I was curious what the penalties are for issuing a false DMCA takedown request. According to this article (http://intellectual-property.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/1036...), the penalty is perjury, which is a felony. Does anyone know who would be responsible for bringing charges? Is it something that Megavideo can do, or would it have to be Google, who i assume would not press charges in order to keep their good relationship with Universal?

In the US, felony criminal proceedings are initiated by a grand jury at the recommendation of the District Attorney. Megaupload can file a criminal complaint, but the DA has a lot of freedom in deciding to put the case in front of a grand jury or not.

Megaupload can bring a civil suit against Universal but these proceedings cannot lead to a felony conviction, which once again is a criminal sanction.

I assume it would have to be a prosecutor at some level in government.

Google, or any other corporation or citizen, cannot bring criminal charges... we can only file civil actions and report crimes to authorities in the appropriate jurisdiction (the police or FBI for example) who then report to prosecutors who decide whether to bring charges. Perjury is not just an offense at some specific person or organization, it's an offense to society, and society punishes through criminal prosecution (United States v. You, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. You, etc.).

At least that's my "Civics 101" level understanding.

I’m guessing that depends on the kind of agreement Universal has with Google. Google can allow Universal to do whatever they want, there don’t have to be any takedown requests involved anywhere in this story.

Maybe Universal merely broke their contract with Google.

My understanding (though I'm not a lawyer) is that under the DMCA, Megavideo can sue. [edit: like dangrossman says, I don't think they can bring perjury charges, but the DMCA does allow them to sue]

Some information here: http://targetlaw.com/consequences-of-filing-a-false-dmca-tak...

But was there a DMCA takedown?

If there wasn't a DMCA takedown request then Google might be liable for content put on the site. My understanding is that they must follow the laws to keep safe harbour. This is why Megaupload was able to dispute the claim the first time.

Megavideo would, they hold the rights to the song and have agreements with the artists in question. UMG would be held responsible since their name is on the infringement notice.

Since Corporations are People, how would UMG be charged with a felony?

IANAL, but I would think the person who filed the takedown notice would be charged. AFAIK, even the automated mass-takedowns are in theory signed off by a lawyer. At least, there's someone named as responsible for it.

Actually, UMG could be charged; if it is convicted it would likely be fined.

(Proving that any given corporate officer had the requisite intent to commit a crime (the 'mens rea') is difficult to impossible, which is one reason why corporations can be tried in criminal court.)

Allowing corporations to be sued is exactly why corporate personhood exists, isn't it?

Not sure you could imprison a company though. That'd probably be the same as the death penalty.

Not the only abuse of the system. Interscope issued a takedown notice for UK rapper Skepta because they wanted to buy the beat from him. No actual copyright infringement at all...just blatant abuse of the system.

link: http://www.sohh.com/2011/07/interscope_youtube_shakedown_rap...

Well at least the anti-SOPA people now have a high profile, clear cut example of why giving these companies more power is a bad idea. These numb nuts very well have just shot themselves in the foot over a silly video.

I have a sneaking suspicion this video was specifically designed to trigger DMCA takedown bots on youtube, via artist tags, knowing the personality of the founder, i think it fits perfectly.

This is going to give them huge ammunition in the media against the RIAA.

It could even possibly used in court to prove the bad faith nature of UMGs DMCA takedowns.

What a brilliant tactical stroke.

Yeah, and UMG fell straight for it. This will also give the Megaupload song much more media attention than it would've gotten otherwise, which again will help Megaupload.

honest answer - was china not a good one to you?

I am not the one who needs convincing. Anyhow, a headline that reads 'New internet law will make us just like China' sounds so ridiculous most people wouldn't think it was true, even though it is. But 'Record label shuts down song by P Diddy, Will.i.am, Alicia Keys, Kanye West, Snoop Dogg, Chris Brown, The Game and Mary J Blige.' grabs attention.

China's far away. This example hits closer and is therefore much easier to consume.

Of course, this isn't a logical argument. But lawmaking isn't fundamentally driven by logic these days anyway.

> But lawmaking isn't fundamentally driven by logic, ever.

Fixed that for you.

Comparing tax-paying US companies to oppressive Chinese regimes isn't helpful when you're trying to persuade politicians.

Having a really easy to understand simple clear example of existing powers being used illegally should be helpful, although I realise that this example probably won't do anything.

