Slashdot Mirror
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."
Pay to be a Premium Reader:
* Priority reading of comments.
* Reading comments in parallel.
* Astroturfing free comments.
* Support for reading accelerators.
You can't compare The Pirate Bay and Megaupload - Megaupload charges it's users, TPB asks for donations. Big difference.
The Pirate Bay has advertisements and they generally make better money with them. Especially that large Download-button on their torrent page that is really a toolbar. They get paid for every unsuspecting user who installs it, and it's advertised and worded in a way that less known users will think it's the torrent download.
Don't these people understand that all music belongs to the mega music corporations? This of course includes music videos as well. They have a lawful right to profit from all music anyone anywhere makes.
What does it have anything to do with UMG blatantly missusing take-down notice system?
Sure, Kim is as big a slime ball as they come, but don't stare yourself blind on him.
The big story here is the absolutely monumental brazenness of Universal, using a bogus DMCA copyright claim to censor someone they don't like on a high visibility site as YouTube .
And they do this in spite that one of the major criticisms against their pet new SOPA/PIPA law is that it is ripe for abuse through bogus notices.
Either they are so sure of them selves, having congress in their pocket, or they are monumentally stupid.
-greger
Buying stolen credit card numbers makes you a hacker, the same way duct-taping a coffee can onto your muffler makes you a car mechanic.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
If one or more of the artists have clauses in their contracts preventing them from taking part in a commercial, then it's a dispute between Universal and the artists. It does not give Universal automatic copyright over the video, nor does it allow Universal to use the DMCA to have it removed.
I also find it highly unlikely that the producers where dumb enough to use samples or other material under copyright ownership by Universal or any other third party without permission.
-greger
But if, as is quite plausible, their contracts give the record company copyright over all of their musical output until their next N albums are published, the record company does hold the copyright. Anon Coward's point is perfectly valid.
It looks like besides Universal needing to be taken out back and educated a bit, YouTube needs to make some process adjustments as well:
Considering the already ripe-for-abuse design of the automated takedown notice-response system, there should be a catch in their system to track notices and disputes on a single video, and at the very least the automated takedown system should be suspended on a video while it is being disputed... or if that can't be done, at the very least it shouldn't be able to be re-taken-down by another notice from the exact same party that is currently being disputed. That's just common sense.
The next obvious thing for youtube to do is track parties filing complaints and the number of undisputed and disputed claims they have, as well as the outcome of disputes. For example, if a party has filed at least 10 claims, has had at least four of them disputed, and has not successfully defended at least 75% of their claims, their infringement requests must then be manually reviewed by youtube staff before a takedown occurs. These numbers would be on a rising tier, where the burden of sincerity rises with claims filed. (at least 500 claims, requires at least 95% successfully defended to avoid manual review) This would allow small groups a little more leniency in the process, while making sure the heavy hitters didn't get away with any significant abuse. It's american legal tradition to place the burden of proof on the accuser, and what we have right now here is more of a guilty-until-proven-innocent, repeatedly, and that's just doubly-wrong.
I'd like to see some statistics though - this may be a rare incident - if UMG files 1000 takedowns a day (a large number to be sure, but not really that unreasonable considering their and youtube's size) and of that less than 2% of those get disputed, and less than 10% of the disputes are found to have merit, then maybe UMG really isn't being that much of an ogre here.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Indeed. Since our wonderous law enforcement officials appear to have such trouble capturing real crackers / hackers, they've been working to lower the bar of what constitute a 'hacking offense.' Makes the numbers look better, and is a lot easier.
For your information, using someone's computer without their knowledge, even if it's at a public library, and you're checking your email on a machine that someone logged into previously (and forgot to logout), now constitute's 'hacking.' The bar is laughably that low.
I'm starting to think that having a mind and owning a gun are mutually exclusive.
I am John Hurt.
That could be why some of the artists only gave spoken word interviews that were mixed into the song later... Big Ooops by UMG.
Reread what you just wrote. So if I write a song, and have you sing it, you are the author? Or better yet, when I sing Happy Birthday in public and get sued, I can tell them to get stuffed, because I am the author?
Is it illegal? I think the only person saying that so far is Kim, and you seem outraged by abuse of power where as I see it as business as usual.
If he paid for the artists to perform, the music and lyrics are completely new and not copied from some previous song, then yes, it is illegal as UMG doesn't own the copyrights to them. You may see illegal DMCA-takedown requests as "business as usual", but that doesn't make it right.
If this abuse bothers you so much what are you doing about it?
I'm not a multibillionaire so there's nothing I can do about it.
but is it truly illegal?
Issuing a DMCA-takedown notice for content you don't own copyright to is illegal, yes.
Then why worry about it?
Ignorance is bliss, eh?
Most of them don't sing on the recording though... In fact I'm not sure any of them do. They speak their support, and if the music labels have control over what they say then the system is truly fucked up.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Yes, it is.
Fraudulently issuing a DMCA takedown request is illegal, and they've done it twice now over this video. If this video contains nothing that UMG can claim a copyright on, then they have absolutely right to issue a takedown.
Just because you don't like the rappers and Kim has a criminal past doesn't make what is happening to them any less illegal or wrong.