcom will be rubbing his hands with glee as his profits start to increase when people like this guy sign up to him to use his video hosting service.

      • Logical existence

        no sh!t, holmes..?

    • Violated0

      Lenz v. Universal Music Corp back in 2007 highlights that you can.

  • Whatever

    Does anyone still thinks Google is waiting to hit back at the MAFIAA with their false DMCA ‘s now or is clear now Google is becoming part of the problem.

    The DMCA probably was ever meant for search results in the first place but to take the content down so Google is already doing more than ever required. Now they start to choose which half of a law to follow on YouTube? Wouldn’t this violate their safe harbor status as they don’t follow the law ?

    Can torrentsites choose to only follow counterclaims ?

    Google changed to “Do no good”

  • Anon

    Congratulations Youtube you have just driven this person and others like him to sign up to the new MEGABOX or video service that Kim Dotcom will provide in future for hosting videos.

    • antifud

      exactly. this is as clear as day of: “don’t use youtube”.

      • Guest

        easier said than done..
        that is.. if you have massive collection of subscriptions piled on over the years

        • IDIOCRACY

          very easy solved, upload a video of yourself stating you upload content from now on to [fill in here any other video hoster] and explain why in the comment. All subscribers will get the video and the link to the new site… problem solved. hehe

        • Christopher Kidwell

          Unfortunately, that is amazingly against Youtube’s rules as well, the ‘advertising competing services’ clause.

        • IDIOCRACY

          I wouldn’t know, I never used youtube, but I should have known there would be some idiotic rule like that too.. so you need to find a host without advertising (then the clause does not work for Youtube) And if you just mention the website in your vid,… would they actually screen all uploaded vid’s to check if someone tells a link to another website there?? spooky service that youtube.. glad I have nothing to do with that..hehe

        • affjalf

          Wouldn’t really matter much if you just say it vocally in the video and leave YouTube anyway. if your account is infracted or banned, so what? Worth the try. It’s not like you’re going to miss it. And those who’ve seen the video will only be pissed of that YouTube removed the video, if they’d find out about it.

        • Pamela Franck

          Ella. if you think Daniel`s report is something… on monday I got a brand new Renault 5 from having made $9247 this last 5 weeks and in excess of $10k this past-month. without a doubt its the most comfortable work I have ever had. I started this 5 months ago and pretty much immediately began to bring home more than $76... per-hr. I use the details on this web-site, Big31.com

        • Guest321

          It may be against the rules but he can sneak in the information about switching to a new host at the end of one of his videos. He can do one better and even educate his viewers on why he’s choosing to do so. By the time Youtube gets around to pulling the video, most of his subscribers would get the message and besides these days there are more than one ways to spread a message.

        • http://ribbitacoustics.com/+ Christian Dannie Storgaard

          Except, this isn’t advertising a competitor, it’s informing about where to find content. Several channels are doing this already and I haven’t seen any being shut down for it.

        • Christopher Kidwell

          Only because Youtube has been magnanimous thus far.

        • An0nYm0u5_Pt

          people point to other sites all the time.. keeping in mind its never been to megabox, people advertise other sites that also host videos ither in the video or in the description quite often.. Good examples of these people are TheArchfiend pointing to his page which also hosts his videos,
          Totalbiscut who also links to his page that also hosts videos,
          The Escapist Magazine who also link to their page that hosts videos.

          all of these people have private pages with a copy of every video they post. youtube can’t stop you from advertising, its 95% of what youtube is now.

        • http://twitter.com/ZekeInouye Zeke Inouye

          Bryson. I just agree… Wanda`s storry is unbelievable, on saturday I
          got a new Maserati when I got my check for $5847 this munth an would you
          believe 10/k lass-month. without a doubt it is my favourite-work I’ve
          ever had. I started this eight months/ago and practically straight away
          startad bringin home more than $82, per-hr. I use this website,……….. ZOO80.ℂom

        • ll

          um, wtf were u doing putting m der in de 1st place? wern’t prepaired after all the warnings?

        • Revolver

          Keep your silly text speak to the playground.

        • Guest

          WHAT? xd

        • ll

          i will simplify it for you since u can’t read txt,

          what the fuck were u putting your videos there in the first place? U wern’t prepaired after all the warnings (over the years obviously…)

        • <~~~~~~ LookWutitDun2MeFace

          I z prepaired aplenty.

        • TheTruth

          OMG I hate subscriber whores. All they cares about is their goddam amount of subscribers. They make those misleading titled videos with wrong thumbnails and they abuse the system and they get away with it because they are making youtube/google money so they don’t give a shit.

        • <~~~~~~ LookWutitDun2MeFace

          Not me precious subscribers!!

    • torrent freakster

      Been living under a rock?
      Kim dotcom isn’t any better.
      He showed his colors after his new service.

      Kim only used privacy and fair use, etc as a way to get people on his side. He do not care either way. His goal is money.

