Universal Music accused of using fraudulent DMCA notices as a negotiating tactic in licensing music from other labels


20 Responses to “Universal Music accused of using fraudulent DMCA notices as a negotiating tactic in licensing music from other labels”

  1. sg says:

    A proper DMCA section 512 notice must contain a sworn statement made under penalty of perjury. If Iovine issued the DMCA notice under his own name, and it contains a false statement, he committed perjury.

    Perjury in the DMCA context is a federal felony, see 18 USC 1621. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001621—-000-.html which carries the potential penalty of up to five years in prison.

    That is, if anyone cares to enforce the statute. Someone would need to convince a federal prosecutor to bring charges.

  2. Anonymous says:

    And this especially applies to sensitive of politically controversial material, especially certain topics related to the bogus “war on terrorism”.

  3. GuyInMilwaukee says:

    Just another reason to hate on Jimmy Iovine. He laid a layer of suck on American Idol this year. He would have told John Lennon to sing covers of Neil Diamond songs. Die Antwoord should have told him to pound sand.

  4. duncan says:

    Perhaps this is a job for LulzSec – they’d teach him a lesson about misuse of the interwebs.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Jail time for fraud.

    As long as they can pay fines, they laugh it off.

    No more corporate paper puppet.

    Jail time for whoever does the crime AND whoever orders the crime.

  6. MrWeeble says:

    just went to the youtube takedown page[1] and you have to tick a box saying “I understand that abuse of this tool will result in termination of my YouTube account.” So seems to me that YouTube should shut this channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/InterscopeGeffenAM

    I wonder if they could bring a private prosecution for perjury?

    [1] http://www.youtube.com/copyright_complaint_form

  7. johnnyuber says:

    They should never again honor a take down request made by the fraudulent claimant. What an asshole…

  8. Anonymous says:

    I wouldn’t count on Youtube to turn whitehat all of a sudden. They’ve been in bed with the content industry for the longest time, and have no reason to suddenly get out of that bed for… what, ethical thinking or something? To wit, Youtube routinely blocks official NASA videos(!) (as “not available in your country”) based on standard “copyright claims” template by whichever random industry giant you can think of (BMG, EMI, Sony, Universal, …). To be honest, Youtube is unuseable now when you’re not in the US, due to all the blocking. The only way to make Youtube wake up is to boycott them. It has to hurt them where it matters, i.e. ad revenue.

    • lucascott says:

      They aren’t much better when you are in the US. They allow folks to create listings of ‘full movie’ for stuff in the theatres that is just the trailer with a link to some pay to stream site and they do nothing. Someone creates a movie review that uses clips from a DVD or a fan video with a commercial song (both of which could easily fall under fair use) and they delete it and threaten to delete the users account. 

  9. Anonymous says:

    Too bad the prosecutors are busy arresting Aaron Swartz, instead of doing something useful like protecting copyright.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Copyright is broken. The only way to fix the situation is to abolish it completely.

  11. rrh says:

    Can you say a false DMCA declaration is illegal as hell if nobody is ever penalized for it?

  12. Garst says:

    Perjury? When was the last time the court enforced that old law?

    • Ugly Canuck says:

      Hold on, the US Supreme Court says that the Legislature cannot restrict corporate speech….and a perjury brought against a corporation!?
      Please! It is always and ever only the employees – separate legal entities all – which lie.

      The judges have decreed it!

      Corporate speech is un-regulated in the USA, and its truth, or lack thereof, seems to have no legal consequence – for the Corporation itself, that is. they go after the individuals involved, by their personal names…not the name of the Corporation.

      It’s like they have decided to punish only the accessories to the crime, while letting the principal criminal go scot-free.

      I am ignorant – when was the last time any corporation ever got convicted of ANY criminal offense – as distinct from convictions for corp officers, directors and employees, in their personal capacities, and as distinct from merely regulatory fines – in a US (or any Anglo-saxon) Court of Law?

      Corps have legal rights, pursuant to the status as persons, which have been granted (and greatly extended) by the Courts: but they don’t ever get prosecuted for crime.

      Why not?

  13. Anonymous says:

    Yeah, people file false claims all the time to get videos taken down they don’t particularly care for. Not sure how illegal it is exactly. But that type of stuff is commonplace at youtube.

    Not by record execs though… it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

  14. krake says:

    makes you sick.

  15. Anonymous says:

    That’s so weird, Jimmy Iovine… I remember seeing that name on albums back in the 1970s: He produced The Rasberries. He did production work on John Lennon albums in the ’70s. It was one of those names I always saw while reading liner notes as a teenager. I thought he’d be one of those people who faded over time, and instead he introduces Eminem to Dre, signs GaGa, and is “very active in our music world” as Dick Clark used to put it.

    I’m an old man now, and he’s still young. Is he a bloodsucking vampire?

  16. EH says:

    I imagine YouTube could go after Iovine as well.

Leave a Reply