Kim Dotcom Alleges Studios Wanted to Work With Megaupload

Fluffeh writes "In a recent story that is beating around the nets, Kim Dotcom has fired back at studios with emails that make for some interesting reading: 'A Disney executive e-mailed Megaupload in 2008. He said he was interested in having Megaupload host Disney content, but said he would need Megaupload to tweak its terms of service to make it clear Disney retained ownership of files uploaded to the site. He sent Megaupload a proposed alternative to the standard Megaupload TOS. Fox emailed "Please let me know if you have some time to chat this week about how we can work together to better monetize your inventory," in an attempt to promote their newly launched ad network. And finally, this gem: a Warner Brothers executive e-mailed Megaupload seeking to expedite the process of uploading Warner content to Megaupload. "I would like to know if your site can take a Media RSS feed for our syndications," he wrote. "We would like to upload our content all at once instead of one video at a time."' Pot calling the kettle black anyone?" Torrentfreak is running the full interview with Kim Dotcom.

Comments

Revised TOS?

[bdabautcb]

What would happen if an individual tried to send Disney a revised TOS for one of their services?

Re:Revised TOS?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had millions to invest in Disney, they would listen. You sound mighty naive.

Re:Revised TOS?

[MasterMan]

What would happen if an individual tried to send Disney a revised TOS for one of their services?

Eh, what is your point? Feel free to send Disney your revised TOS. They can either accept or reject it. Just like MegaUpload could do.

They weren't forcing MegaUpload to change anything, they were just pointing out the parts that would need to be changed in TOS if they were to use the service. Seems like standard business negotiations.

Re:Revised TOS?

[aaaaaaargh!]

Perhaps he's idealistic, but he might not be as naive as it seems. If millions of people would send Disney a revised TOS (or any other company whatsoever), they would have a serious problem.

Here is something to try out, just for the fun of it: Read the EULAs and TOS when you buy or lease a product, make changes to the contract, and then send the changes back to the company with the note that you do not agree with the original contract, and do all of this within a short period after purchase. Some people in their legal department will probably hate you, but the worst thing they can do is keeping you from using the product, in case of which they'll have to pay you back the full price.

Should work great with software and all kinds of content where you're not given a complete contract to sign before buying the product. (Obscure links and small print on the packaging doesn't count.) Now if only enough people would do that with Sony products...

Re:Revised TOS?

[tehcyder]

You need to read up on contract law a bit. When you pay a shop for goods, legally you are making a tender and they are accepting your offer. At that point, the contract is complete, and you can't just go back and demand another contract, any more than you can re-negotiate the price.

Someone selling to the public would obviously have to consider customer relations, but if they could see you were just dicking them around, I imagine they'd tell (in so many words) to fuck off and try to get a refund from the place you bought whatever it was..

Re:Revised TOS?

[Umuri]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I think YOU need to read up on contract law a bit.
The contract of sale is what is complete when you pay for a product, however any additional contracts, such as EULA, TOS, etc ( which is what the parent poster was talking about) are extraneous to that. In addition, they cannot just put a note saying "you agree to the contract by buying this", because that violates the contract law requirement of meeting of the minds.

Basically, if you buy a product, and then open it to find an EULA saying they get your firstborn, you can mail their legal department with an counter-proposed contract, and if they in turn reject that, they are liable for your full cost of obtaining their product originally. Either that, or you can use it and declare their EULA void and hope that it holds up in court (which has stricken down many shrinkwrap licenses in the past).

Re:Revised TOS?

[the_B0fh]

This is insightful? Seriously? The Anonymous OP stated that if you had millions. If it's a contract worth millions, Disney will make an exception for you to their TOS. No idea why this concept is so difficult for people to understand.

We're not talking about $19.95/month here guys. We're talking about a shitload of money.

If you don't succeed at first, try again.

[Issarlk]

Looks like it's time to arrest him again, for rape this time.

