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

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes him a hacker if I may ask?

Re:Ah good old Kim

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't compare The Pirate Bay and Megaupload - Megaupload charges it's users, TPB asks for donations. Big difference.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[kylegordon]

I wondered where he went! Him and his triple aggregated GPRS connected car and other such nonsense. Best of luck to those that fall for his tricks!

Re:Ah good old Kim

[InsightIn140Bytes]

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.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[InsightIn140Bytes]

Used to be at least. It's in the wikipedia article:

In 1998 Schmitz was sentenced to a probationary sentence of two years for computer fraud and handling with stolen goods. According to a report by News & Record he had traded with stolen calling card numbers he bought from hackers in the United States.

Of course that's only what he got sentenced for. You can never know what else he might had done back in time.

And he does have love for geeky devices and other such stuff. Hell, he started those mega* sites too.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[Anonymous Coward]

I presume "less known users" must mean people who have been on the internet for less than fifteen minutes? Because everyone else knows 9 out of 10 big blinking download buttons are adspam...

Re:Ah good old Kim

[Greger47]

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

Re:Ah good old Kim

[JBMcB]

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.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[Anonymous Coward]

Well big media bought and paid for the DMCA so of course we are free to use it any way we damn please.

Now shut up, we are in the middle of a board meeting to decide who is going to be president next term.

Sincerely,
The Big Media Overlords

Re:Ah good old Kim

[Anonymous Coward]

He is not a hacker. I am.

--
I'm an arrogant asshole, so I work for Google now.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you so sure that they do not own at least part of the copyright on that video? Many artists have no idea what their contracts allow or forbid them to do. They would certainly not be the first to put something on the web where it later turned out they didn't own the necessary rights. If they had just given an interview and put that on Youtube, then we'd clearly be talking about censorship. They had to make it a music video though and now it's all muddy waters.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[Greger47]

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

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:Ah good old Kim

[pjt33]

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.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[LordLimecat]

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

I really dont think UMG has the ability to force the message to change. Someone at youtube makes that decision.

Nice try, but the artists in the video don't get any copyright in the video, the guy holding the camera does.

Rather than bickering endlessly about this, lets just see what the US government says about this:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html
Relevant sections...

Initial Ownership. — Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.

So it appears the authors-- the artists-- are the initial owners.

TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP:
The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law,

ie, by a contract, which was almost CERTAINLY in place, and would have transferred ownership to UMG.

In other words, no, UMG really does own the copyright. The works for hire section might make that a little fuzzier, but presumably the artists are paid to be under a contract, so even that might reinforce UMG's ownership.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[edibobb]

I can use duct tape on my muffler? I'm gonna be a mechanic!

Re:Ah good old Kim

[misexistentialist]

If it's such a great business content parasites should run servers for a fee and post all their stuff. Oh, wait, having only $10 million to spend is insulting, they demand $10 trillion.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[Greger47]

What you say is only true only if the artists where directly involved in writing the song and lyrics, if they just performed it, no copyright for them.

The only thing we know from the video is that they preformed, who wrote the song any lyrics we don't know. We do know that Megaupload claims they signed contracts with everyone involved and own the rights. If the artists signed mutually exclusive contracts with both Universal and Megaupload, then again this is a contract dispute.

-greger

Re:Ah good old Kim

[VGPowerlord]

Rather than bickering endlessly about this, lets just see what the US government says about this:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html
Relevant sections...

Initial Ownership. -- Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.

So close, but it's 201 b) you should have looked at, not 201 a)

Works Made for Hire. -- In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[lightknight]

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.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[houstonbofh]

That could be why some of the artists only gave spoken word interviews that were mixed into the song later... Big Ooops by UMG.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[houstonbofh]

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?

Re:Ah good old Kim

[houstonbofh]

Actually, it looks like some of them just spoke an opinion in an interview that was later mixed into a song. Which gives UMG even less claim.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[houstonbofh]

That being the case, my guess is that Mr. Dotcom paid an arm and a leg for every hip-hopper who appears in it, plus a boatload more for Printz Board and the Blackeyed Pea who "sings" it.

And then Universal "stole" it. And it even fits the definition of "stole" for us since Megaupload no longer had the item on Youtube.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[blackraven14250]

Megaupload has ads as well.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[BitZtream]

Yea, I'd have to say The Pirate Bay is the scummiest warez site I've ever dealt with in my life. Remember when warez was done with honor? When it was done with pride?

TPB is just another scam site that happens to marginally useful torrents. Its only slightly better than Googling for a crack.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[BitZtream]

Copyright does not automatically transfer, regardless of what contracts you signed.

You can of course be sued for breech of contract for not assigning copyright based on your contract, but thats where it ends.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[Skidborg]

Putting fake stories about yourself on the internet isn't rocket science.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[l0ungeb0y]

B-b-b-b-ut he PAID someone to make him a flash web site that played music and had cartoons that proclaimed him a hacker with mad skillz

Re:Ah good old Kim

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[AmiMoJo]

Fortunately you can still view it here: http://www.megavideo.com/?v=NFS30PZO

When will media companies learn that you can't censor the internet? Doing so only causes more people to look at what you tried to hide. UMG really is a dinosaur.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[airfoobar]

Nope. The performers don't get a copyright on the performance, the guy recording them does.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[flimflammer]

Hey, it takes a great degree of skill to become a certified duct tape expert.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[ksd1337]

But they do have model rights, which means that the person who owns the copyright on the work can't immediately start using the work for commercial purposes without negotiating these rights with the performers. And the guy recording them most likely doesn't have the copyright; he'd have signed it away to the producer.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[identity0]

Ahhhh, posting anonymously while posting your work email in the sig.

Yeah, you're a real hacker.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[airfoobar]

Wtf are model rights? Do you mean publicity rights? Do you think there's any chance that paying those artists to endorse Mega's brand didn't already cover that aspect? And besides, that still doesn't justify the use of the DMCA in this way.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[growse]

The guy recording them gets copyright on the recording of the performance. Which he can't use for commercial purposes without explicit consent of those in the recording.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[airfoobar]

Megaupload paid those artists for their endorsement, and consent was no doubt given in whatever boilerplate release form they had them sign.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[LingNoi]

And you say sites like The Pirate Bay and Megaupload "barely get income to pay for hosting" :-)

You just said he got all his money from insider trading so which is it.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[jemmyw]

Auckland isn't the capital of NZ

Re:Ah good old Kim

[LordLimecat]

Um, who wrote those songs? Do you have any reason to believe it was anyone other than the people who sang it?

