Kim Dotcom Alleges Studios Wanted to Work With Megaupload 139
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.
Revised TOS? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Revised TOS? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you had millions to invest in Disney, they would listen. You sound mighty naive.
Re:Revised TOS? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
they=Disney
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 th
Re:Revised TOS? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Point of correction. Whilst this is true in most of the civilised world in some US states corrupt legislators via criminally applied campaign donations screwed over the consumer at the behest of corporate interests made post purchase End User Licence Agreements legal. Which flies in the face of the cost to the consumer to make the purchase and effort required to view the post purchase contract alteration (this cost should also be legally refunded plus the effort required to purchase an alternate not includ
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That sounds fine to me. The problem is that the manufacturers try to change the terms of the contract *after* you've purchased the product, when you've opened the packaging and got a chance to read the fine print.
And the courts allow them to do this, unless the consumer complains within a reasonable amount of time.
But if it worked the way you describe, I'd be perfectly happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that would invalidate the EULA as well since you don't see it until after the transaction is complete.
Re: (Score:2)
As a victim of Sony's XCP trojan, all I can say is the only thing Sony customers should do is stop being Sony customers. That company needs to die as horrible a death as possible.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Revised TOS? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Delusional much? That wouldn't work, at all. Contracts have to be agreed to by both parties, so if you change the contract your changes don't apply unless the company is provided the contract and agrees to it. And no, anonymously mailing it back so they can't reply would not work either. Obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, the original contract isn't valid either if he doesn't click "Accept" on the installer. He can just dissect the installer file and not be in breach of the click-wrap agreement.
The GP is going about it in a very roundabout way, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Then he's breaching copyright by installing the software without a license though. The default under copyright law is deny, not allow. (This isn't to be confused with using the software where the courts tend to be a bit hit and miss about whether the license is needed - installing is clearly making a copy of the software that would require a license. Whether it should require a license is beside the point).
Re: (Score:2)
Depends - in many places, the law explicitly allows making copies that are necessary in order to use the software (such as the copy which is created when the software is loaded into RAM). I'm not sure if installing the software on the hard drive counts as an allowed copy, though.
Anyway, I was thinking more about reverse-engineering - he can analyse the code contained on the installation disc without copying it to the hard drive.
If you don't succeed at first, try again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun Tzu (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
MegaUpload paid well-known artists to upload their own content.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't fail, they did both in parallel. In fact, MegaUpload was planning to increase the amount of licensed content and become a direct competitor to the traditional music distributors.
Also note that they didn't specifically pay people to upload pirated material. They just paid people when other people downloaded their files, without caring what it was. They were, of course, aware that a large portion of it was pirated.
Re: (Score:2)
Why haven't the record companies sued the artists for breach of contract then?
MegaUpload recorded a song with several well-known artists, the MegaUpload Song [youtube.com], and put it up on YouTube, and Universal quickly used their administrative priveleges with YouTube (intended for DMCA takedowns) to take the song down. When MegaUpload complained that the song didn't infringe anyone's copyright, it was put up again, and then immediately taken down again for "breach of TOS".
When MegaUpload complained in court that Unive
Re:Sun Tzu (Score:4, Insightful)
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)"
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a way we might be able to work together and both make money ina a cooperative way...(and succeeding that, we'll see your butt in jail and make all the monies for ourselvesies, my precious)
FTFY. The music industries wanted Kim Dotcom on a leash so that they could better drag him to Shelob's lair.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two kinds of armed thieves. One uses a gun that fires bullets, one uses a gun that fires cops.
(meme stolen from The Who)
Re:NDA Much..? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They've also prevented him from paying his company's bills, which has effectively destroyed it - even if found not guilty and the request denied, it'd cost him millions to set MegaUpload back up, and that's only if there's a web host on Earth that would even consider talking to him. His assets in the US, Hong Kong and Europe have also been frozen. And most importantly John Key wants a Free Trade Agreement with the United States (fuck knows why) so Kim doesn't really have a chance of the extradition being
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he didn't sign an NDA? Nobody can force you to sign one.
Re: (Score:2)
whooooosh
Re: (Score:2)
Twat.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't say ALL legal systems are bad, just the one we have now.
Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Right, because that other reason copyrights exist (to improve the public's access to creative works) is so relevant these days. In this century, the point of copyright is to create a favorable environment for certain businesses, nothing more.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
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 [kickstarter.com] is impressive, with Double Fine getting $3.3 million and a webcomic getting $1.2 million.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume the GP meant public broadcasting service (PBS).
