Universal Censors Megaupload Song, Gets Branded a “Rogue Label”

Re:Universal Censors Megaupload Song, Gets Branded a “Rogue ... by schwabacher on Friday December 09, 2011 @08:55PM (#3336623)

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?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Universal Censors Megaupload Song, Gets Branded a “Rogue ... by mustpax on Saturday December 10, 2011 @05:07AM (#3337349)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Universal Censors Megaupload Song, Gets Branded a “Rogue ... by dangrossman on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:42PM (#3336726)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Universal Censors Megaupload Song, Gets Branded a “Rogue ... by ugh on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:49PM (#3336744)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Universal Censors Megaupload Song, Gets Branded a “Rogue ... by rhubarbquid on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:49PM (#3336747)

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...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Universal Censors Megaupload Song, Gets Branded a “Rogue ... by ugh on Friday December 09, 2011 @09:52PM (#3336753)

But was there a DMCA takedown?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Universal Censors Megaupload Song, Gets Branded a “Rogue ... by invisible on Friday December 09, 2011 @11:57PM (#3336969)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Universal Censors Megaupload Song, Gets Branded a “Rogue ... by iamandrus on Saturday December 10, 2011 @12:17AM (#3336999)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Universal Censors Megaupload Song, Gets Branded a “Rogue ... by traldan on Saturday December 10, 2011 @12:38AM (#3337038)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Universal Censors Megaupload Song, Gets Branded a “Rogue ... by patrickyeon on Saturday December 10, 2011 @01:15AM (#3337109)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Universal Censors Megaupload Song, Gets Branded a “Rogue ... by derleth on Saturday December 10, 2011 @03:49AM (#3337273)

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.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Universal Censors Megaupload Song, Gets Branded a “Rogue ... by william42 on Saturday December 10, 2011 @01:07AM (#3337097)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]