Your entire argument was that the camera-man was somehow the owner of the copyright. How are you now trying to turn this into you being right despite the copyright law saying "youre utterly wrong"?

Re:Ah good old Kim

[LordLimecat]

Noone seems to have actually read the links. The guy recording them isnt the creator of the " original expression in the creative work", the author is. The links above also seem to leave open some room for multiple holders of copyright for such a performance, depending on who contributed to the "original expression in the creative work".

Re:Ah good old Kim

[LordLimecat]

Unfortunately, that does not invalidate whatever contracts the artist had with UMG. If they signed over their copyrights to UMG, UMG absolutely has the right to do a DMCA takedown.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[LordLimecat]

I should have actually checked the video link: It does NOT say "terms of use violation", it says "Copyright claim by UMG". According to the EFF, if they HAD filed a counter-claim (which they do indeed say they did), youtube would have restored the video 10 days later unless UMG had filed a lawsuit. Account cancelation (as is being claimed by torrentfreak) only occurs after 3 strikes, with a strike being a DMCA claim that was not countered.

That is, only by NOT filing a counter-claim would the account have been suspended. Im calling bull, unless some evidence of a counterclaim is pulled up. All of this information, btw, is from the EFF-- you can hardly call them "sympathetic to the labels".

Re:Ah good old Kim

[reub2000]

Why would the police care if the person they capture is a real hacker? If a script kiddie steals credit cards numbers, does it make any difference that they weren't clever enough to do it on their own?

Re:Ah good old Kim

[God Of Atheism]

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.

Neither has advertisements as far as I see.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[lightknight]

Apparently you missed the content of my post. I'll try again.

They (law enforcement, media, various members of the legislature) have been redefining what constitutes 'hacking.' Borrowing someone's cellphone, and sending a text message from it, without their permission, now constitutes 'hacking.' We aren't talking about crackers, hackers, or script kiddies. We're talking about people who have trouble figuring out whether the light goes out in their fridge when they close the door.

It's a bit like redefining felonies to include parking violations. It's disingenuous at best. But it makes for excellent "Tough on Crime" bar charts.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[lightknight]

Show me where in my post I mentioned 'stolen credit card numbers.'

I'm going to need some proof that you're not a bot.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[thomst]

So, I posted the comment below, and some asshat modded it -1 Troll - which it is not.

It's a review - and the modder is probably Mr. Dotcom's sockpuppet:

Looks like they contracted the producing of that song to Printz Board. Wonder how much he paid for that.

Basically, it's an undisguised commercial for MegaUpload, with a dumptruck load of testimonials chucked into a pedestrian soundtrack, featuring lead vocals by the increasingly shameless will.i.am. It all comes off as every bit as sincere as a used car salesman's promises.

That being the case, my guess is that Mr. Dotcom paid an arm and a leg for every hip-hopper who appears in it, plus a boatload more for Printz Board and the Blackeyed Pea who "sings" it.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[mrmeval]

Posting anonymously while putting an enemies name as a sig then commenting on it with your real id.

FAIL

Re:Ah good old Kim

[warpuck]

Since it is Sunday "Amen Brother" To me this is like watching 2 coyotes fighing over a racoon, that neither hunted and killed.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[antdude]

No apostrophe. ;) It's = It is.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[reub2000]

Okay, I got confused because this story isn't about a guy who borrowed someone's cellphone. The police charged him with fraud, handling stolen goods, and insider trading. The only person calling him a hacker is himself, and any media outlet stupid enough to print what he says. And psychopaths like him are generally truth challenged, and can easily claim any number of qualifications which are false, this one claimed him to be a hacker. Considering that the police charged him for earning millions of dollars through less the honest means, and never charged him for being a hacker, I'm not sure what the point of your post was.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[tehcyder]

He's an old hacker who made money by inside trading

So he's a successful criminal, big fucking deal.

I don't know why everyone on slashdot starts getting misty eyed about scumbags who happen to use computers for their crimes, and debate whether he's a "hacker" or not.

And if he's made money off copyright infringement, that sort of undermines all the arguments here that it is not an issue just to copy digital files..

Re:Ah good old Kim

[tehcyder]

Your post is so off topic I'm wondering if you're the bot, programmed to respond to any mention of the word "hacker" with a knee jerk defence.

. The fucknut in question is an innocent hacker who borrowed someone's computer to check his email, in the same way that I am the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, on a bobsleigh.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[tehcyder]

You can't compare The Pirate Bay and Megaupload - Megaupload charges it's users, TPB asks for donations. Big difference.

Bullshit, both sites are there to make money, there is no moral difference at all.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[ffflala]

The author of a piece of music is the singer, just as the author of the book is the writer, not the publisher.

Do i need to break out dictionary.com definitions? Who wrote the songs? WHo performed it? Those are the authors, this is simple stuff.

My copyright law prof told me that, after we completed a copyright law class, we'd start noticing how many entirely inaccurate claims are out there about copyright, and how vehemently people advanced them. This is one of the better examples I've seen in a while. You're *both* wrong, on certain points.

It's true that the "guy holding the camera" is almost certainly not the copyright holder, nor the author, of the video. But this isn't because of some intrinsic creative function of the camera guy; it's almost certainly because the camera operator was part of a team, had signed a work-for-hire contract which meant that he/she does not get any copyright in the work.

The thing that really hurts my brain here is the subsequent claim that "The author of a piece of music is the singer." Good heavens, no, no, no NO. A singer is analogous to a person reading a book out loud. This is an act of performance, not of authorship.

The singer/reader can be the author, but they'd have had to actually create the work. While pieces can be created spontaneously, singing a song that someone else wrote doesn't make one an author.

Frequently what happens with heavily-produced crap like this is that the asshole with the biggest pile of money (the star) hires all the actually skilled musicians and tech people who do all the dirty work of songcraft, locks them into a work-for-hire contract, so that the non-star peons have no copyright in whatever creative, original, author-worthy output they create.

Were it not for those pieces of paper, because of the necessarily collaborative nature of this kind of creative work, most commercial music, commercial videos, and all movies would be considered works of joint authorship, and all joint authors would have certain rights.

That said, just because you sing a song doesn't mean that you wrote it.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[TangoMargarine]

Having a mind eventually makes you want to own a gun after putting up with all the tards for all your life.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[INeededALogin]

Remember when warez was done with honor?

When was stealing software ever honorable? I did it when I was young, but I never did it for the honor.... It was a Pokemon... gotta catch em all type of thing.