      He only used that stuff because america took away his money making business and we is angry and wants to piss them off.

      • Guest

        “He showed his colors after his new service.”

        What are you referring to here? Source please.

  • Whatever

    “At every available opportunity he encourages people to buy content and refuses to upload MP3s,”

    Naive to think they would like anyone else to tell people to buy their stuff. He’s outside their control so they don’t like it.

  • google sucks

    youtube sucks since google bought it

    • Guest

      but not really..

  • http://profiles.google.com/regebro Lennart Regebro

    I can’t seen anything here that indicated that this is specific deal with Universal, not that any blocking has been done. Universal simply ignored all counter notices. So does everyone else. This sucks, but the fault is the state of copyright law, not YouTube.

    • Whatever

      Except for all the texts in bold in the article specifically stating that they do have a deal ?

      In the letter to Universal (in the TF article) it also says that when ignored (not challenged in court) the content is reinstated.

    • Danny

      There is nothing other than Universal owning the copyrights. Which seems suspicious in this case….

    • marxmarv

      Universal doesn’t have to acknowledge counter-notices. They merely need to accept them.

      Who’s paying you to misinform people about copyright law?

    • Guest321

      The counter-claim is not for Universal to ignore. Google is the host here and its their duty to review the counter claim and reinstate the video until further notice. Remember, you are innocent until proven guilty. So unless the counter-claim is challenged again by Universal with valid proof, his video would stay reinstated.

  • Guess

    Actualy yout all forgetting one VERY important point here, by Issuing a DMCA universal are stating that John McKelvey is infringing their copy rights, which as it’s fair useage means it’s a false allegation, he has the option to sue both google and universal for defamation, liable, loss of reputation etc…

    • PelouzeTF

      How do you know his video fell under fair use…did you see the video ?
      Or does everyone here base their reactions and opinions in favor of an uploader just because the uploader said it was ?.

      • ndmushroom

        Fair point. Let’s get the video reinstated and have a look. Oh no, wait, we can’t. Bummer.
        Btw, how do you know his video DIDN’T fall under fair use? Did you see the video? Did Universal see the video? Did Youtube see the video? Or is it that since we’ve abandoned the right to an appeal, we also abandoned the presumption of innocence?

        • PelouzeTF

          Fair point. Let’s get the video reinstated and have a look. Oh no, wait, we can’t. Bummer.

          Why not ? He could throw it up on a free host.

          Btw, how do you know his video DIDN’T fall under fair use? Did you see the video?

          Nope, I didnt see it, thats why I think everyone should see it before running around with pitchforks trying to burn the village down. I’ve seen my fair share of videos where fair use has been claimed (because the uploader thought it was) and they only thing that would have been further from fair use than their upload was if they’d posted the video in its entirety.

          Did Universal see the video?

          I’ve no idea, I’m not Universal

          Did Youtube see the video?

          I’ve no idea, I’m not Youtube

          Or is it that since we’ve abandoned the right to an appeal, we also abandoned the presumption of innocence?

          I’ve no idea, I’m not Universal or Youtube and I’ve got no idea what their deal is. I just know we didn’t see the video, so its all pretty irrelevant until that happens.

        • nana

          It’s better when people like you don’t comment.. had you read the whole article, you would of found the link to “Videos removed or blocked due to YouTube’s contractual obligations” but I think there are too many big words for you to understand… and you probably won’t read the whole thing..

        • PelouzeTF

          What the hell does that have to do with anything lol.

          In any event, I just noticed it was uploaded to Dailymotion and IMO, he didn’t use that much of the song and was clearly reviewing the recording. Id say fair use. But thats me.

        • Guest

          So like a shitsucking MAFIAA shill weasel you imply that McKelvy is lying – based on nothing, but then when you’re backed into a corner and have to admit the truth you finally say the video was fair use. How generous of you.

        • PelouzeTF

          Based on the fact that I hadn’t seen the video and didn’t even notice it was embedded at the end of the article with tiny location type above it. Can you not follow a simple sequence of events or something ?

          And you know what……….. a bunch of other people in the thread didn’t notice it was there either.

          And where the fuck was I backed into a corner you simple minded fuckwit?

          Being that I hadn’t seen the video, then watched it once I realized it had been uploaded to Dailymotion, I could have done what many other people would have done after viewing it (especially you). Which would have been to concoct some distorted reason as to why I didn’t think it was fair use. But I personally think it fell into that category…and was honest enough to say exactly that If you weren’t such a knuckle dragging buffoon you would have followed those events very easily, it’s a shame you just prefer to jump in at any opportunity yelling like a child.

        • UpscaleGentleman

          Why must you use such vulgar language and such profanity? Why must you name call others? Didn’t your mother raise you better than that? Did you not have a mother that taught you not to talk in such a vile manner?