Ironically, MegaUpload is headquartered in Hong Kong...

Which has considerable autonomy from mainland China.

You can't honestly say that the Chinese Internet censorship policy is a reversal from the heady pro-liberty days of the 1970s, for example. The most you can say is that China lost another opportunity to not oppress its people.

The real problem here is Youtube who refuses to take counter-notice seriously. It's been many years and they still can't figure out that simple bit "counternotice filed".

Oh this will be fun to watch if you know the history of Kim Schmitz aka Kimble aka Kim Dotcom [1]. He has quite a talent to get into the spotlight if he needs too and it looks like that he is able to legally re-appear in public again.

But i would love to know how a trickster like him got this video together. Maybe he is running out of money again and needs some publicity.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Schmitz

I still can remember when he was a celebrity here. I never felt sorry for the people he ripped of, it was so obvious. I always wondered about his secrecy, he seemed to be someone who needs the spotlight.

It's quite impressive what he pulled off with Megaupload, it is a competitive market and his infrastructure has to be quite big. When you look at the numbers of MU, i don't think he is short of money.

If you, like me, are wondering where he got a name like "Kim Dotcom", he apparently just calls himself that, according to this [1] reference on the Wikipedia page.

[1] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&obj...

Kim is not one to back down easily, if ever. He loves to win. He placed first in the infamous Gumball 3000 rally twice, and on one occasion faced a certain loss so drove down a packed pedestrian promenade honking everyone out of his way (see around 9 minutes into http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIXYuusRIxA ). What a guy.

In http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boSUCzJB2Gw#t=6m35s you can see him make an almost impossible gap in traffic at high speed, actually clipping another car, and.. he keeps on rolling :-) Not a guy I'd want to be taking on, that's for sure.

  What a guy.

What a complete dick.

Guts and determination is one thing. Risking other people's lives over a petty race is completely different.

Hehe, that second video (voSUCz) returns "This video contains content from WMG and UMG, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

The labels going against the artists they pretend to "protect"? I love this. Because if the artists get angry with the labels for stuff like this, it means next time the labels will try to push a law like SOPA "in the name of the artists" - the artists will be there and call them on their BS, and say the labels are representing nobody but themselves. I predict this will become fun to watch.

Isn't the DMCA supposed to punish people who file fraudulent takedown notices?

There's a high transaction cost in someone filing a complaint against those, so it doesn't happen. It's quite a shame given that I've seen a few examples of videos taken down by actors with no connection. Eg Zenimax taking down a video related to a tv show.

Well of course UMG prevailed. They're the bigger, legitimate party, and they're who the DMCA was written for. The DMCA was never intended for us to use.

Nice hack. I wonder if they could get a court to issue an injunction against UMG from using its takedown tool until they have established a way to prove to Youtube that they do indeed own the copyrights to material. This would seriously limit their tool's usage :-)

This is being done in our name and with our money. If you don't like it you might want to consider your choices when buying or requesting presents this festive season. Make it an RIAA- and MPAA-free Christmas and tell your friends and family why.

Do we really know if this isn't an over-zealous bot that say big names like P. Diddy and Snoop Dogg and decided that it was time to issue a notice?

I still think it's an abuse of the DMCA power to have bots out there mining for things and sending notices without a human ever looking over its shoulder, but there's a difference between negligence and malice.

No. The bots might find the videos, but the DMCA requires a statement made under penalty of perjury to be submitted along with the takedown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA_safe_harbor#Takedown_exam...

I see no practical difference between a human issuing illegitmate DMCA takedown notices, or using a bot to do the same. The difference to the affected party is nil. "The bot made me do it" is not a legal defense.

If a boot does it, then it is much more difficult to pin the crime on any one person, therefore much less likely to result in any consequences for any of the guilty parties.

It's easy really. The person that authorized the bot to work on their behalf is responsible.

I'm not saying it's logically more difficult, I'm saying that in practical terms, it puts one more hurdle (or maybe several) in the way of anyone who wants to hold the culprit accountable.

  > "The bot made me do it" is not a legal defense.

Please re-read my post instead of tearing down a straw man.

I reread it. It still looks like you're drawing a distinction between a person flagging an "infringing" work, and a bot doing the same. I still think that there is no practical use for this distinction. Where's the strawman?

The strawman is that I'm not building a legal defense for UMG, whereas that seems to be what you've pegged me as doing.