Some people did it for the credits or leech access to some dump site... but... not honor.

Re:Ah good old Kim

[turinghacker]

UMG isn't currently flashing the copyright infringement card, but have they supposedly have some "other" contract with youtube that allows them to essentially take down any video as they see fit. Of course, all requests for proof of such a thing have been denied and youtube doesn't seem to have any knowledge of it either because they said that if UMG had not copyright claims, the video would go back up... and it's up at this point, so I guess youtube doesn't have access to this super-secret contract either.

/me grabs popcorn

[Yvanhoe]

That's the best trailer from Universal since a while.

What what?

[koan]

Vain, self indulgent rappers supporting a warez site? How odd is this especially since one of the key figures running Megaupload is a criminal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Schmitz

What's the dilly yo?

Re:What what?

[Dyinobal]

Bah insider trading? Half the members of the US Senate are guilty of worse.

Re:What what?

[InsightIn140Bytes]

Musicians will of course do anything when the right sum of money is offered. It was contracted work.

Re:What what?

[alendit]

What does it have anything to do with UMG blatantly missusing take-down notice system?

Re:What what?

[Gaygirlie]

Let's see.

He was convicted for 2 years probation for trading in stolen calling card numbers. Hardly some sort of super-criminal type material, I'd say. There is no record of him having done anything illegal after that. So, does that mean that the fact that he has done something illegal over 10 years ago gives people right to also do illegal stuff in order to cause him harm? If you've ever gotten a speeding ticket -- speeding is illegal and you're a criminal if you do that -- I can come over and use illegal tactics to harm you, like bashing the windows in on your car?

Re:What what?

[hitmark]

These days the criminal is the hero and the law is the villain...

Re:What what?

[koan]

Only because the people telling the story of the "heroes" are criminals and the populace is too ignorant to notice this.

Someone has a sig on /. "bring back the guillotine" indeed, wouldn't that be more interesting than Sunday football.

Re:What what?

[houstonbofh]

Well... The ways the laws are written now, everyone is a criminal.

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.

Re:What what?

[Gaygirlie]

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.

Re:What what?

[InsightIn140Bytes]

So credit card theft isn't serious offense now? And yes he has done illegal things after that. You know, the whole insider trading thing.

Re:What what?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does it have anything to do with UMG blatantly missusing take-down notice system?

Absolutely none. What we're seeing here is classic attack the messenger and straw man bullshit by pathetic dweebs and MAFIAA's paid shysters.

It's like any Apple article. The PR and zealots come out in force, leaving their sense of reality and sanity at the door, because others don't subscribe to their cult's view or paid for "opinion".

Re:What what?

[Khyber]

There's plenty you can do about it - you're just too scared to do it.

Re:What what?

[Gaygirlie]

It was calling cards, not credit cards. Reading comprehension, mate. And he wasn't the one doing the stealing, he was trading them. I'm not saying it is acceptable, but it's hardly top-of-the-line criminal activity. And I am not aware of him being part of any insider trading thing.

Re:What what?

[Gaygirlie]

Oh, really? Please, do enlighten me.

Re:What what?

[Gaygirlie]

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?

Re:What what?

[koan]

Issuing a DMCA-takedown notice for content you don't own copyright to is illegal, yes.

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

Is that what happened? So far only according to a known criminal, at the most to me it's amusing that one criminal is crying about another criminal.
Seriously who gives a fuck? It's music and video since when did "entertainment" become so important as to occupy more than a passing moment of thought?
Judging by your comments one would think it was great big deal worth fussing about, it isn't.

Ignorance is bliss, if you knew everything that went on in this world you would most likely curl up an die or outright kill yourself like the photographer of this picture did.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex978/1016152029/

It's a brutal, cruel World we live in, if you want to spend your energy fussing about 2 criminals screwing each other be my guest, I would think you might want to direct that energy to a more meaningful purpose, for example the children like the one in the photo.

Re:What what?

[flimflammer]

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.

Re:What what?

[alexo]

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.

My point here is that the only one so far stating it was illegal is Kim, a known embezzler, and criminal, but is it truly illegal? If so why should I care if "megaupload" or their "video" goes offline it's a non-issue to me

Ask Martin Niemöller why you should care.

Re:What what?

[alexo]

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.

You keep using the word "illegal". If you check the relevant laws, you will find out that they were carefully worded as to allow such abuse.

Re:What what?

[koan]

When did I say i don't like the rappers? The only person I saw saying what had happened was illegal was the guy it happened to a known thief.
You clearly didn't read what I wrote, and if you did you didn't comprehend it.

Re:What what?

[cheekyjohnson]

Seriously who gives a fuck? It's music and video since when did "entertainment" become so important as to occupy more than a passing moment of thought?
Judging by your comments one would think it was great big deal worth fussing about, it isn't.

Subjective.

Ignorance is bliss, if you knew everything that went on in this world you would most likely curl up an die or outright kill yourself like the photographer of this picture did.

Depends on the person.

Part of your argument seems to be, "if your situation could be worse, then your situation is good!" What? Your wife was murdered? That's nothing! The criminals could've murdered your daughter, too! Stop complaining!

As if anything that one deems as an injustice should be overlooked merely because you say that worse things happen.

Re:What what?

[Khyber]

You don't possess the gonadal fortitude to do it. It would involve obtaining (possibly) a felony record in the process (if you get caught, that is.)

Re:What what?

[koan]

Part of your argument seems to be, "if your situation could be worse, then your situation is good!" What? Your wife was murdered? That's nothing! The criminals could've murdered your daughter, too! Stop complaining!

As if anything that one deems as an injustice should be overlooked merely because you say that worse things happen.

Seriously?
You think Kim getting his warez site taken down by some heavy handed corp is comparable to murder of ones family members? You are so out of touch it's actually frightening.

Re:What what?

[cheekyjohnson]

That was used to demonstrate not that murder isn't as 'bad' as this situation, but that no matter what situation you're in, it probably could get worse. It was just an analogy, and analogies don't always imply that one situation is exactly like another one (but, as far as I've seen, many people believe that they do).

Re:What what?

[koan]

Nope, you used a tired tactic to try to justify your position, the truth is the issue in the article is actually a non-issue, it is irrelevant to anyone with an attention span longer than a mosquitoes.
The real issue is who makes the laws and who enforces them.

Re:What what?

[cheekyjohnson]

Nope, you used a tired tactic to try to justify your position

What tired tactic? What justification? Are you claiming to know my intentions?

the truth is the issue in the article is actually a non-issue

Subjective.

it is irrelevant to anyone with an attention span longer than a mosquitoes.