        • PelouzeTF

          I’m assuming you’ve commented to your TF buddies who generally started the name calling in the first place…or should it only be them allowed to name call ?

        • Whatever

          “Why not ? He could throw it up on a free host.”

          You just trapped yourself (again?) bobmail2.

          Youtube IS (supposed to be) a “free host” and it has still been taken down. So on which site “perceived legal” in your view should he go. Mega who will also remove it ?

          You could say TPB but then you would be suggesting to put a potential illegal video on an illegal site according to your (and your alter ego bobmail and the MAFIAA) definitions. If all your wishes would become true there won’t be any free or fair places on the internet so we would never be able to verify if it was fair use. And obviously your masters have no intention to be fair.

          (You will probably come up with some far fetched site with some obscure reason why it would stay up there and add some imaginary fiction added to double as facts)

        • PelouzeTF

          You just trapped yourself (again?) bobmail2.

          How the fuck have I trapped myself (even for the first time) ? There are any number of free hosted tubesites that wouldn’t automatically take it down so that we could at least view it. You sir are dummer than a box of rocks.

          Youtube IS (supposed to be) a “free host” and it has still been taken down. So on which site “perceived legal” in your view should he go. Mega who will also remove it ?

          He could upload it to dailymotion for one. Could it be taken down ? probably. Straight away ? highly unlikely. But it could be uploaded for us to see even for the briefest of moments and that is the crux of the matter. If it was such an unfair removal, where is the evidence that what the uploader said was even true to begin with ?
          Here’s another alternative, lets have Torrentfreak host it, just for a short while. But then, they know better than that ;)

          You could say TPB but then you would be suggesting to put a potential illegal video on an illegal site according to your (and your alter ego bobmail and the MAFIAA) definitions. If all your wishes would become true there won’t be any free or fair places on the internet so we would never be able to verify if it was fair use. And obviously your masters have no intention to be fair.

          (You will probably come up with some far fetched site with some obscure reason why it would stay up there and add some imaginary fiction added to double as facts)

          Now you’re just babbling

        • Whatever

          So, if it actually actually turns out to be an infringing video YOU are now guilty of ordering “piracy” by having people watch an infringing video.
          Way to go, you may yet become a “pirate”.

          Go ahead, McKelvey, you can paste your video all over the net, if there are any complaints you can always blame Pelossy as the one who put you up to it.

          (TF likely doesn’t host videos because of bandwidth costs and i don’t see too many ads here)

      • Kef Schecter

        It doesn’t matter whether the video was in fact fair use or not. What matters is YouTube and Universal here are judge, jury, and executioner, with no appeals process. To extend the analogy, what if somebody who almost certainly committed a serious felony were simply shot in the street by the authorities? Do you say “How do you know he wasn’t guilty?”, or do you say “Holy crap, whatever happened to due process?”.

        Yes, it’s true, many people claim fair use when something clearly isn’t. But on the other hand, if you think Universal is only going to shut down videos that are actually infringing, you must be living on a different planet than I am.

        • PelouzeTF

          I don’t pretend to know what deal Youtube and Universal have going on. I can only assume that between them, they have decided that any risk of infringement is too much risk.
          I guess we’ll see how this story develops.

      • JG

        The video in question is embedded at the end of the article (from a different host) so you are able to check for yourself.

        As to your second point, with a few exceptions (Bob, for example) most here probably will side with anyone going up against the Goliath that is the MAFIAA. There are several examples that show the automated scanning system employed by the MAFIAA are not always 100% accurate in identifying infringing material. A year or so ago, for example, their bots shut down the live stream of an awards show, claiming the show was infringing on copyright, even though the “And the nominees are….” clips had been authorized in advance. Or, last summer, the nature video allegedly infringing on a label’s audio copyright, even though there was no music on the video in question. That video failed both the initial & the repeal scan, and it wasn’t until it went viral and a real person actually checked and verified it did not in fact violate any copyright….

        Besides, regardless if the video actually does fall under fair use or the uploader is just claiming it does, will not prohibit him from filing suit and allowing a judge to make an official determination.

        • PelouzeTF

          Yeah, I saw the video was uploaded to DM later. And my personal opinion was that the short 1 minute excerpts (the same as you could freely listen to on Itunes) and that he was genuinely putting together a review, would put his upload squarely into fair use.

        • Guest321

          You admit the video was unfairly removed and yet you continue to blow your trumpet from the MAFIAA and will keep on babbling about how great the DMCA is. If you are not the definition of a MAFIAA shill, then I don’t know what is.

        • PelouzeTF

          This is why I know that you either don’t read posts at all, or are so blinkered to the pirating agenda that you can’t comprehend others viewpoints and/or opinions.
          I have said on countless occasions that the DMCA needs reworking and is a totally outdated law for the current times and the environment that it covers.
          If you’re not the definition of a paid pirate party troll, I don’t know what is.

