So true, the language used in this entire "entitlement scandal" skews favorably toward the bad guys.

YouTube is the number one "grey area" for copyright abuse.

It is worth mentioning that that's their standard takedown notice screen. Replace "Jackpot! Recording Studio, Inc." with "Warner Music Group" or "Sony Music Entertainment" and that same boilerplate suddenly seems much less skewed to me. Haven't you ever been really excited to watch a clip on YouTube, only to find yourself cursing the name "Viacom" moments later?

They are apologizing to the end users who wanted to see the video but can't anymore, and they are explaining why they can't see it anymore. I don't see what the problem is.

Yeah, sorry, but I'm just gonna leave this here...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120801/23202019914/more-anti-youtube-whining-youtube-complies-with-our-takedown-requests-just-to-make-us-look-bad.shtml

You are confusing YouTube's customer in this case.

YouTube's customer is the user, NOT you. Therefore YouTube should apologize that they are not allowed to play the content the user requested. Totally understandable.

The customer in this case is also informed of why they can't see the video. Its because you told them (well within your rights) not to.

Now if I were the customer in question who wanted to watch the video of YOUR band, at this point I'd quit trying to find our more about your band and go on living my life oblivious to your old band and its music. I wouldn't try and buy your music, I wouldn't try and attend a concert of your old band (or of any new band for that matter).

If you are a band, any band, wanting publicity and you remove a video of your music from YouTube, you are well within your rights. Both your rights to protect your copyright and your rights to remain undiscovered by potential fans.

Under DMCA rules, they're required to leave the name of the person or organization demanding the takedown so that, in the event of copyfraud (which does happen) or the takedown is in error (similarly-named video or somesuch), the responsible party is identified.

What is the issue?

YouTube is apologizing to the person expecting to see the video. And YouTube is informing that person expecting to see the video exactly who requested the take down.

I am not sure what you'd prefer.

This is a silly thing to complain about.
They are required by law to list who asked for the take down.
And the apology is not for the user that uploaded it, or for you, the copyright holder, it's for the fan that was hoping to see the video and ended up seeing a grey rectangle.
It's not youtubes fault that it got uploaded, and it's not their fault that it was taken down. They are just following the law.
If you think that the removal notice looks bad, then maybe ask yourself if it's really hurting you to have that video up where people can learn about you and become fans. Or start an official channel where the high quality videos can be found where you can make money off of it.
Then both the artist and the fans win.

2 reasons:

1) That's the protocol of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. After something has been taken down, Google (via YouTube) is required to publicly cite who owns the copyright of the information that has been taken down. Artists and record labels fought for this point, to give credit to the owner of information so that (in theory) the user could find legal means to get the information.
2) Because, according to Google, up to 1/3 of all DMCA takedown notices are completely invalid. The ease with which you were able to get that video taken off YT means that I could just as easily get something taken down that I have no rights over. They have to list the claimant so that, in the event of an invalid takedown, the user has the information required to start a DMCA counter-claim.

As others have stated, the so-called "apology" is not to the user who uploaded the content, but to the end-users who are not able to view the video anymore. The User that uploaded the original content got a pretty strongly-worded e-mail/message that warns them that their actions are grounds for their account to be deleted, and stating the actions required to file a counterclaim. Nothing close to resembling an apology.

Larry, I subscribe to Tape Op, and I love reading every issue that I get, but do not start complaining about something without doing the research. If you don't understand how the internet works, go back to recording to 2" analog stock, and leave the new media to those who can take the time to learn the new media. Recording companies

Sources:
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf/feature/93FEDCEF6636CF90CC25757A0072B4B7
http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/13/my_first_dmca_takedown.html
https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca/

I totally agree. Youtube should only apologize when they ALLOW the user to consume such awful content.

The problem with youtube and google, is that they don't actually create content but act like it is their right to treat your copyright like it is owned by them.

If I choose to upload something that I actually I own that is my choice, allowing someone else to use something that I created for their own profit i find wrong.

People get this subject confused.

Here are my points:

Bands have ALWAYS had the have the right to give you a download/ content for free.
I cant see this changing and no one that i know of wants this to change.
most people are quite happy for their content to be shared.

What some bands/ artists/companies do want to change is that when a copyright holder doesn't actually want you to have something for whatever reason they can actually choose for that to happen.
IE: maintain to have control over what they ACTUALLY own.

Yes they may lose fans and "views" of their product/ art or whatever, but they should still should have the choice and possibly exactly what they want.

I have had songs of mine uploaded with video clips attached to the song (made by users) that have a violent and sexual nature that I never intended, my career certainly isn't being helped by this low budget shitty content and I think I should have the right to put a stop to it and put up content that is reflective of the art that I create, IF I choose to do so.

If i decide that I don't want a massive multi billion dollar company taking what I have created (entirely on my own at my own significant cost) and making profit from then why shouldn't I have the right to stop them?

I'm pretty sure most people would be more than a little pissed.

what Larry seems to be saying is is that youtube have slanted everything in their favour making someone else out to be the "bad guy".

I think the youtube message should read:

"Dear user, It has been brought to our attention that we at youtube have allowed someone to upload content that does not belong to them- thus infringing on the respective copyrights of that person/company/ artist, thus all profit WE have made from the advertising WE placed on this content will now be donated to the charity of the copyright holders choice".

I think that is much more honest and fairer to everyone.
I don't want to bring down youtube and google, I think when they get it right, its really good.
but I don't want them to be unaccountable either.
Its not going to hurt anyone, for artists to retain their rights, no matter what they tell you.

Jason - but if they put that message on the screen, not only would it not fit, but we'd all be making fun of them for their lousy spelling and grammar.

Not to mention, that would require massive amounts of time and money to track down and investigate every single DMCA takedown notice YT gets to make sure of it's legitimacy and find out what charity to donate the (maybe) few cents that YT made off of that single video.

That shouldn't be hard, right? How many DMCA notices does YT get a day, anyway?

Try somewhere in the range of a million per year.

Having to individually chase down and investigate each claim's veracity would shutter YT as a company.

How much are you thinking YT makes per video view? It's in the fractions of a cent. The video would have to be viewed millions of times for it to be ANY kind of substantial amount, at least any amount a charity would be able to put to use.

Also, the DMCA that you guys wave around like a blank check allowed specific "Safe Harbors" for companies like Google, Youtube, etc, so that the site didn't have to be responsible for what users uploaded. There's just too much content generated per minute for ANY company to be able to scan it all for infringement. YouTube alone receives around 100 YEARS worth of video footage every 24 hours. There's just not a good way to track everything on there.

Why don't you guys try READING the flipping DMCA ruling before talking like you have a clue. DMCA wasn't made for any of you. It was authored to allow the Big 4 (record companies) to make another source of income. You little guys aren't particularly helped by the DMCA, except in that it allows you to maintain control of the "image" of your work.

Sources:
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110817/17554615565/yet-another-rogue-site-list-proposed-this-time-with-youtube-right-top.shtml

Please don't link to techdirt here.

This is a good website. Techdirt is an extremely poorly fact-checked blog that essentially acts as undercover PR for the big-tech sector. The vehement and irresponsible bias that comes out of that site is stomach-churing. Especially Masnick's spiteful, sloppy-headed editorials.

Larry can not be blamed for "not researching" or "not getting how the internet works" in this post.

He's merely expressing his opinion that "gee, kinda seems weird that YouTube explicitly words their take down notices so that people protecting their art from commercialization against their will seem like bad guys."

It's a valid perspective.

Money is made off the YouTube traffic generated by people seeking to consume art and entertainment. Often, the creators of that art and entertainment are not paid, and their videos can be placed with ads that for products that they do not support.

Is it really cool for YouTube to add insult to injury? They should be apologizing to Larry, not to pirates and freetards.

Thanks for the thought below, "DoesItMatter." I host videos on YouTube of stuff we want to be out there. Obviously a few commenters here would like me to have no control over this. I find that sad. Wow... -LC

"Money is made off the YouTube traffic generated by people seeking to consume art and entertainment. Often, the creators of that art and entertainment are not paid, and their videos can be placed with ads that for products that they do not support. Is it really cool for YouTube to add insult to injury? They should be apologizing to Larry, not to pirates and freetards."

So in your mind "Anon", we should just let giant companies like youtube strip everyone of rights because its hard for them to know who owns copyright?
Well Tough shit, that seems like that is their problem and not mine, the guy who actually OWNS copyright.

The charity point was simply me making a smartass comment about how absurd it all is.

"That shouldn't be hard, right? How many DMCA notices does YT get a day, anyway?
Try somewhere in the range of a million per year."

Exactly! If they "enable" users to infringe on copyright on such a large scale they shouldn't be commended they should be told to piss off.
I don't give a shit what the legislation says, I'm talking from a simple moral standpoint.

The world is going crazy, everyone loves to stand up for big companies who have the wool pulled over eyes.
multinational corporations profiting from people/ artists and dumb asses supporting it.

They're apologizing to people who want to listen to your song, not the uploader.

What's wrong with naming you? Are you embarrassed about your takedown request?

If you are using a legal instrument to remove content from the internet, you have a requirement to know how that legal instrument works, both for and against you. The legislation was created in a balanced way which allows for rights holders to remove infringing content, while keeping transparency in the process to allow all parties to be aware that someone has requested the takedown.

This works in everyone's benefit, a rights holder makes it known that they don't want their content shared outside official channels (many artists don't mind and even encourage this). A user who has content they uploaded removed has the chance to contest it if they consider the content was incorrectly identified, or protected fair use such as parody.

Prior to the DMCA you could have asked politely for a user to remove it, which may have worked, or filed a civil suit if they were not co-operative. The latter option would cost you a lot up front, put your complaint in the public record and likely have a much worse impact on your image. DMCA has created a standard process which balances the rights of copyright holders and the community as well as providing limited safeguards against abuse of the system.

"They're apologizing to people who want to listen to your song, not the uploader. What's wrong with naming you? Are you embarrassed about your takedown request?"

Not embarrassed at all. Why should they be apologizing to anyone though? No one had the right to post that besides me and the authors of the work.

"We're sorry you want to listen to something that was posted illegally without permission."