It's irrelevant to anyone who doesn't care about it. Interesting generalization, though.

As I said: "Worse things happen! Therefore, you can't ever focus on issue X or I'll say that you're wrong for not adhering to my standards."

Re:What what?

[koan]

I notice you left out the last bit of my post which damns the rest of yours, a little squabble between thieves doesn't amount to much, the real issue who makes the laws and who enforces them.

Re:What what?

[cheekyjohnson]

What? I don't care if both of them are criminals. I still think something should be done. I do think DMCA abuse is a real problem (regardless of whether or not it was abused in this case).

the real issue who makes the laws and who enforces them.

And, from what I see, those who abuse the laws, as well.

Re:What what?

[koan]

And, from what I see, those who abuse the laws, as well.

Well that would be the "pirates" wouldn't it, if no one pirated media there would be no take down orders.

Re:What what?

[cheekyjohnson]

No, it's anyone who abuses the law. Including those who send bogus take down orders because they know that it's difficult to do anything. Rather than making it extremely difficult for them to take anything down (website operators wouldn't have to unquestionably remove the material), we have a system that is ripe for abuse.

That's like saying that DRM (which often just inconveniences customers) is actually the fault of pirates, and not the people who actually implemented it. I'll blame the latter far more than the former. I don't care for using bogeymans as an excuse to inconvenience everyone (terrorists, pedophiles, pirates, etc).

Re:What what?

[Falconhell]

Are you just trying to be an asshole or is that your nature?

Re:What what?

[tehcyder]

Bah insider trading? Half the members of the US Senate are guilty of worse.

Really? Half the members of the US senate have been convicted of serious offences that are punishable by time in jail?

Or is this just a baseless anti-government post with no connection to reality?

Re:What what?

[tehcyder]

Let's see.

He was convicted for 2 years probation for trading in stolen calling card numbers. Hardly some sort of super-criminal type material, I'd say. There is no record of him having done anything illegal after that. So, does that mean that the fact that he has done something illegal over 10 years ago gives people right to also do illegal stuff in order to cause him harm? If you've ever gotten a speeding ticket -- speeding is illegal and you're a criminal if you do that -- I can come over and use illegal tactics to harm you, like bashing the windows in on your car?

Fuck off, getting a speeding ticket is not in the same league as trading in stolen credit card numbers.

Re:What what?

[tehcyder]

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.

That is a different argument entirely, and no one would argue against the fact that if UMG are doing something illegal they should be punished by the law too.

Re:What what?

[tehcyder]

>Issuing a DMCA-takedown notice for content you don't own copyright to is illegal, yes.

If it's illegal then you fucking fight it. Simple.

Re:What what?

[tehcyder]

Are you just trying to be an asshole or is that your nature?

He's just saying that it helps to retain a sense of perspective, and that a rich criminal having a handbag fight with another set of bigger, richer criminals is not exactly earth-shakingly evil.

The fact that someone disagrees with the slashdot hive mind view that copyright is purely evil, and any copying of digital material is inherently a brave blow for freedom, does not make them an asshole, asshole.

Re:What what?

[tehcyder]

Ask Martin Niemöller why you should care.

You are an hysterical buffoon. OMG I can't freely copy a piece of music, next thing they'll be marching me off at dawn to be shot!

Re:What what?

[thoromyr]

define illegal... the *one* thing that a filer of a take down notice under the DMCA has to claim under penalty of perjury is that they are the copyright holder (or the duly authorized agent of the copyright holder) of the work which they claim is being infringed. Now, the work being contested does *not* have to be the work they claim is being infringed. I know, I've been on the receiving end of that. Guess what, it doesn't matter, you still have to pull it (and counterclaims only allow re-instatement after a "reasonable" period of time that general counsel took to be a month IIRC).

My point is that saying that something is illegal is really overly broad. But the item in question is in fact the one thing the filer of a take down notice must not lie about (under penalty of perjury). So, if the take down notice sent to Youtube (remember, that is google nowadays) specified that the work to be pulled was owned by UMG there *would* be grounds for a perjury charge (I'm not saying they are or are not guilty, that would be up to a court after having heard evidence that is not available to us peons, just that it would be a plausible charge).

Good luck for anyone other than Google or UMG ever discovering what the take down notice actually said...

Re:What what?

[thoromyr]

Actually, the DMCA is worse than you realize. To be a legal take down notice all they have to do is identify themselves as owners of some work (that will be easy) then say the video they want pulled infringes on their works copyright. The video doesn't have to be infringing (only a court can really decide that anyway after doing such things as assessing fair use, is it a derivative work, what-have-you), it must be pulled regardless.

How do I know this? Not only is it discoverable by reading the DMCA, but where I work has received a DMCA notice just like that. There was a *very* tenuous basis for linking the claimed work to the claimed infringing work, but not one that was supportable. General counsel advised that we had to pull the claimed infringing work for, IIRC, 30 days. Counterclaim or not the claimed infringing work *must* be pulled for a period of time unless your have risk-happy lawyers (I've never met one).

The "illegal" aspect would be if the filer was sloppy and claimed they owned copyright of the claimed infringing work. That particular claim is "under penalty of perjury" and is the only one which the filer has to be able to back. But only the filer (UMG) and the recipient (Youtube/Google) know the content of the take down notice and what was claimed. If google wasn't in favor of draconian laws like the DMCA they would forward a copy of the take down notice to whoever uploaded the video.

Re:What what?

[TangoMargarine]

Yes, because obviously anybody who disagrees with you has no idea what's going on.

Re:What what?

[INeededALogin]

Really? Half the members of the US senate have been convicted of serious offences that are punishable by time in jail?

sigh... I thought this was common knowledge:

60 Minutes
Wall Street Journal

Congress is exempt from insider trading laws.

You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[sakdoctor]

Pay to be a Premium Reader:

* Priority reading of comments.
* Reading comments in parallel.
* Astroturfing free comments.
* Support for reading accelerators.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[thegarbz]

I know your comment is tongue in cheek, but this is life as we know it right now.

- Sick of waiting in lines at Disney Land? Pay extra.
- Public heath system queues getting you down? Pay for private medical insurance.
- Want to book an airfare for tomorrow rather than next week, that'll cost you too.

Even in Dubai on holiday we saw the same thing. Tickets for the observation tower on the Burj Khalifa were $25, but they were "sold out" until Sunday. That is unless you want to pay $100 to go to the top in which case there's spots for you straight away.