Sun Tzu

[bhlowe]

Know your enemy.

The studios wanted to have a legitimate relationship going so they could have some leverage or ability for one on one discussions about the pesky little problem of rampant piracy on his site.
What did you expect Kim to say, that he preferred doing business exclusively with illegal file sharers?

Re:Sun Tzu

[metacell]

MegaUpload paid well-known artists to upload their own content.

Re:Sun Tzu

[Motard]

More like a carrot and stick approach. "Here's a way we might be able to work together and both make money ina a cooperative way...(and failing that, we'll see your butt in jail)"

Yep

[jythie]

Not surprising in the least.

It really seems like the studios are using threats of various laws as tokens in negotiating favorable terms in business deals rather then as tools for actually protecting their IP.

Re:Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

Not surprising in the least.

It really seems like the studios are using threats of various laws as tokens in negotiating favorable terms in business deals rather then as tools for actually protecting their IP.

Of course. Look how much they pay for those laws:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B02

Re:Yep

[PopeRatzo]

Of course. Look how much they pay for those laws:

Google: American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

They are the clearing house for all laws that are purchased by corporations. They'll even write the law for you and then helpfully handle the "lobbying effort" to get the law passed. And by "lobbying effort" I mean they will pump millions into the campaigns of lawmakers who will push and pass their laws. And by "push and pass" I mean the way you push and pass a rock-hard stool. And by "stool" I mean Republican.

I'm putting the above to music, in my effort to re-make Schoolhouse Rock for the 21st century. "How to get law passed if you are a wealthy corporation" is the title of this one.

Re:Yep

[robot256]

Right, because before copyright was invented there was no culture whatsoever. I think you meant there would be less cultural heritage to go around. And no, I am not splitting hairs: the difference between "less" and "none" is very significant because it means that a compromise exists. There are extremists on both sides declaring the end of the world unless copyright is either abolished or codified as a god-given right, but neither is a rational position. Once you accept that copyright is not absolutely necessary for the world to keep spinning, you can cut it down to size based on the logical argument for its existence.

The only fair solution is a balance for everyone concerned--a limited copyright that lets businesses recoup their investment without keeping works hostage to private interests for eternity. I am just as frustrated with the "all information should be free" crowd as I am with the "all free information is stealing" crowd, since neither has a lasting solution to the problem.

Re:Yep

[Moryath]

Oh fuck you.

I am just as frustrated with the "all information should be free" crowd as I am with the "all free information is stealing" crowd, since neither has a lasting solution to the problem.

Actually, the solution pre-copyright was the Patronage model. The state, and certain wealthy donors, made a purpose of funding artists in return for their producing entertainment that was accessible to them and to the public at large. This was the model under which some of the greatest Baroque and Classical art and music were produced, as well as the works of Shakespeare; the subsidization of the Queen allowed for the larger public to attend the Shakespearean performances for a relatively small sum.

It would not be that hard to re-institute such a model today, and there would definitely be a demand to do so if copyright terms were reduced. The structure for it still remains, and the public broadcasting system has shown that it can work quite well indeed.

So now the next time you want to say the "information should be free" crowd doesn't have a solution to the problem, I'll kindly thank you to shut your unqualified, worthless, ignorant pie hole.

Re:Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell modded this flamebait? GPP was the flamer, obviously attacking the Free Software model and anyone who doesn't suck at the tit of the copyright mafia.

Re:Yep

[PRMan]

At the end of such an Informative post you actually compared "Republican" to "turd"? Wake up man! Both sides are the same! Don't you know that by your comparison all you're communicating is that you're a pawn of the media? Besides, we're talking about media companies, not oil and war contractors, so if your blaming leans at all, it should lean left.

Re:Yep

[icebraining]

Not to mention that nowadays you can have "distributed patronage" instead of relying on rich people or the state. The most funded page on Kickstarter is impressive, with Double Fine getting $3.3 million and a webcomic getting $1.2 million.

