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.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: youtube

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Record Label Execs Suddenly Upset That False Copyright Claims Can Take Down Videos”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
33 Comments
Anonymoussays:

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.

Anonymoussays:

Re: 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.

Anonymoussays:

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.

NotMyRealNamesays:

Re: Re: The real precedent

Look! an ac comment that’s relevant, insightful, and free of grammatical errors ๐Ÿ™‚

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.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: 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.

PopeRatzosays:

Re: 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.

Graceysays:

Re: 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?

That Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: 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.

Anonymoussays:

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

Anonymoussays:

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.

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow