Summary This article addresses a lawsuit filed against YouTube, LLC in April 2014 that was recently resolved on February 21, 2017. The defendant was YouTube, LLC, and the plaintiff was Darnaa, LLC, an independent music label that provided production and promotion for its musical clients. The client in question held the stage name Darnaa, and was an up-and-coming pop artist in the California area. Darnaa, LLC claimed that YouTube breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by removing a music video of one of Darnaa’s songs from its website. As part of its services, in March of 2014, Darnaa, LLC posted a music video of one of Darnaa’s songs for promotional purposes. Later that month it was discovered that YouTube had removed the video
…show more content…
The reason YouTube took the video down was because of its detection of artificially inflated video views, which Darnaa, LLC never denied. YouTube’s terms of service agreement clearly prohibits this. Also, Section 10 of the terms of service agreement provides a “Limitation of Liability” and bars any action taken against YouTube in regards to the “interruption or cessation of transmission” of user content (United States District Court, 2017, pg. 2). On top of that, Section 14 of the agreement bars any actions taken after one year from the original cause of action (United States District Court, 2017, pg. 2). Darnaa, LLC’s final action suit against YouTube was filed more than one year after the original cause of action.
In regards to the alleged breach of good faith and fair dealing, Darnaa, LLC claimed YouTube was using the contracts wording too specifically, and that technical excuses were being made in order to not perform. The fact of the matter is that Darnaa, LLC breached the contract originally by having a third party automated system artificially inflate its content views. YouTube’s terms of service agreement barred Darnaa, LLC from effectively taking action with its limitation of liability section and its one year limitation of an actionable time …show more content…
It is common knowledge that illegitimately increasing content views is a breach of contract with YouTube because it is unfair practice for everyone else trying to legitimately raise their video’s view count. I could find no denial from Darnaa, LLC about using an automated system to inflate the music video’s views. Therefore, Darnaa, LLC should not have committed the clear and intentional breach of contract. As far as what may happen next, YouTube was well covered from liability, but they may prohibit users from using any third parties at all in helping them promote on YouTube to avoid something like this from happening again. I propose that YouTube keeps doing what it is doing because it is an incredibly useful promotional source for anyone trying to promote themselves and an incredibly useful resource for anyone seeking virtually any
The reason YouTube took the video down was because of its detection of artificially inflated video views, which Darnaa, LLC never denied. YouTube’s terms of service agreement clearly prohibits this. Also, Section 10 of the terms of service agreement provides a “Limitation of Liability” and bars any action taken against YouTube in regards to the “interruption or cessation of transmission” of user content (United States District Court, 2017, pg. 2). On top of that, Section 14 of the agreement bars any actions taken after one year from the original cause of action (United States District Court, 2017, pg. 2). Darnaa, LLC’s final action suit against YouTube was filed more than one year after the original cause of action.
In regards to the alleged breach of good faith and fair dealing, Darnaa, LLC claimed YouTube was using the contracts wording too specifically, and that technical excuses were being made in order to not perform. The fact of the matter is that Darnaa, LLC breached the contract originally by having a third party automated system artificially inflate its content views. YouTube’s terms of service agreement barred Darnaa, LLC from effectively taking action with its limitation of liability section and its one year limitation of an actionable time …show more content…
It is common knowledge that illegitimately increasing content views is a breach of contract with YouTube because it is unfair practice for everyone else trying to legitimately raise their video’s view count. I could find no denial from Darnaa, LLC about using an automated system to inflate the music video’s views. Therefore, Darnaa, LLC should not have committed the clear and intentional breach of contract. As far as what may happen next, YouTube was well covered from liability, but they may prohibit users from using any third parties at all in helping them promote on YouTube to avoid something like this from happening again. I propose that YouTube keeps doing what it is doing because it is an incredibly useful promotional source for anyone trying to promote themselves and an incredibly useful resource for anyone seeking virtually any