        • MadAsASnake

          DMCA was wrong headed from day 1 – probably because it was largely written by vested interests, and bribed into law through politicians that understand little about technology. It is no surprise that it doesn’t work.

      • Guest

        “How do you know his video fell under fair use…did you see the video ?”

        The video is embedded in this article, you fucking glue sniffing psychopath.

      • http://www.facebook.com/flubaluba.billandben Flubaluba Billandben

        just takes a few people to win in a court case to provide an example for other courts…three cases would be enough to force the studios to be cut from youtube not the average poster.

    • SCP-914: The Clockworks

      Wouldn’t be surprised if he did. America is a sue happy country.

    • FuzzyDuck

      Yeah great, he has the right to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers and the right to a drawn out legal case that he might be able to win to have his video reinstated by the year 2017.

      (You are right on principle of course, and maybe if the EFF or some group would care to take the case it could be used to eventually set a precedent against take-down abuse, but as an individual there’s no point in wasting your time and money with this.)

      • <~~~~~~ LookWutitDun2MeFace

        , he has the right to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers… that’ll be battling a tidal wave of million dollar lawyers….

    • http://pogue972.blogspot.com/ pogue972

      That’s all well and good if he has the time and money to do so, which would both be in very large amounts.

  • Person

    On a side note, here’s a whitehouse petition about these stupid automated takedown requests. It will probably do nothing but will at least inform people. http://www.whitehouse.gov/LSK9

    • TheyAreCorrupt

      Wow, created yesterday and is only 5 short of the 100,000 needed for a response.

      • jj

        I think you read it wrong. As of right now it only has “6″ signatures total. That huge # showing is how many signatures it NEEDS.

        • DiD

          Correct. It has 22 now. Hm. After reading this petition – could it be a problem that it only asks for a person to check the DMCA claims, but doesn’t mention that this should happen on the requester side and NOT on the side of the recipient (the site owner)? I could see them say “well, but this is already happening. the site owner does (or could) check”.

    • http://twitter.com/Xiodens Xioden

      Sadly it will likely get the generic “requires legislation so we can’t/won’t answer” response.

    • http://pogue972.blogspot.com/ pogue972

      Whitehouse petitions are a waste of time. Put one up on change.org and you’re more likely to not only get a higher view and more signers, but likely to get a response.

  • Pingback: YouTube’s Deal With Universal Blocks DMCA Counter Notices

  • Violated0

    Well what an evil warp of DMCA law this is.

    YouTube’s first stage as we well know is not DMCA based but due to more recent changes the final stage seen here is indeed a DMCA take-down notice.

    YouTube refusing to accept a counter claim notice is indeed morally and ethically wrong. I can only wonder if YouTube can lawfully block a counter claim when they may have closed the channel but what about a registered letter with DMCA counter claim to YouTube’s HQ? Not so easy to ignore the law when they have a legal document in their hand.

    I can understand why UMG would not want DMCA counter claims when then YouTube has to restore the video and the law then requires UMG to turn it into a Court case if they still want it down. There are of course many idiots of YouTube who have no valid defence but file anyway. Still that is the law and not UMG’s personal choice.

    Anyway let me go scare UMG by throwing into this ring a name which is Jeremy D. Fogel. Recognize that name UMG do we? He is of course the Judge who handled the Stephanie Lenz versus UMG case.

    Lets recall that UMG claimed that they did not need to consider fair use when taking down a video. Judge Jeremy D. Fogel however ruled that they do need to consider fair use when the DMCA says 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v), the copyright holder must consider whether use of the material was allowed by the copyright owner or the law.

    So I know one Judge who is going to be pissed that once again UMG removed a video that is clearly fair use. That comes close to bordering on contempt when they were Court ordered and now do it again.

    I am quite sure it is not the end of the road just because YouTube block valid DMCA counter claims but even if UMG are sure to lose then it is a bumpy road ahead,

    • Christopher Kidwell

      It’s not only morally and ethically wrong, it’s also legally wrong and can have them in a couple of tons of hurt.

      • joexxx

        Why is it morally wrong?

        • UraPhake

          It’s always morally wrong when the little guy gets fucked for not having done anything against the law.

        • Violated0

          YouTube is a site that is created from user uploaded videos. As long as those videos comply with the law then YouTube should welcome all videos as long as they are suitable for the community.

          To then betray these users by putting one media organization before the users and to allow them to censor lawful content is morally and ethically wrong,

          Do users get to censor videos that UMG supply? No…

        • Guest

          The DMCA necetates the procedure of DMCA counter notices, its right there if anyone wants to read, now all this is gonna cause is a judge to take a dim view of Suckle and order them to reinstate it or faces daily fines or even a criminal prosecution i,e Jailtime for the CEO COO etc it wouldn’t be the first time it has happened to a ‘megacorp’

  • Anon00

    This is abuse of the DMCA system for financial gain and should be investigated by the authorities.

    Further evidence that the DMCA system should be scrapped.

    • joexxx

      If you read the DMCA, you will notice that the law itself is unworkable and is ripe for abuse. Apparently, a number of federal judges agree.

      • marxmarv

        Unfortunately, treasonous shit Maria Pallante thinks it needs to get even worse in order for the poor widdle content companies. I hope someone finds some dirt on her and makes her unemployable before she can do much damage.

  • Pingback: YouTube’s Deal With Universal Blocks DMCA Counter Notices | Best Seedbox

  • http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle

    there are more of us uploading than there are of them deleting, so there. they can keep employing more and more methods but it will not help, besides this, there are other you tube type places to go

    • dogmail

      Its mostly automated

    • marxmarv

      There’s nothing special any more about YouTube’s technology. At this point, anyone with a $5/mo web hosting account and an encoder app can host their own video, and drop in a dailymotion embed if something goes viral.

      For that matter, aren’t there BitTorrent clients that will play directly from the torrent? That “BTCDN” technology + loose federations of indexes = Diaspora* for video. There’s even some potential for automating various kinds of load shifting and such.

      Hmm. I need a few weekends where I’m not either catching up with work or getting laid…

  • Luke Solis

    WoW. just… Wow.

  • JerkfaceMcGee

    This business is easier said than done, as someone else said. It is however simply shocking to see such an oversight of the law. What comes first, YouTube, the DMCA or your backroom discussions?

    • joexxx

      What laws are you talking about?
      This is a private agreement between the user and youtube, and between youtube and Universal.
      If the user believes that youtube is in violation of the terms of the agreement between the user and youtube, the user can sue youtube.

      • UraPhake

        Sue for what?

  • Guest

    I’d say “don’t use youtube” but the truth is that without youtube, a lot of people would miss that video if it was somewher else.
    Such is the problem with monopolies.

    Youtube is not the best video streaming site. It was just the first to go mainstream so it already had a head start of users and content.

    • Christopher Kidwell

      Actually, from what I have seen, it is the best available right now, bar none.

      If someone wants to correct me by posting a better website, then feel free to do that.

      • marxmarv

        One-dimensional comparisons are the hobgoblins of one-dimensional minds.

        There are plenty of sites with less content, flakier players and saner policies. In fact, most of them might be.

    • joexxx

      This is not monopoly since it was not forced upon anybody and there is nothing intrinsic about youtube having a monopoly.
      People can break this monopoly in 1 day by using another service.

      • marxmarv

        Not when the value of network effects combined with the uncertainty that others will switch and take their videos with exceeds the value of not being under the thumb of cartel co-conspirators.

        • joexxx

          In English please.

  • http://profiles.google.com/pianogamer Knut Harald

    I’m not really worried about losing a video on youtube anymore. Here’s what happened to my account last week (summary):
    “You are banned for breaking the community guidelines. Don’t ever make an account again.”
    There was no mention of what rule I allegedly broke. But I managed to find the (secret) complaint form, and made a complaint. So I get:
    “After review, we found that your account does not break the community guidelines, and has been reinstated”.
    Again, no mention of what rules I had allegedly broke. Not sure if I should just take their advice and never use the site again.

    • Christopher Kidwell

      You’re kidding? They actually said it in those words? I don’t think so, that leaves them open to being sued, especially if they didn’t tell you what rules you supposedly broke.

      • Guest

        Good luck suing a megacorp like Google, yeah I thought so!

      • joexxx

        Sued for what?

      • Guest321

        This suing thing only works on paper. In reality, financial constraints almost always ensures big mega corps will get away with doing whatever they want. In the end its the little guy who suffers, having lost everything financially.

        We see it all the time how poor people get thrown in jail based on mere allegation while rich folks can afford to drag a case on for an eternity and happily live out their lives in their ivory towers.

        • Guest

          Exactly, we should start reforming it so ‘dragging’ becomes outright impossible, then we may be on to something.

  • jkjjjkjkjj

    When companies get big they all screw with us. Google search results suck not including the dmca takedowns. just in its self is horrible. Facebook limits who you can and can’t be friends with by banning from adding people from 24 hours to 30 days. Microsoft launched windows 8. Now YouTube is taking sides with a big corporation. Companies lose sight that we make them popular. They think they know what customers want and force it on us. Getting old real fast to find new services every few years cause a company lets a suit run the company vs someone from the real world.

    • Guest321

      People who use facebook are sheep and deserve what they get.

      • Guest

        Exactly my thoughts, they sign up to Stalkbook they should have seen it coming.

  • Wormlore

    Well, this might work as usual: make enough noise about it, preferably in “traditional” media and they will reinstate this video. They won’t change their policy or contract with majors, they will just try to shut you up by saying “Oh well, we reviewed your video and you’re right, this is fair use. It’s now back online so leave us be.”