My message can be summed up as:

Don't get carried away with conspiracy theories that UMG saw this successful viral campaign and felt that they needed to do something illegal to stop it. This video just ran afowl of UMG's "shotgun approach" to take-down notices, which just happens to be an illegal activity of theirs. I also find it highly probable that this was a targeted effort to get the video into the sights of whatever process it is that UMG uses to issue notices.

UMG's 'shotgun approach' to take-downs is not limited to just UMG, and it is also nothing new. This has been going on for a long time. If you're only getting outraged about it now you're years late to the party.

> Don't get carried away with conspiracy theories

Followed by a conspiracy theory of your own:

> I also find it highly probable that this was a targeted effort to get the video into the sights of whatever process it is that UMG uses to issue notices

Classy.

That's not a conspiracy theory, no matter how much you think that you want to 'win' this Internet argument with me.

You think that there was no thought put into the fact that if they put a video up on YouTube with a bunch of well-known artists in the name that they might get taken down for 'copyright violations?' It perfectly demonstrates their case, and with all of the publicity around the video itself brings the issue to a lot of the general public. Even if it wasn't a targeted effort, it seems like it turned out really well for them, IMO.

You posited a situation where a group of people (the artists and/or their representatives) got together for the purposes of tricking UMG into illegally issuing a DMCA takedown notice. You don't have even the slightest shred of proof. That is a conspiracy theory. Do I really need to give you elementary school lessons about your own words?

Why should we care about the difference between negligence and malice? Should we respond differently? I would not be comfortable with that.

Besides, let's not forget Grey's Law... (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Greys_Law)

From http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Greys_Law :

  > There is currently no text in this page.

My point is not to get carried away by making claims like this:

  > “Dirty tricks in an effort to stop our massively 
  > successful viral campaign.”

If these claims turn out to be false, then you just end up looking stupid, even if UMG is still on the wrong side of the law.

HN seems to be eating an apostrophe between the y and s in that link.

  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Grey's_Law

Regardless, nobody reasonable is going to fault anybody for assuming malice from class acts like the MPAA. And if you apply Grey's Law, then they deserve the criticism regardless.

I'd have to agree with sp332, since I don't see how a bot would be able to legally sign a document - the legal backlash could be significant if a bot signed a document and that document was submitted without any human checks. Then again, it doesn't always seem like the media has regard for the law unless it is benefitting them, so it wouldn't surprise me.

People seem to be misunderstanding my post. I'm trying to differentiate between:

"I hate those MegaUpload people. I'll issue a false take-down notice to shut them up! Bwahahaha! <twirls mustache>"

and

"Oh. Another hit from our crappy YouTube crawler bot. <rubber stamps take-down notice>"

There is a difference between malice directed towards MegaUpload and (willful) negligence.

[ Also, don't reply with something stupid like, "but that won't hold up in court." Because a careful reading of the above text will reveal a lack of me making any such statement. ]

> There is a difference between malice directed towards MegaUpload and (willful) negligence.

It's a difference that doesn't matter in the slightest. The organization is acting illegally, and people are rightfully angry about that. Who cares if someone's twirling their mustache? And why would a stereotypical corporate villain be worse than a system that is set up to screw people with the least resistance possible? It makes no difference whatsoever - only the outcome does.

edit: and I have to say that your insistence that people leave the legal stuff out of this, because you didn't explicitly mention it, is laughable. You realize that the DMCA is a law, right? And that this article is about a legal matter?

  > It's a difference that doesn't matter in the slightest. 

In a courtroom, maybe. I'm drawing a distinction here because of the propensity of people to create elaborate narratives.

"UMG is censoring MegaUpload in a deliberate attempt to silence them. This is no different than a mobster trying to silence a witness!"

  > The organization is acting illegally, and people are 
  > rightfully angry about that. 

If 'illegal' was as binary as you want to imply, then all penalties would be exactly the same.

  > You realize that the DMCA is a law, right?

... and HN is a court room, apparently. Are you going to hold me in contempt of court because I don't agree with you?

Especially when the article itself has quotes like this:

  > “Dirty tricks in an effort to stop our massively successful 
  > viral campaign.”

This statement implies that UMG was making a deliberate effort to shut down MegaUpload's campaign.

> If 'illegal' was as binary as you want to imply, then all penalties would be exactly the same

What a ridiculous statement, which bears absolutely no relation to what I said.

