> Update:YouTube provided Ars Technica with the following statement: "Our partners do not have the right to take down videos from YouTube unless they own the rights to them or they are live performances controlled through exclusive agreements with their artists, which is why we reinstated it."
So, certain companies have access to some sort of Youtube backend and they can shut videos and such without prior Youtube/Google permission (due to time limitation, I'd guess). Although Youtube/Google has the power to overwrite any changes made by these 'partners' (don't know which word to use).
Considering how Google has handled "customer support" in other areas of their business, the "override" option sounds like a cop-out.
What Youtube/Google should have done is require an arbitration system funded by "rights-holder", backed by monetary damages if they abused the system. Instead, we seem to have a system with no downside-risk for the media companies of over-reaching.
Youtube denied the ability for UMG to pull content that UMG does not own, but Youtube provided no evidence of why that ability doesn't exist. UMG cited portions of a particular contract, which makes me wonder if the contract has ambiguities in it or Youtube has been caught with its pants down.
From what I understand, the peculiar deal with UMG is related to the VEVO channel on YouTube. The ability to 'pull' videos is really the ability to transfer them from the wilds into this marketing-friendly subdomain.
In essence, it allows content owners a third option when dealing with unauthorized posts. Instead of yanking them and breaking inbound links, or ignoring them and losing any value from the traffic, these arrangements allow them to keep the post intact, while transferring it to their control - no DMCA notices required.
The situation with Megaupload represented an abuse of this system. Because it's (apparently) possible to start the redirect process but not complete it (i.e. by having the Megaupload song appear on VEVO), UMG realized that they could 'disappear' the song from YouTube without having to file a formal DMCA notice asserting ownership.
Obviously, this is a hack, and not at all what YouTube imagined when setting up the transfer system in the first place. So I imagine lawyers are busy rehashing contracts right now.
While I'm sure that UMG is able to remove things they don't own, saying that they're allowed to is something else entirely and we should reserve judgement on that until such time as the contract, or at least rulings concerning it, are made public.
Universal later added that it had a deal with YouTube to take down content even if it doesn’t infringe their rights.