These days we live in the world where those who can pay get the premium service. It has less to do with actually providing a "premium" service, and more to do with trying to nickel-and-dime the public for every last cent where possible.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Le's not forget that now we can also pay to get through "express" security lanes at the airport. If there's one thing that epitomizes just how much "theater" is in security theater, there you have it. (not to mention how well it reflects much of society these days...)

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[gallondr00nk]

Pay to be a Premium Reader:

* Priority reading of comments. * Reading comments in parallel. * Astroturfing free comments. * Support for reading accelerators.

You mean cocaine? I'd pay a premium for that.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[drainbramage]

The forest must be in the way of your trees.
True "this is life as we know it right now" because we are now.
It was the way our parents, grand parents...... knew it too.
This is not new in any sense.
Colour me sad.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[dissy]

You mean cocaine? I'd pay a premium for that.

That's another good example.

You can go over to the bad side of town and pickup some cocaine for a price, and have to deal with things like the wait time for it to be available, questionable purity. and of course the risk involved with it being illegal.

Or, you can go pay a premium to a doctor, to have him/her write on a piece of paper such that grants you permission to pay a premium at the pharmacy to pickup some Adderall.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[Scrameustache]

Even in Dubai

Especially in Dubai. I don't understand why people willingly set foot in such a wretched hive of disregard for human rights, but they should expect a plutocratic system when they do.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[dcollins]

Greyhound buses now have not 1 but 2 extra tiers of "get in front of the line":

(1) Normal routine is to get in line and board on first-come-first-served basis.
(2) Or, you can pay $5 extra for "Priority Boarding" where you line up in a second queue that is input before the regular line:
http://www.greyhound.com/en/dealsanddiscounts/priorityboarding.aspx
(3) Or, you can pay another $5 extra for "Reserved Seating" where you line up in a third queue that is input to designated seats before either of the above:
http://www.greyhound.com/en/dealsanddiscounts/efares.aspx

Of course, if enough people are convinced to take method (2) or (3), then people in line (1) might in theory never board. (Buses aren't just overbooked, tickets by default aren't for any particular bus at all.) Which would be just what Greyhound wants, I suppose, assuming that a boycott of the latter is infeasible.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[TheLink]

Is Adderall a good substitute for cocaine? It might be for speed but cocaine?

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[jank1887]

just to be fair, the Disney parks don't charge anything for their Fast Pass system, and because of that it actually works fairly well. I think they were one of the first places to do it as a crowd management system. Al l the other parks later saw it as a moneymaking venture. (Next one I saw it at was the Universal parks just up the road from Disneyworld). Pay an extra $20 each on top of your $80 ticket and you get to the front of each ride once. Really separates out those who can and can't.

That said, I'm sure the Disney execs are kicking themselves for not having thought of charging for it first. Too much bad PR now. I've ehard rumor that they were going to start selling 'Fast Pass Packs' so you don't have to plan out the tickets. Would be a more reasonable middle ground.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[houstonbofh]

It is no longer called "nickel and dime" it is now called "driving the revenue stream". Please update your phrase book.

Thanks.

That and it is now $12 and $50.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[SuricouRaven]

And yet the bus doesn't depart until everyone is on board...

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[AmiMoJo]

Thank $deity for BitTorrent. It is just a shame that most browsers don't have built-in support, which is why sites like Megaupload are so popular. If you want to get material out without people having to download client software and without you paying anything then cyberlockers are the only option right now.

Hay, Mozilla, want to differentiate yourself and add some really cool new features? Build in BitTorrent support.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[drew870mitchell]

I've had the same debate with friends regarding airlines: first class vs. priority boarding vs. the rest of us, the dregs of society.

I used to agree with your "nickel and diming" theory, but I gradually have realized that the morons paying for the premium service are subsidizing the rest of us, and I'm okay with that. My $100 fare is probably not keeping the plane in the air. The guy up front who paid $1000 for a seat with 3 more inches on either side, and closer attention from the staff, is "doing" 10x as much as me to get the plane moving, and he is definitely not getting $900 extra of service out of it. So let him have his creature comforts and pretend extra-special-customer status; I'll save my money for things that matter, and we will both land in the same place at the same time.

The thing is, the world has always been this way: it's just that in 2011 we are better informed about exactly how much the rich get to enjoy over the rest of us. But if you think that the green pieces of paper didn't let you bribe your way into better service in the past, well, you have been misled.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[metacell]

I think the GP's point is that the company doesn't actually do anything extra for those who pay "Premium" service - they just rearrange their queues to put the "Premiums" first.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[metacell]

Good point.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[thegarbz]

I don't understand why people willingly set foot in such a wretched hive of disregard for human rights

Evidently you have not been to Dubai. So they tried to nickel-and-dime us up the tallest tower in the world, but you know what else? The rest of my stay there was amongst the most amazing yet cheap destinations on my last trip overseas, which really says something given that we ended up in the likes of Bratislava, Poland, and other cheap east European nations.

They happily reward those who plan ahead, and aside from the viewing platform we did. They are also very service based there and cater wonderfully for tourists. Drive up and down the river in a boat? That'll be $2 for 12 passengers. $100 got us a bus tour of the entire city, entry into the old palace, entry into the museum, walking tour around the old city of Dubai, tour through the major spice and gold markets. But wait, the day after still included in the $100 was a trip to a wildlife reserve which involved a couple of hours racing over dunes in the desert pausing to take photos of the sunset, then a trip to a large campsite where we got a full buffet meal and entertainment for the whole night.

Why I would go to Dubai again? Because I can get 2 days complete entertainment and be treated like a king for the cost of a short cab fare in any major American city. Not to mention the cheap shopping and the fact that the entire city is clean and new.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[TrekkieGod]

Why I would go to Dubai again? Because I can get 2 days complete entertainment and be treated like a king for the cost of a short cab fare in any major American city.

The cost is actually a little bit higher

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[thegarbz]

Given how my experience was mere months ago I will stick with what I know rather than what I read in some uk paper.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[TrekkieGod]

Given how my experience was mere months ago I will stick with what I know rather than what I read in some uk paper.

Did you read the linked article? Because I wasn't referring to cost as in your personal monetary cost. I was referring to cost as in the slavery that makes the city so cheap for you. You know, the stuff that you probably wouldn't notice by just spending a few weeks there as a tourist.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[thegarbz]

Slavery is all relative and is typical for most countries where you can think of it. We get all uppity about about people being paid $5 a day for work yet those people are often the equivalent of those working for minimum wage in our western society. The difference is often made up in government support for us.

