Hacker News Reader

Comment by Silhouette | Hacker News Reader

> Google is giving the labels way more power than they should.

Should, by what standard?

Legally, under the DMCA, maybe Google has no obligation to provide this facility to UMG.

But as far as I can see, no-one is paying Google to host the content under debate on YouTube. That probably means Google has no contractual obligation to anyone to do so and is free to throw the content out any time they want for any reason they want, including any back-room agreement that might have been made with any big media firm.

If you want someone to do something important for you, and you're relying on free services on the Internet to do it, then you are typically entitled to a full money-back guarantee. Anything else comes with a price tag one way or another.

View on HN

And what if I am a paying Google Apps Customer. Video through youtube is included in what I pay for. Should UMG have the right to control that as well?

That seems to be between you and Google. If paying for Google Apps doesn't result in having reliable video hosting, then Google's service may not be worth it. UMG's "rights" don't really come into it if this is a voluntary agreement between Google and UMG.

Interesting. Do you get something contractually guaranteed as a Googe Apps customer that is different to Joe Public uploading a video to YouTube? If so, are you able to link to exactly what your agreement says?

I think it would change the situation significantly if the organisation whose video was pulled in this case had actually been paying Google to host it for them on some sort of contractual basis, and the reason for Google's removal of the content was not a legal obligation but another private commercial deal.

This is what I was going for. Everyone claims you get what you pay for but it is important to remember that some users do pay for Google services. What is worrisome is how Goggles actions in this case would apply to those users.

Video -hosting- (and ancillary features) is included in what you pay for.

Access to other parties videos? Is not.

And the party you contracted with (Google) has contracts with other entities. Has nothing to do with "rights". If you have a problem with the contracts entered into, then act accordingly.

I don't mean that I should have a right to other users videos what I mean is what if I upload a video to my "paid" account that UMG takes offense too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com