Pop Artists Support Megaupload; Universal Censors

New submitter TheSHAD0W writes "Several well-known artists, including P. Diddy, Will.I.Am, Snoop Dogg and Kanye West produced a song in support of the site Megaupload, recently targeted by law enforcement as a 'rogue site.' The music video was gaining popularity — until YouTube received a takedown notice from Universal Media Group, claiming it violated their copyrights."

Comments

Ah good old Kim

[InsightIn140Bytes]

There's a brief article about him on Wikipedia. He's an old hacker who made money by inside trading and later set up the Mega* sites brand with Megaupload, Megavideo and Megaporn along others. On Google Video there's 6 years old video when he goes to Monaco grand prix and spends $10 million over the weekend for all kinds of parties.

He's been awfully silent lately, but lately he bought NZ$30 million mansion from New Zealand and got residency there. After that he sponsored $500,000 fireworks for capital of NZ in celebration of residency.

Looks like they contracted the producing of that song to Printz Board. Wonder how much he paid for that. And you say sites like The Pirate Bay and Megaupload "barely get income to pay for hosting" :-)

Re:Ah good old Kim

[Greger47]

This isnt difficult; if the request is bogus as Kim claims so vehemently, all he has to do is counter-file a claim under the DMCA. At that point, if the video truly is infringing, it is on Kim to defend and take the heat, not Youtube.

They did dispute the takedown, see https://torrentfreak.com/universal-censors-megaupload-song-gets-branded-a-rogue-label-111210/

Now when I check a few YouTube links the message have changed to a terms of use violation instead, convenient for UMG's spin control, eh?

More likely, hes full of crap, and the artists signed agreements with UMG that means they really do hold the copyright(s).

Nice try, but the artists in the video don't get any copyright in the video, the guy holding the camera does. The only thing the artists can contract away to Universal is a promise not to appear in a video production not sanctioned by Universal. If they did it anyway, it's a contractual dispute between Universal and the artists, not a copyright issue.

/greger

Re:What what?

[Gaygirlie]

I'm not arguing that he isn't. I'm arguing that UMG still shouldn't be allowed to use illegal means to harass him, something that you're trying very hard to ignore.