    Apple did it with the censored Pulitzer-prize comic, YouTube did it with the “Megasong”. They never changed their line of conducts, never recognized they were wrong in the way they handle things in general. They only try to cool things down on individual cases that make the news.

    And they wonder why they gather such bad feedback at times. Lucky for them, people learn slowly. Hopefully, they DO learn.

    • marxmarv

      Yes, people learn. What they learn by signing these sorts of contracts with the content cartel is that standing up for principle only gets you hassled. Pretty much the same lesson the American public has learned since the very founding of the republic.

  • kim

    thye killing more and more vids there lol

  • VoiceofReason

    It’s funny how people are completely dependable from Google even with all their antics. Just use Web Archive if you need to store vídeos, folks. And Bing as search engine.

    • DutchGuest

      Moving from Google’s monopolised search to…
      Microsucks’ monopolised search.
      No thanks, i’d rather deal with duckduckgo then, even if it is inferior to Google’s search.

    • aidanjt

      Or duckduckgo.

  • vn2onn5xo4m

    “An error occured: DailymotionPlayer is not defined at undefined line undefined” hahaha proper message would be “JavaScript from dmcdn not enabled”

  • Pingback: YouTube’s Deal With Universal Blocks DMCA Counter Notices | What is torrents?

  • Anonymous

    Do no evil My arse.

  • lll

    ya gotta be dumb to upload to utube when they remove stuff 4 no reason, use some better hosting provider as it seems u were too dumb to use common sense…

  • SCP-914: The Clockworks

    That’s a dangerous game to be playing. If they do it to the wrong person, they might sue. I mean, people sue over crazy crap all the time in America. I remember when a woman spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonald’s over it being hot. Now they would warning labels on their coffee even though common sense would tell you it’s hot. This is why I think a lawsuit may pop up.

    • joexxx

      Sue for what?

      • SCP-914: The Clockworks

        Whatever they can come up with. America is a country where people sue each other over stupid crap. EA sued this one company for copyright infringement and they sued EA for suing. False DMCA notice, revenge, or just to be a greedy jackass, depending on the case.

        • dramafreebrother

          fuck a lawsuit

          common sense and ethics all the way

          laws are meant to be broken..
          Man… now it makes sense, that i keep myself sober

        • dramafreebrother

          now that i keep myself sober around these cocksucking businesses*

        • joexxx

          Stop smoking that stuff.

        • SCP-914: The Clockworks

          Not making it up. Here’s a link gamespot(dot)com/news/zynga-countersues-ea-6396542 You’ll have to change the (dot) to an actual dot, but it is the article I was talking about.

  • Dude

    Youtube is ran by the nazis, use dailymotion or vimeo

  • http://twitter.com/Anime4PSP Anime 4 PSP

    Wow, this is totally retarded. See how youtube becomes whore/slave of copyright mafia.

  • Bobmail

    I’M A FUCKING FAGGOT

  • Ophelia Millais

    If there was ever a case of fair use, this is it: obvious commentary/criticism of the content in question, only parts of the work used, not harming the market… And the whole point of fair use is that the copyright owner’s rights do not extend to this type of use; it isn’t “allowed infringement”, it’s simply not infringement at all; it’s out of the copyright owner’s jurisdication, and even if they object to the use, too bad.

    Now, if the record companies have a non-DMCA takedown arrangement with Google/YouTube, that’s their business, and I wouldn’t expect there to be an appeals process or for the takedowns to even need to be based on valid copyright claims. But this one makes reference to the DMCA and says outright that it’s a copyright claim. There has to be a way to fight this on fair-use grounds.

    • Violated0

      You are quite right when it was an invalid DMCA take-down notice.

      People should remember that agreements between third parties cannot remove your rights under the law. So if the video would normally be classed as “fair use” if not for this UMG contract then the action is unlawful, the clause in the contract is invalid rendering the whole contract invalid.

      If this became a Court case and the Judge got to see that confidential UMG agreement then shit would soon hit the fan,

  • deathwalker

    this disqus system is a piece of crap, as soon as you click the load more comments you have to go find the last one you read to be able to carry on :S

    • Anonymous

      Its shit but the mods always think different, the ONLY 2 things that’s good about this version is the downvote button and the show flagged comment feature, the rest is pure shit.

  • dondilly

    Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t it UMG that took down KDC’s mega promo video even though the music was original.

    Aside from pure censorship powers being given to a corporate entity, only of the more insidious aspects is that it would allow UMG to remove unfavourable reviews of it’s releases.

    It seems the contract between UMG and YouTube doesn’t preclude him taking UMG to court though deep pockets would be needed. Best would be to pass details to EFF and hopefully they could organise a class action of similar authors against UMG.

    • joexxx

      What is he going to take UMG to court for?