Re:Yep

[green1]

I agree, but I think you make it sound even more difficult than it is. You imply only wealthy donors could fund art, These days that simply isn't the case, enough less wealthy people can also fund art just as effectively (for example, a musician can make all their money by performing concerts, no single wealthy donor, just a theatre full of average citizens.)

Re:Yep

[saider]

Public broadcasting is not patronage, it is simply a company with a different business model. Their revenue comes directly from consumers, but they also accept advertising as well (it is much less intrusive advertising at that). They do not release their works to the public domain, but rather they use copyright just like any other company. Try to rip and distribute a Nova episode to see what happens.

Re:Yep

[Hatta]

Actually, the solution pre-copyright was the Patronage model.

After the rich are done pillaging civilization, we'll have no choice but to return to the patronage model. Any model that depends on the working classes having expendable income won't work for too much longer.

Re:Yep

[jamstar7]

Check out http://vodo.net/ for a distribution network. They've got some cool shit on there like Pioneer One and L5, stuff that's free to download and distribute. All they ask is that you do so under the Creative Commons License and not remove the imbedded link screens so the creators can fund their next project. It and some of the other alternatives to big studio contracts like Kickstart are things I'm looking into for something I'm working on a bit here...

Re:Yep

[jamstar7]

We do not need copyright to make money from works.

It's one thing to make money from something you've created. It's something else entirely to demand money for being creative long after the creation has run its course. 7 years is long enough for a copyright, with ONE 7 year extension. You want more money, work on creating something else that somebody might want to buy. And be creative for a change. Sequels for the sake of being sequels is ridiculous.

Re:Yep

[PopeRatzo]

You do realize that the media companies are friendlier with the Democrats than with the Republicans, right?

I was referring to ALEC, which is so Republican that recently a Democratic congressman went to one of their meetings, paid the $100 and once they found out he was a Democrat, he was escorted out of the place. This was a Democratic congressman.

I didn't mention media companies.

Re:Yep

[sjames]

Sure, and if you're willing to do all of the enforcing by yourself, go for it. If you want society to help you enforce your choice for you, you're going to have to compromise.

I wonder...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

These little gems do certainly paint the entertainment industry's hatchetmen in the most mendacious possible light(not that they need the help, or that this was news to anybody); but what I'd be delighted to know is whether they correctly dotted their 'i's and crossed their 't's legally speaking...

Strategically, having somebody like Megaupload as a promotional channel makes a great deal of sense: zero cost(to them) distribution channel used, at least initially, by a highly cost-sensitive(but, if capturable, quite desireable, youth market); but with enough legal and general sleaziness to keep the Disney moms away and offer them a way of squeezing and/or cutting off at a later date(as they appear to be attempting now).

However, as the copyright holders, it is conceivable that they may actually have authorized MegaUpload's activities, at least for some of their material, when they crossed the line from 'merely ignoring' to 'actively aiding and abetting and discussing how to more efficiently upload themselves'. If the person uploading does actually have the power to authorize uses of a copyrighted work, it is conceivable that even those flimsy "Yup, I totally pinkie swear that I'm the copyright holder and this is A-OK" clickwraps that many of the cyberlocker types have you click through could actually end up meaning something... That would be hilarious.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

However, as the copyright holders, it is conceivable that they may actually have authorized MegaUpload's activities, at least for some of their material, when they crossed the line from 'merely ignoring' to 'actively aiding and abetting and discussing how to more efficiently upload themselves'. If the person uploading does actually have the power to authorize uses of a copyrighted work, it is conceivable that even those flimsy "Yup, I totally pinkie swear that I'm the copyright holder and this is A-OK" clickwraps that many of the cyberlocker types have you click through could actually end up meaning something... That would be hilarious.

The fact that an authorized copy of a work is made (even if it is made for free) does not mean that it automatically becomes public domain and any further copies can be made without restriction by anyone who feels like it. Even if the copyright holders uploaded some stuff onto MegaUpload it would not inherently authorize everyone else to upload anything they want.