> This statement implies that UMG was making a deliberate effort to shut down MegaUpload's campaign

... That's because DMCA takedown notices require deliberate effort. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

  > That's because DMCA takedown notices require deliberate
  > effort. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

You've translated:

  > A DMCA take-down notice requires a statement under
  > penalty of perjury that the issuer has a good-faith
  > reason to believe that they are the owner of the
  > copyright in question.

Into meaning that the following two statements are equivalent:

  I want to take down this video because I want to stop
  MegaUpload's viral campaign because it could be damaging
  to my bottom line.

and

  This video has the name 'Snoop Dogg' in it so I'll send
  a take-down notice because I might own the copyrights to
  this, and I'm too lazy/over-worked to be bothered to
  check.

You say that the above statements are equivalent because the end result is the same (a video is wrongfully and illegally taken down).

If that is true, then you have to accept that nothing that you do in your life matters because you'll only end up dead. The end result is exactly the same.

More ridiculous drivel. The "end result" of my life will be substantially different, depending on how I affect the people around me. Do you have anything to say that's even slightly true?

To be honest, I don't think it really matters. The point is, Universal is blocking access to content they (allegedly - I don't know if the artists involved have copyright assignment agreements or something) don't own. Whether or not this was intentional, it shows that the system is broken, and that we cannot afford to give them any more power than they already have.

DMCA takedowns are done under penalty of perjury. I can't imagine a judge or a bar association taking a liking to a lawyer whose defense is "I was just rubber stamping these things."

It's a little frustrating that all of the responses to my post are "THAT WOULD NEVER HOLD UP IN AS A DEFENSE IN A COURT OF LAW! BLARG!"

It's been long-suspected that these DMCA take-down notices are just being rubber-stamped, yet not one penalty has been handed out. Color me disillusioned with the legal process.

> there's a difference between negligence and malice.

Initially, maybe. But when it keeps going on because it's profitable, it's malice.

While I don't agree with what they did here (or SOPA), I have a problem getting on the same side as a site that thinks piracy does no damage to the copyright holder.

controversy aside, what a terrible song. It's like a really poor TV jingle.

Totaly, its not a "song", its more like a 4 minutes commercial. I feel dirty now

It's not meant for you.

Why isn't this video hosted on Megavideo?

I think it is. But they also hosted it on YouTube.

It seems much more likely that Universal has something automatically flagging everything with "Kanye West" in the title then that there is some kind of conspiracy.

I find this the most likely case, but it highlights the fact that UMG is probably flagging these videos without a person actually looking at any of the results (something a lot of people have known/suspected for a while).

Hopefully they can sue the ass off of UMG for this, and bring to light how the flippant attitudes of the media industry towards the law when they feel that they are owed something.

We're floating conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence here now?

I've deleted my comments, the discussion would go no where as my point was pretty dumb. What I was trying to say is that assuming what he says his true ("Universal Censors Megaupload") that it's much more likely he has paid for that to happen than it is UMG have decided this video is a big threat to their business and they must sabotage it being "viral". The latter is completely absurd, the former is in my eyes much more likely.

Personally I believe that it's an automated system that it's triggered when a video reaches a specific view threshhold, but he discounted this with his claim it's intentional.

Megaupload/megavideo is such a scummy site. It may have it's uses but it's covered in garbage. You can't even watch a video without clicking 2 or 3 ads. It's terrible.

I know that Universal is doing something illegal but I guess I just don't mind that much because of how terrible megaupload is.

That's like not minding that your fat ugly annoying neighbour is being mugged. Wrong is wrong.

Do you think there's any other way to run the site, at least in 2011?

There's no other reasonable way they could make enough money to cover the expenses. The audience for these sites is, by design, children/teens with no access to money and adults who are there explicitly to avoid spending money. By the nature of the content they host, they're not going to get any first tier advertisers, so they have to make up for it in volume.

Yes, it's designed to host illegal pirated content. I know there are plenty of legitimate uses for it, but it doesn't change that it's still a shitty site.

I'm not saying that nothing should be done about this Universal thing. I actually enjoy seeing the music industry taken down a few pegs.

If you use jDownloader, they differences between those sites become irrelevant.

Odd, I can't remember seeing any ads on megavideo. I haven't been there in a while but at that point it had a solid ux until it cut you off at 70 minutes to make you wait or pay.