      • dondilly

        If you read what Google are saying about their arrangement with UMG, it is not that the user has no right of protection under the dmca as they instructed the user that he must take up the matter directly with UMG. Neither is Google saying that it is exercising it’s right to delete what it sees fit. In other words the dmca and the user’s protection under it still stand. What the arrangement amounts to is a blanket contesting on the part of UMG to any counter claim by users which under the dmca is a stance that is clearly untenable. UMG are essentially trying to defend the lazy option of relying on fuzzy signatures to identify infringement without having to investigate the collateral damage to innocent users caused by the many false positives such a system generates.

        • joexxx

          Nothing here is illegal.
          So, again, what is he going to take UMG to court for?

  • Pingback: Google a vendu son âme au diable, avec Youtube. Don't be evil

  • TampFamp

    I love Youtube, they are just cool like that. Wow.

    GoPrivacy.tk

  • IdioticGirlWithPetTroll

    So what’s the big deal? If YouTube removes a video from” your” channel then all you can do is put your head down and say, “Aw, ok dad.” T.T

  • SCP-914: The Clockworks

    Is the year 1692? I sense witch trials… I would like to accuse everyone in the MAFIAA of witches so they could be on trial.

    • marxmarv

      First dibs on the witch testing. Should I wear the surgical scrubs or the leather hood?

  • joexxx

    Don’t deal with youtube. Done.

  • Tombozi

    100% censorship. They could censor any upcoming independent artist this way because nobody can appeal. Fuck you, Google.

    • Guest

      Im still awaiting the court case which could order Scroogle to reinstate the DMCA counternotices as per DMCA law!

  • downunder

    ive see youtube stuff stayup for years with copyright content cos the person uses abstract titles name so it dont show in their regular engine and youtube searcher or google searches lol.. they have a private site linking to the content where you pay for access.. LOL I believe the stuff is still there like ghost hunters etc i suspect hes not the only one.. plus no doubt he uses fake email and name to join youtube
    and vpn and proxies to access and upload to it, and has backups with different names as well. kinda clever means zero distribution cost and most know how to download the mp4 of youtube.. so I dont think they ever stop it

  • IWASAPIRATEBEFOREITWASCOOL

    Back in the day before DMCA the MPAA/RIAA use to be like daddy long legs(a big joke and harmless). Now they are like mosquito’s(annoying).

    After the DMCA was passed these companies have grown this sense of false power that they think they actually can dictate and control governments and the world and have everyone obey them. We need to do away with the DMCA because I believe it is unconstitutional.

    We need to get rid of it entirely and go back to the days where one could easily leave torrents seeding for 24/7/365 with no vpn because you didn’t need one. After the DMCA was put into effect that forced people to have to use vpn if one wanted to seed 24/7/365.

    Arguably vpn’s can give half decent speeds for upload and downloads in some instants and occasions but for most times using vpn’s are just a hassle to have to turn on and off because they help and hurt at the same time. If you use them while you upload they keep you safe and secure but if you downloading while your using a vpn your speed goes to hell. You can solve this problem by paying for a seedbox but who wants to pay $??/month. Back then getting a seedbox was done by a handful of ppl to get faster speeds but now its not unusual to use a seedbox now because of what is happening today because of the DMCA particularly and other legislation. I believe most of the current legislation on filesharing etc…. would never seen the light of day if it had not been for the DMCA giving these delusional heros a false sense of empowerment because of it.

    We pirates had a good thing going before the big bad DMCA showed up. Before the DMCA the companies would piss and moan and complain and nobody would give two shits about what they said. After the DMCA was signed it was almost like their Double O license on copyright infringement. Now they have a law that actually gives their silly tantrums and rants some type of power and say so. Now with that little bit of power that comes from the DMCA they try to convince people that they are the protectors of copyright when they are the protectors of their sorry asses making money and putting it into their pockets. They say they care about clients but they don’t give two shits about clients as long as they make money.

    I believe if the DMCA never was signed these corporate gangsters and corporate thugs would have spent up all of their money trying to do frivolous lawsuits which were pretty much jokes and just losing them money and eventually losing everything thus crawling back into the holes they came from.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jtpf8N5IDE

  • IWASAPIRATEBEFOREITWASCOOL

    When will people learn that making deals with the devil never works and will always end up biting you in the ass .

  • Foff

    Copyright is not an artificial right created by government decree. Here is an idea: Make the copyright holder (usually a corporation) pay a large fee to maintain a copyright after a couple of years for every year thereafter. For just about every government service I have to pay a godddamn fee so shouldn’t copyright holders do the same? This would solve problems like those in this article. If a corporation had to pay a large fee to maintain every copyright they claim to have they would abandon them by the bushel.

    • Foff

      I mean copyright is an artificial right created by government

  • UpscaleGentleman

    I am a member of the No Cussing Club! Will you join me today to make the world a more swear free environment without profanity and vulgarity! To create an atmosphere that allows ppl to diffuse hate through the idealogy of having a clean mouth.

    • Violated0

      There are no vulgar words only bad intentions.

  • IWASAPIRATEBEFOREITWASCOOL

    Why is it that most people on here are just to darn lazy to read long posts? You post really long posts and nobody reads them but you see these really short posts and they have (exaggeration) 10,000 thumbs ups.

  • Guest

    YouTube sucks. They censor more and more.

  • Darkhog

    Maybe TF should make list of worthwhile YT alternatives, much like it does with worthwhile VPNs? I.e. hosts that doesn’t use old MegaVideo’s practice of locking you down after you watch X minutes of videos and are those companies, that doesn’t care about (c).

  • torrent freakster

    This is what happens when you use american owned services.
    As an unofficial rule i never use american owned services for my important stuff.

    American companies are doing blatantly illegal stuff. They have gone so far as to messup their own countries legal system and forced other countries to do the same while america ignore those countries laws and requests for following legal laws in those countries.

    Remember 9/11 ?
    America kidnapped people form other countries without following those countries rules.
    That news made me root for the terrorists. It saddens me that they have not destroyed any more buildings. America deserves this.

  • Recomendation

    This is the other side of the Google story—the unauthorized book that Google does not want you to read. In Search & Destroy, Google expert Scott Cleland, shows that the world’s most powerful company is not who it pretends to be.

    Google pretends to be a harmless lamb, but chose a full-size model of a Tyrannosaurus Rex as its mascot. Beware the T-Rex in sheep’s clothing.

    Google has acquired far more information, both public and private, and has invented more ways to use it, than anyone in history. Information is power, and in Google’s case, it’s the power to influence and control virtually everything the Internet touches. Google’s power is largely unchecked, unaccountable—and grossly underestimated. Google is the Internet’s lone superpower—the new master of the digital information universe. And Google’s power depends almost entirely on the blind trust it has gained through masterful duplicity. Google routinely says one thing and does another.

    Cleland proves the world’s #1 brand untrustworthy. He exposes the unethical company hiding behind a “don’t be evil” slogan. He uncovers Google’s hidden political agenda. And he reveals how Google’s famed mission to organize the world’s information is destructive and wrong. Cleland is the first to critically examine where Google is leading us, explain why we don’t want to go there, and propose straightforward solutions.

    Google’s unprecedented centralization of power over the world’s information is corrupting both Google and the Internet—a natural result of unchecked power. Google is evolving from an information servant to master—from working for users, to making users work for the Internet behemoth.

    Search & Destroy conclusively demonstrates that Google’s goal is to change the world by influencing and controlling information access. Ultimately, Google’s immense unchecked power is destructive precisely because Google is so shockingly-political, unethical and untrustworthy.

  • quawonk

    Innocent until a corporation says you’re guilty. Sounds fair.

  • Guest

    You put your video on Youtube then you play by Youtube’s rules. They can leave it up, take it down , turn it upside down or do whatever they chose to do with it. you don’t like it then either go to another hosting site or start your own hosting site where you make the rules.

  • wargamer1969

    YouTube needs to work on more servers, I have 110 mbs down speed 15 up and still trying to watch YouTube sucks at night even at 480p. Ridiculous. Looking for another video service with much better bandwidth.

  • http://www.facebook.com/flubaluba.billandben Flubaluba Billandben

    So the only way to get the right to post your content back on the internet is to take them to court, yes well done ….eventually this will cause some blow back that could cause Youtube and any studio to think twice about doing any take-downs and giving people the right to not only fight a dmca but to get compensation.

  • Pingback: What is torrents? | YouTube’s Deal With Universal Blocks DMCA Counter Notices

  • ItsTheSasquatch

    Time to stop using Google services. If they’re going to function as a virtual totalitarian regime where I have no rights and no ability to defend myself, I don’t want any part of it. In fact, I want to watch them burn.

  • <~~~~~~ LookWutitDun2MeFace

    When the asshole owns the ball, the asshole can walk from the game whenever the asshole wants.

  • GS

    If it was a Content ID case then that was not a DMCA process.

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Anti-Piracy Group Takes Usenet-Crawler Offline

    When NZBmatrix shut down over piracy concerns in December, hundreds of thousands of Usenet junkies were...

  • Oh Oh…Are the Prenda Trolls Being Watched by the IRS?

    With the copyright trolls of Prenda Law in a whole world of trouble, it was somewhat...

  • KickassTorrents Down Locally Due to DNS Issues

    KickassTorrents has been unreachable over the past hours due to DNS issues. The problem appears to...

  • Prenda Copyright Trolls Plead the Fifth

    The ongoing saga of ‘Prendageddon’ had its latest episode today. After the March 11 case, many...

  • EliteTorrents Admin Makes Comeback as App Developer

    Those who have been following TorrentFreak for a while will remember Scott McCausland as the EliteTorrents...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.