Maritime Band Facing False Takedown Notices From Universal Music

The CBC reports that the Maritime band In-Flight Safety has faced multiple false YouTube takedowns by major record label Universal Music. The band has no connection to Universal Music Group, yet the label has ordered the takedown of five of the band’s songs.


  1. Daniel Friesen says:

    Do we have a law that lets copyright holders sue organizations that make false claims using their rights yet, or do we need to make a new one?

    It’s not just bad mistakes or general malice we have to consider. If a rights holder can’t sue back then these takedown laws can be used in anti-competitive ways. Where someone rightfully puts something they own online, then a competitor without the rights sends a takedown notice so that the rightful author can’t compete with them.

    I know that it’s illegal to make a false DCMA takedown. But who has the rights to bring that fact into a court? And how bad are the repercussions for filing a false takedown?

  2. LOL Laws
    Re: Daniel Friesen

    You seem to be under the impression that laws made to cater to the interests of the elites can be used against the elites themselves, as if there was some kind of level playing field, or the notion that justice is blind. Sure, issuing bogus DMCA takedowns is illegal, and eveyr week asshat5s corps are issuing bogus DMCA takedonws. Have you ever heard of anyone ever being charged & punished with issuing bogus DMCA takedowns?

  3. David Collier-Brown says:

    How about the statue of frauds?
    This law, dating back to the 16th century, defines entire classes of illegal behaviour in business transactions.

    Preventing someone from selling their own work, based on a “false and fraudulent pretence” that it is yours might well fall into one of the categories of things that dishonest merchants committed in the middle ages.

    Mind you, it’s bit like doing legal archeology rather than legal research (;-))

    –dave (a philosopher, not a lawyey) c-b

  4. Seems like defamation? People might think, because of the take down notices that the band was stealing someone else’s work and presenting it as their own. Since Universal is saying that work belongs to them and possession is 9/10’s of the law that would mean they are in possession of stolen property?

  5. The first (and only) test for fraudulent DMCA takedown notices was the Megaupload vs. UMG case.

    And we all know what happened later….

  6. Kevin E. Hayden says:

    Just simple RIAA rhetoric: All your music are belong to us.

  7. Louis St-Amour says:

    YouTube takedowns aren’t necessarily DMCA
    Just FYI, iirc, YouTube has private agreements with the big record labels so they can login and takedown whatever they like without YouTube’s go-ahead or interference. So these takedowns are negotiated on the private site YouTube and are outside DMCA legal requirements.