Pop Artists Support Megaupload; Universal Censors 255
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."
You must wait 00:59 to read this comment. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pay to be a Premium Reader:
* Priority reading of comments.
* Reading comments in parallel.
* Astroturfing free comments.
* Support for reading accelerators.
Re:Ah good old Kim (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ah good old Kim (Score:5, Insightful)
When will they learn? (Score:5, 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:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment. (Score:5, 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.
Re:What what? (Score:5, Insightful)
What does it have anything to do with UMG blatantly missusing take-down notice system?
Re:Ah good old Kim (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
Re:Ah good old Kim (Score:5, 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.
Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment. (Score:5, 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...)
Re:Ah good old Kim (Score:5, 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
Re:Ah good old Kim (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:relevant links.. (Score:5, 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:
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.
Re:Ah good old Kim (Score:5, 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.
Re:Ah good old Kim (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah good old Kim (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ah good old Kim (Score:5, 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.
Re:What what? (Score:5, 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.