If Megaupload had a contract with the studios they would be fine. Having evidence that the studios at one point discussed hypothetical contracts they might consider entering into under certain conditions - but which they did not in fact enter into - means very little really.

work

[Anonymous Coward]

So in 2008, 4 years ago, they tried to work with him. That apparently didn't work out, why didn't that work out, and how?

And why would that have any impact on what is going on now? If they tried to work with him, but he refused and then started monetizing their copyrighted works on his own, without their permission. Wouldn't that just bring him in more trouble now?

Obviously i didn't RTFA and I'm hoping this really hurts the case of MPAA/RIAA etc. instead of Kim's.

Re:work

[delinear]

No, this doesn't make sense. If there's some guy selling copies of your work on the local market, and he's an amazing salesman, it's not hypochritical of you to approach him and ask if he wants to sell the real thing instead. If that deal falls through then it's still not hypochritical to go report him to the police. And in any event, one party being a hypochrite bears no weight on the legality or illegality of the other party's actions. I'm certainly not going to stand up and argue in favour of MPAA/RIAA as I think they're vampiric entities that need to be ended, but like GP I feel I'm missing whatever point Dotcom is making.

Re:work

[poity]

It seems more like they gave him a chance to go legit. As in, I see you're making money off our products, I'd like you to join our authorized reseller/distributor program. I don't think accusations of hypocrisy really work here, because they make it sound like the media companies should be lambasted for NOT being belligerent on initial contact -- that had they "used the stick" from the beginning, they would have retained the consistency to not get blamed for "hypocrisy"

doesn't make sense...

[lookatmyhorse]

...if Kim could go work with the big industry where he could cash more money and have no worries about copyright, why would he go alone and take the risk?

Re:doesn't make sense...

[nine-times]

Of course, you're assuming that these media companies would actually pay him. It's more likely that they'd rig the contracts to make sure megaupload never got paid, the same way they do with directors, actors, and bands. "Yes, you'll get X% after the costs of Y are recouped. Unfortunately, Y has an infinite cost and will never be recouped, because I pay myself out of Y."

Re:NDA Much..?

[Anonymous Coward]

His business is borked, his entire personal and corporate asset base has been siezed and he faces a long stretch in the pen'.

He better not breach that NDA he signed, he might get in trouble!

Re:His name is Kim Schmitz...

[amoeba1911]

So? Chris Dodd is a fraud, you don't see him being arrested. Nobody is even investigating him, even after he openly admitted to congressional bribery... because the people who would need to start the investigation are the same people who he bribed.

Let's face it, Kim Dotcom is a fraud, but so are the people he's fighting against. Kim is guilty of not bribing the right people. He should have used some of his massive profits to bribe politicians like Chris Dodd of MPAA did, then he wouldn't be in this situation. In a world of frauds, I root for the newcomer fraud.

Verification?

[redbeardcanada]

Is there any way to verify these emails are real? Dotcom is a known "shady character", what are the odds these are fakes to get attention and distract from his legal issues???

nonsense

[__aaltlg1547]

What it shows is that the studios tried to work with him in a manner that would have had them being paid when he distributed their content. They gave him every chance to have a legal, mutually agreeable working relationship and he screwed them over anyway.

All his admirers want is for somebody to help them steal.

Re:nonsense

[green1]

Actually without reading the full text of the discussions with the studios, you could just as easily claim the opposite. Perhaps it shows that he tried hard to work with the studios to come up with a mutually agreeable working relationship and they screwed him over anyway.

Without seeing both sides' positions, how can you claim to know which of the two was being unreasonable?

Re:NDA Much..?

[wild_quinine]

Yeah, fuck the legal system, let's go back to trial by combat. Twat.

Twat? That's a libellous accusation!

He might be a Twat, and he might not. That'll be decided in the proper legal way: you, him, and a couple of crowbars.