You want to see slavery you should actually travel to Dubai and go to the museum. It may look bad in the article but it is better than it was 50 years ago. Give it time to catch up. Dubai is a city that was thrust into western society.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[UBfusion]

Not so fast, please... In most countries downloading is still legal, but torrenting is not, because technically it involves uploading too. Would you really want Mozilla to take the blame for billions of potential law offenses?

If you hate waiting, why don't you use the SkipScreen FF plugin or use a dedicated downloader app like JDownloader instead to queue your requests?

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[Scrameustache]

Why I would go to Dubai again?

Because you don't like poppy seed muffins?

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[AmiMoJo]

The same is true of megaupload. Should they remove file uploading altogether?

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[tehcyder]

Boo hoo, if you don't approve of a company's pricing structure, don't use them. If you are prepared to pay money to download your pirated material, why didn't you just buy it in the first place? Or is it OK to give money to conmen and thieves, but not copyright holders for some reason?

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[tehcyder]

And none of your post answers the point about Dubai's human rights record, but that's OK because you got a cheap holiday?

You are a total arsehole.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[tehcyder]

Slavery is all relative

You pretty much fail at being a human being.

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[thoromyr]

You don't buy any electronics do you? Or use a computer?

I sincerely hope not or you are damned hypocrite.

What, its okay to benefit from Chinese and Korean slave labor used to produce cheap electronics, but Dubai is somehow the end of the world?

Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment.

[INeededALogin]

And yet the bus doesn't depart until everyone is on board...

Since busses have finite space I assume that they would have to wait for some of the priority borders to die so that the rest of the people can get on that full bus. If not, an overbooked, full bus will leave people waiting for the next bus which will also have priority seating.

Re:Universal sucks big time, but..

[Nidi62]

Dear god is that song horrible. It's a bunch of celeb-statements about megaupload incorporated into a cringeworthy advertisement-song. I'm all for the message, but please don't make me listen to that song again.

Taking into consideration those artists and the stuff they've put out recently, you actually thought it was going to be good?

When will they learn?

[amiga3D]

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.

Re:When will they learn?

[LiroXIV]

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.

Universal Music unfortunately, owns the rights to any music composed by anyone. It's how the world works. That's why they're called Universal

did they sign a work for hire with universal?

[Joe_Dragon]

if so and if Universal clams that they own this then where is the over time and back taxes?

Re:did they sign a work for hire with universal?

[airfoobar]

So? That may mean they have a contract issue with those artists and they can sue them, but that doesn't change the status of the copyright on the song. The fraudulent takedown notices were a clear abuse of the DMCA.

Re:did they sign a work for hire with universal?

[Mashiki]

Well...maybe these artists should in turn uses the fraudulent claim clause to sue the RIAA?

Re:did they sign a work for hire with universal?

[LordLimecat]

Youre not understanding. Parent is saying that the copyright to any song produced by them is almost certainly held by their label, which makes this entire article a load of speculative nonsense.

If the takedown was indeed nonsense, and one of the artists or Kim wants to put their own necks on the line, they can always use the DMCA to file a counter-claim. Of course, then they really are on the hook if theyre lying, so I doubt youd see that; this makes MUCH better publicity for folks ignorant of how the DMCA actually works.

Re:did they sign a work for hire with universal?

[airfoobar]

I think it's you who's not understanding. If the artists signed an exclusivity agreement (i.e., a contract between two parties) and then violated that agreement, the label can sue the artists but not the people who hired those artists. Moreover, the "automatic" copyright on that video is legally assigned to whoever was holding the camera, not to the artist. Assuming the cameraman had a work-for-hire agreement with Megaupload, then the rights to the song belong 100% to Megaupload.

Re:did they sign a work for hire with universal?

[LordLimecat]

If they signed over the copyright, then the labels have the copyright and they absolutely CAN sue anyone who violates it. It doesnt matter how the artists feel about it (though theyre welcome to file a futile lawsuit), the labels currently, now, this instant, hold the copyrights and can take legal action against third parties to defend them.

Moreover, the "automatic" copyright on that video is legally assigned to whoever was holding the camera,

Thats really not accurate, multiple parties have a stake in the video depending on what contracts were signed, and one of those parties is UMG.

Re:did they sign a work for hire with universal?

[airfoobar]

The vast majority of label contracts are not work-for-hire contracts and signed artists are not generally considered label employees -- I would be very surprised if these artists are exceptions to the rule.

The automatic copyright on the video was assigned to the cameraman('s employer) and nobody else could have a stake in it -- including the people in the video. Even if those artists have exclusivity agreements with UMG, the artists never owned a copyright on this video and therefore neither would UMG under any private agreement.

Re:did they sign a work for hire with universal?

[sydneyfong]

This seems to be the classic scenario of the so called "Equity's Darling", i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_purchaser, albeit in the realm of "Intellectual" property instead of tangibles.

I'm not totally sure whether this principle applies, but it might. Though if it does, it would be really hard to argue that Mega___ didn't have any (constructive) knowledge of the deals, since any prudent person in their shoes would have asked about any exclusivity deals....

PS: Stop arguing like school children and learn the law :)

Re:did they sign a work for hire with universal?

[houstonbofh]

1) The did file a DMCA counterclaim, and the video went back up, and then went down again, and Youtube threatened to remove their account.

2) Several of the artists were just spoken word interviews mixed into a song, not a musical output by the artist.

I am betting this is a honey trap, and UMG bit on it.

Re:did they sign a work for hire with universal?

[airfoobar]

The DMCA can't be used for tort claims. Performance rights are owned by the composer/lyricist of the song, not the performer, so again it's owned by Megaupload. In fact, I can't think of a single aspect of copyright that UMG could conceivably claim ownership to.

Re:did they sign a work for hire with universal?

[airfoobar]

Ehm, does that have ANYTHING to do with who owns the copyright on the song and whether the DMCA takedown was legal?

Re:did they sign a work for hire with universal?

[LordLimecat]

I would be very surprised if these artists are exceptions to the rule.

In other words, all we have is speculation on an article from a clearly biased source who has only spoken to one of the parties involved, and gotten several others to comment, speculatively, on what it might hypothetically mean.

What an utter waste of time.

Re:did they sign a work for hire with universal?

[sydneyfong]

Yes.

That legal doctrine applies to cases where a person purchases property belonging to another person unknowingly.

Re:did they sign a work for hire with universal?