I don't think you need to go that far to show that copyright is not necessary to generate revenue, though. Ordinary, commercial broadcasting of TV programmes for free has worked quite well for more than half a century, thanks to advertising revenue. Even without copyright, the company that produces a TV programme will get most of the viewers, because they're first to broadcast it. The freeloading networks will have to make do with reruns.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
How about the "it's my work so I'll distribute it however the hell I want" model?
Seriously. What ever happened to the person who actually did the work deciding how they want to distribute it? If you don't like the way I'm distributing it, don't buy it. It seems everyone in the debate (publishers/agencies/consumers) has only themselves in mind. Just let artists decide. They have brains too, you know, and don't need armchair model legislation thrust upon them.
Re: (Score:2)
Just let artists decide.
Sure, in those cases where the artists go it alone they have every right to decide how to distribute their material. Things might be a little different when they receive funding and support from someone else to produce that material. Artists are not forced into agreements with publishers and producers, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, in those cases where the artists go it alone they have every right to decide how to distribute their material. Things might be a little different when they receive funding and support from someone else to produce that material. Artists are not forced into agreements with publishers and producers, etc...
I'm not getting at all how this is different from things today. Nothing is stopping artists today from using the Patronage model. As pointed out, plenty of artists are doing it. But again, it's their decision.
It seems like people advocating for change are simply trying reduce the rights of artists to control their material, when again, artists should be free to restrict/enable distribution of their material however they please. If I only want to make it available every other monday for a million dollars und
Re: (Score:2)
... artists should be free to restrict/enable distribution of their material however they please.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Absolutely, yes, artists should be able to distribute their work as they please - as long as they are not beholden to another. However, many (most?) artists are given support (i.e., paid) by labels and production companies to producer their work. In these cases, those entities have a stake in the product and should have a say in its distribution if, for no other reason, to recoup their investment. Artists signed to a label are using the Patronage model, it's just
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Absolutely, yes, artists should be able to distribute their work as they please - as long as they are not beholden to another. However, many (most?) artists are given support (i.e., paid) by labels and production companies to producer their work. In these cases, those entities have a stake in the product and should have a say in its distribution if, for no other reason, to recoup their investment. Artists signed to a label are using the Patronage model, it's just that their Patron is a corporation.
I don't disagree. In fact, I think that makes my point. There is nothing currently stopping the patronage model. What seems to be in dispute is that the patron should also not be able to set conditions on distribution. An artist should be free to accept and enforce whatever terms they like, including terms as a result of patronage.
If a patron wants to pay for work and provide it for free to the general public, that's great. If they want to control distribution, that is also fair. They have shared ownership
Re: (Score:2)
Artists signed to a label are using the Patronage model, it's just that their Patron is a corporation.
No, this is not the same as patronage. A patron is someone who contributes to the arts because of idealism, or because they enjoy what the artist is producing, or because it gives them social status, or any number of reasons, EXCEPT financial gain. Giving an artist money in exchange for the rights to what they produce is not patronage, it's just an investment.
Modern patronage works by asking for donations on a web site, and offering symbolic perks like your name in the credits.
Asking for money in exchange f
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like people advocating for change are simply trying reduce the rights of artists to control their material, when again, artists should be free to restrict/enable distribution of their material however they please. If I only want to make it available every other monday for a million dollars under an agency system, that's my choice. As soon as people who aren't creating content start dictating how content should be distributed, we have a problem.
Nobody but the media corporations are trying to dictate how content should be distributed.
If we abolish copyright, it means the artist can choose to distribute their work as they want (and people are free to copy it as they want), or the artist can choose to keep the work to themselves and not be copied.
I'm not advocating a total abolisment of copyright, just pointing out that weakening copyright means less dictating, not more.
Re: (Score:2)
Shakespeare also produced original content for his own, very popular, theatre business. According to today's copyright lobby, that'd never work, because all the other theatres in the country could just copy the plays without paying Shakespeare a cent.
Re: (Score:2)
The modern patronage model works like this:
An artist declares that they're going to produce a new work of art, and asks for donations. People donate the amount of their choice, and in return, they usually get perks like being first to view/listen to the art, access to extra materials, their name prominently displayed, meeting the artist, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I personally very much favor this solution;
0. All copyright must be global. No exceptions.
1. Everyone gets a basic copyright term of X years from release date, where X is a number between 5 and 20.
2. After X years, the works is released to public domain, unless...
3. The rights holder pay a fee to their respective native government each year to maintain copyright.
4. The fee should have a minimum threshold, say, $5,000 USD, or alternatively 5% of total earnings.
5. The reason for this fee is that society grant
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because before copyright was invented there was no culture whatsoever.
