Pop Artists Support Megaupload; Universal Censors

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pop Artists Support Megaupload; Universal Censors

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday December 10, 2011 @02:12AM from the conflict-of-interest dept.

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."

48 of 255 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Ah good old Kim by InsightIn140Bytes · 2011-12-10 02:12 · Score: 4, Informative

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" :-)
1. Re:Ah good old Kim by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-10 02:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You can't compare The Pirate Bay and Megaupload - Megaupload charges it's users, TPB asks for donations. Big difference.
2. Re:Ah good old Kim by kylegordon · 2011-12-10 02:33 · Score: 2
  
  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!
3. Re:Ah good old Kim by InsightIn140Bytes · 2011-12-10 02:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:Ah good old Kim by InsightIn140Bytes · 2011-12-10 02:39 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
5. Re:Ah good old Kim by Greger47 · 2011-12-10 02:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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
6. Re:Ah good old Kim by JBMcB · 2011-12-10 02:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
7. Re:Ah good old Kim by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-10 03:15 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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
8. Re:Ah good old Kim by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-10 03:24 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
9. Re:Ah good old Kim by Greger47 · 2011-12-10 03:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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
10. Re:Ah good old Kim by Greger47 · 2011-12-10 04:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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
11. Re:Ah good old Kim by pjt33 · 2011-12-10 04:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
12. Re:Ah good old Kim by lightknight · 2011-12-10 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
13. Re:Ah good old Kim by houstonbofh · 2011-12-10 05:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That could be why some of the artists only gave spoken word interviews that were mixed into the song later... Big Ooops by UMG.
14. Re:Ah good old Kim by houstonbofh · 2011-12-10 05:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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?
15. Re:Ah good old Kim by BitZtream · 2011-12-10 05:32 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
16. Re:Ah good old Kim by Skidborg · 2011-12-10 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  Putting fake stories about yourself on the internet isn't rocket science.
  
  --
  Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
17. Re:Ah good old Kim by AmiMoJo · 2011-12-10 06:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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
18. Re:Ah good old Kim by flimflammer · 2011-12-10 07:36 · Score: 2
  
  Hey, it takes a great degree of skill to become a certified duct tape expert.
19. Re:Ah good old Kim by identity0 · 2011-12-10 09:14 · Score: 2
  
  Ahhhh, posting anonymously while posting your work email in the sig.
  Yeah, you're a real hacker.
20. Re:Ah good old Kim by LordLimecat · 2011-12-10 16:14 · Score: 2
  
  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".
21. Re:Ah good old Kim by ffflala · 2011-12-12 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  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.
You must wait 00:59 to read this comment. by sakdoctor · 2011-12-10 02:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Pay to be a Premium Reader:
* Priority reading of comments.
* Reading comments in parallel.
* Astroturfing free comments.
* Support for reading accelerators.
1. Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment. by thegarbz · 2011-12-10 02:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment. by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2011-12-10 03:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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...)
3. Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment. by Scrameustache · 2011-12-10 03:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  You can't take the sky from me...
4. Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment. by dcollins · 2011-12-10 04:09 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
5. Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment. by drew870mitchell · 2011-12-10 07:25 · Score: 2
  
  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.
6. Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment. by thegarbz · 2011-12-10 11:16 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
7. Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment. by thegarbz · 2011-12-10 17:45 · Score: 2
  
  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:What what? by Dyinobal · 2011-12-10 02:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Bah insider trading? Half the members of the US Senate are guilty of worse.
When will they learn? by amiga3D · 2011-12-10 02:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:What what? by alendit · 2011-12-10 02:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

What does it have anything to do with UMG blatantly missusing take-down notice system?
Pop Artists by houghi · 2011-12-10 03:11 · Score: 3

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.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
1. Re:Pop Artists by VortexCortex · 2011-12-10 03:27 · Score: 2
  
  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!
you always blame the devil by circletimessquare · 2011-12-10 04:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:relevant links.. by v1 · 2011-12-10 04:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:did they sign a work for hire with universal? by houstonbofh · 2011-12-10 05:29 · Score: 2

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:What what? by Gaygirlie · 2011-12-10 05:30 · Score: 4, Informative

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? by Gaygirlie · 2011-12-10 05:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:A great opportunity to contact your representat by SuricouRaven · 2011-12-10 06:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Re:What what? by Gaygirlie · 2011-12-10 06:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? by flimflammer · 2011-12-10 08:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

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? by cheekyjohnson · 2011-12-10 10:33 · Score: 2

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.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:relevant links.. by metacell · 2011-12-10 10:37 · Score: 2

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:...who cares by cheekyjohnson · 2011-12-10 10:46 · Score: 2

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.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:But the celebrities didn't speak their support. by Anthony+Mouse · 2011-12-10 18:38 · Score: 2

Interesting allegations. Wouldn't it be nice if we could see the original video and verify them?
WHOOSH!!! by sjames · 2011-12-10 20:41 · Score: 2

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.