[airfoobar]

You only read half my comment -- how typical of someone like you. You missed the other half that says the artists in question would never own any copyright in this song in the first place.

Re:did they sign a work for hire with universal?

[airfoobar]

That doctrine doesn't apply because like I said UMG and the artists in the video never owned any "property" related to that song, and because what you say only applies to real property. Thanks for playing.

Re:Can they legally do this?

[SuricouRaven]

There were several singers, and it only needs for one of them to have signed such a contract. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, espicially in the early days of their careers. When a music label promises an artist the shot at fame and fortune, the artist usually agrees to whatever terms are set. Plenty more potential stars for the label to ask if the offer is declined.

Re:Universal sucks big time, but..

[loufoque]

M-E-G-A, upload to me today...
Send me a file, MEGAUPLOAD

MEEEEEEEGAAAAA
MEEEEEEEGAAAAA

What's not to like in such poetry?

Pop Artists

[houghi]

They are not the copyright holders. They get raped by the copyright holders.

Don't blame the devil for doing bad things with your sole after you sold it to him.

Re:Pop Artists

[VortexCortex]

Don't blame the devil for doing bad things with your sole after you sold it to him.

Joke's on him: That Demented Demon just made me supreme ruler of all the ocean front property in Arizona!

HA! I don't give a damn what he does to those used sneakers!

Re:Pop Artists

[skine]

When I'm dead, I'm sure I won't be all that worried about my shoes.

Re:Pop Artists

[Ardeaem]

Don't blame the devil for doing bad things with your sole after you sold it to him.

What does the devil want with my pet flounder? Oh, god, Bessie, I'm sorry, I didn't know it was him!

Eh

[otie]

The song sounds more like they just recorded some sound bites (something you might hear on a radio station, "This is X and you're listening to Y") from artists and celebrities and slapped them on a cheap advertising jingle. There are some lyrics, but the singers are some random studio musicians.

Re:Pop Artists, sole?

[airfoobar]

And suckless? Nah.

Re:Can they legally do this?

[InsightIn140Bytes]

No, unless the contract artists signed explicitly states so.

Re:Artists?

[jones_supa]

Well... can art even be rated objectively? Subjectively it can, of course.

But regarding art, instead of "objective" I have heard this funny term "intersubjective", which roughly means that by average a certain song is rated good or bad by the listeners. So if some songsmith creates a new hit for Mileh Cyruz and people generally think it's kinda catchy, then it could be seen as an intersubjectively successful song.

but on the toll roads you can pay less to go faste

[Joe_Dragon]

pay faster with ez-pass and pay less that the cash rate.

Re:but on the toll roads you can pay less to go fa

[dcollins]

The margin is surveillance/tracking info, of course.

you always blame the devil

[circletimessquare]

people do all sorts of desperate things when they are weak or stupid or poor

it is those who do things out of evil that still deserve and always did deserve your blame

shifting blame from the devil, in fact, is exactly how the devil works, and you fall for it

you blame the girl for being raped because of the dress she wore, not the rapist

you blame the poor for not having health insurance, rather than the rules about healthcare put in place by the rich corporations

you blame the musician for signing away things he didn't understand when he was a young dumb kid with a catchy tune and stars in his eyes

no: you should always blame the devil, you shouldn't blame the victim. or you fail at simple morality, and you fail at logical coherence. and the devil depends upon people like you to do that. meanness and cruelty defines a society when it is dominated by people would rather overlook the actions of evil, and point their hate at the weak

Re:relevant links..

[v1]

It looks like besides Universal needing to be taken out back and educated a bit, YouTube needs to make some process adjustments as well:

A few minutes after this exchange Kim contacted us with good news. After filing a YouTube copyright takedown dispute, the video was reinstated. But alas, just seconds later, it was taken down again.

"We filed a dispute, the video came back online and now it's blocked again by UMG and the automated YouTube system has threatened to block our account for repeat infringement," Kim explained.

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.

A great opportunity to contact your representative

[MasaMuneCyrus]

I see this an a great opportunity to contact my representative. Most often, congressman get letters from tons of ignorant people mixed with intelligent an unintelligent letters from mobs of people in various campaigns against _____ bill. This is a great showcase of what is wrong with the system; a clear, unambiguous example of its corruption and flaws. I will be contacting my representative about this story in the hopes that he can see exactly why we don't want SOPA to pass.

Vote with Your Dollars

[edibobb]

Remind me never to buy any more music with the Universal label.

Re:Vote with Your Dollars

[HiThere]

Don't ever buy any music with the Universal label. Or, for that matter, any RIAA member company.

Lest you forget, SONY is the RIAA member company that gifted people with CDROMs that came with rootkits. And they weren't even charged with criminal computer trespass. They essentially got off free, except for a very minor amount of bad PR. (Minor as in "most people will never have heard of it". For that matter, it wouldn't surprise me to find that there are still many computers out there running that rootkit.)

Re:Vote with Your Dollars

[tehcyder]

Don't ever buy any music with the Universal label. Or, for that matter, any RIAA member company.

Exactly. This does not mean that you are entitled to pirate it though. If you hate big record companies that much, just don't buy their product, just like if you hate Sony that much don't buy a PS3 or Vaio laptop (yes, I'm sure they're different comp[anies).

Re:Artists?

[Patch86]

It is possible to be a "bad artist". In the same way as a kangaroo in a Ford pickup is still a "bad driver".

I went there once

[anonymous9991]

I went to megaupload once and the main page tried to install a virus, luckily sandboxie prevented any damage

Re:Several well-known artists?

[Osgeld]

And some yahoo strumming the same 4 rock chords is really any better? "Art" is subjective

Re:Their software replaces advertising on other si

[Nom du Keyboard]

So they derive income for premium services by replacing adverts on the web? Google, Facebook etc. are going to love that. Top of the stack wins.

So yes, it sounds slimy, AND YET, it's MY browser and I should be the one who decides which ads, if any, that I care to view.

Re:But the whole thing is fake...

[SuricouRaven]

An interesting theory, and one I will judge for myself... once I actually see the clip. I'm sure someone must have grabbed a copy before it was taken down.

Re:Their software replaces advertising on other si

[SuricouRaven]

Love the business model though. They figured out that users won't react well to additional annoying advertising... but *substitute* annoying advertising? Won't even notice. Clever. I'd agree to that, if I actually trusted the program not to also add more advertising and a bit of spyware too. Which I don't. And if I wern't already running ad-blocking.

