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?

[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).

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?

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

[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

[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

[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: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: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: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.