Re:A great opportunity to contact your representat

[SuricouRaven]

I noticed thatguywiththeglasses.com is running a campaign against it too, on the grounds that under SOPA a studio could have their site shut down for an insulting review. It wouldn't be the first time they have run into copyright issues - the review of The Room has already been pulled after the studio threatened to sue.

...who cares

[tryptogryphic]

You tube is a private company. So what if they remove content because they're spineless pricks? No one is 'entitled' to having their video retained on youtube.com, they can remove a video for any reason they want, and they don't have to explain it to you if they don't feel like it...not from a legal perspective. Why does everyone seem to forget this when things like this arise?

Re:...who cares

[cheekyjohnson]

Who says that they do forget? Just because they can remove the videos for any reason they want doesn't mean that their decisions are exempt from criticism.

Re:...who cares

[DJ Particle]

This isn't so much about YouTube as it is about UMG abusing the DMCA. While you are correct that YouTube has the right to remove videos they feel are troublesome, UMG did NOT have the right to issue a DMCA takedown notice. Abuse of the DMCA is a crime. That's what the outrage is about.

Re:...who cares

[tryptogryphic]

I understand that, at the same time...UMG can only abuse the DMCA as much as YouTube allows them to...in the sense of simply not complying with it as it had no merit whatsoever to begin with...so I'm still somewhat back to my original point. It's hard for me to see how this is about the 'law' and not youtube just being a bunch of MPIAA RIAA cocksuckers.

Re:...who cares

[Kalriath]

Not complying with a DMCA notice waives safe harbour and opens you to liability along with the uploader. I'm sure you can see why Google isn't willing to do that.

Re:...who cares

[tryptogryphic]

I can't wait for G.W. Bush's death.

But the celebrities didn't speak their support.

[Anonymous Coward]

The voices are dubbed in over old random video clips. What you hear is some unknown voice actor, not the celebrity. The celebrities weren't originally saying anything about Megaupload. The whole thing is fake!

And the reason is was taken down has nothing at all to do with copyrights or record contracts. It was taken down due to the law you can't use anyone's "likeness" in an ad without permission.

Re:But the celebrities didn't speak their support.

[Anthony Mouse]

Interesting allegations. Wouldn't it be nice if we could see the original video and verify them?

Nope. Try again.

[Mathinker]

IIRC, the kinds of works which can be made for hire are explicitly limited, and music is not included. Of course, the RIAA tried to push a law through Congress which changed that (always thinking of [screwing] the artist, RIAA is), and actually succeeded, but the backlash was so strong it was amended out of law within a year.

The corporate slaves

[toriver]

should fall in line. They are there to produce assets for the entertainment industry, not create works of culture.

Re:relevant links..

[metacell]

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.

It's more than an American tradition, it's a fundamental principle in all modern democracies.

Re:Can they legally do this?

[DJ Particle]

See here's the issue....

Say Lady Gaga covers Jonathan Coulton, and Coulton himself was there, got Gaga's permission to record and distribute the performance, recorded the incident, and threw it up on YouTube.

By your example, UMG (Gaga's label) would be able to claim copyright.

And we already know it does NOT really work that way.

Re:Can they legally do this?

[DJ Particle]

Basically...here's the similarities...

1) An independent entity wrote the song
2) An independent entity produced the song
3) All the label artists did was sing on it (and even then, only 3 artists did any actual "singing"). They did not contribute in any other way except their voice. They were simply hired to SING. They themselves did not put forth any *creative* input into the song. They did not write any of it, or produce any of it.

Therefore, UMG should have NO claim!

Re:BLR

[DJ Particle]

Doesn't explain the 3 label artists that actually SANG on the song....

Re:but on the toll roads you can pay less to go fa

[thegarbz]

Ahh yes ez-pass. There's another neat scam. Raise the ticket price forcing everyone to get a tag, then make sure there's a minimum balance on people's account and make a shitload of money off the interest.

Believe me this is still in the best interest of the people offering the service.

Re:relevant links..

[Agripa]

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.

There are no provisions in the law for this though.

There are no penalties for false take down requests except if the complaining party is not authorized to act on behalf of the owner.

Re:relevant links..

[v1]

There are no penalties for false take down requests except if the complaining party is not authorized to act on behalf of the owner.

yep, and that's what needs to be changed. Shouldn't need to be changed really, should have never been an issue to begin with. But "that's a good idea" laws like this get freighttrained through the legal system without any attempt to protect them from abuse. Someone runs around the room yelling "vote yes to protect the chidren! vote yes to feed the starving artists!" and everyone just immediately votes for it without reading the fine print or considering the possibilities for abuse. If it weren't such a common issue I'd attribute it to incompetence, but that's just how business is done in the legislatures lately.

Really, if I could have any one law passed, it would be a constitutional ammendment that makes it unlawful to enact a law that does not include adequate provisions for prevention of abuse. That's really the root of most of the "bad laws" we have on the books today. Most of them are good idea "in theory", but put too much power in one party's hands, without proper checks/balances.

Re:Can they legally do this?

[SuricouRaven]

Depends on Gaga's contract. It might contain the 'I grant ownership of copyright for everything I produce for the next x years to UMG' clause.

WHOOSH!!!

[sjames]

Wow, nearly 100% whoosh!

The only relevant point is that Kim owns the rights to this video fair and square and Universal has fraudulently claimed ownership of something they couldn't possibly believe they owned, TWICE!

It doesn't matter how good or not the video is. It doesn't matter if it's truth or fiction. It doesn't matter if you like Kim or not.

So sit back, get some popcorn, and watch as the lawyers contort the law, logic, and even basic reason into a pretzel to maintain that this was anything but perjury. Watch as a judge bends over backwards to avoid making a just ruling against his corporate overlords.

Re:Can they legally do this?

[DJ Particle]

But in this situation, she didn't even produce it, she just sang on it. In the hypothetical situation, Coulton would be the producer. That's effectively the same situation we have with Mega. Mega (or indie entities hired by them) wrote and produced the song and video. The RIAA artists simply appeared on it.

Re:but on the toll roads you can pay less to go fa

[dcollins]

"E-ZPass Makes It Easy to Catch Cheaters" -- ABC News 8/13/2007

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3472823#.TuT-BVZqDgc

Re:Can they legally do this?

[SuricouRaven]

So the contract would define produce as including singing.

I recall reading somewhere that such things are common clauses in contracts signed by new, as-yet-unknown artists. Studios worry that without such a clause, an artist who achieves success may be poached away by a rival studio offering better conditions or higher royalties.