Have you had any knowledge of culture, you would not have claimed such a BS.
FYI, IMAX theater musicals, MTV cartoons and superhero comics are not the foundation of human culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, it really has come so far as to proponents of IP claim that there would be no cultural advance without copyright and patents in their current form.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That's a reasonable position, but there are arguments against even a short and limited copyright. For example, once you have copyright, content producers become dependent on the slow and steady income from certain works, and start putting pressure on the legislators to extend it. That's how we ended up with the mess we have today.
Most people assume that copyright is necessary to recoup investments from, for example, $100 million films, but I'm not entirely convinced.
First, films tend to collect most of thei
Re: (Score:2)
Even if we don't need $100m movies, or $40m games, if the limit is whatever a rag-tag bunch of individuals can beg from their family & friends there'd be no cultural heritage for anyone to steal^H^H^H^H^H share, and the whole argument would be completely moot.
Odd how the 1%ers consider sharing to be "stealing". The love of money is the root of all evil.
Few are arguing for the abolition of copyright, I certainly don't, but its abolition would be far better for culture than the present forever+70 years. A
Re: (Score:2)
You know the plural of anecdote is not data right? Anecdotal evidence from one or two studies that showed that on this specific instance pirated versions being available increased sales does not mean that this is true in all cases.
That in mind, I actually do produce products, and generally take a passive-aggressive approach to piracy - I'll ignore it, and stab back if they get in my face with it. (Here's a tip, pirate sites - don't link to the marketing material on the developer's site from your rls page,
Re: (Score:2)
The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales - An Empirical Analysis [unc.edu]:
Downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero, despite rather precise estimates. Moreover, these estimates are of moderate economic significance and are inconsistent with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the recent decline in music sales.
The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study for Industry Canada [ic.gc.ca]:
Among Canadians who engage in P2P file-sharing, our results suggest that for every 12 P2P downloaded songs, music purchases increase by 0.44 CDs. That is, downloading the equivalent of approximately one CD increases purchasing by about half of a CD. We are unable to find evidence of any relationship between P2P file-sharing and purchases of electronically-delivered music tracks (e.g., songs from iTunes). With respect to the other effects, roughly half of all P2P tracks were downloaded because individuals wanted to hear songs before buying them or because they wanted to avoid purchasing the whole bundle of songs on the associated CDs and roughly one quarter were downloaded because they were not available for purchase. Our results indicate that only the effect capturing songs downloaded because they were not available for purchase influenced music purchasing, a 1 percent increase in such downloads being associated with nearly a 4 percent increase in CD purchases.
Re: (Score:2)
I was addressing the misconception that one or two studies "prove" that pirates buy more music. Even the first of your two studies claimed it couldn't prove that. The second one of your studies is one of the "one or two" that claim it.
Re: (Score:2)
You hit the nail on the head. The guy that DLs the pirate version gets no support. Why would they expect to? You may well have sold a few more copies than you would have otherwise because someone pirated it.
Pirating software is pretty damned stupid. You're begging to be pwned installing dodgy software.
Re: (Score:2)
*facepalm* Yes, the same reason it always existed then. To improve the public's access to creative works by creating a favourable environment for businesses which create those works so that such businesses don't get laughed out of the room when asking for investment.
The problem is that the "favourable environment" copyright creates for businesses, is a free lunch at the expense of the consumers. Copyright beyond the first few years don't give any incentive to create new works; it only allows companies to take out a higher price for the works that still happen to be popular after a few years. It rewards companies for sitting on their @$$ets instead of creating something new.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Media companies, oil and war contractors are often parts of the same conglomerates.
In the case of the members of ALEC, you'll find some of each. All funneling legislation to Republican-controlled state houses all over America. Oh, and as a Democratic congressman recently learned the hard way, the American Legislative Exchange Council has a strict "No Democrats Allowed" policy. They don't publicize it (in fact, they don't publicize a
Re: (Score:3)
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.
I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it may mean more than one might think. Having proof of the discussions proves a possibility of non-infringing use. This is one of the excuses people always use as to why google is ok, but megaupload isn't, they claim that google has legitimate uses, despite the massive amounts of "illegal" content available, whereas they hold that megaupload doesn't and is primarily for illegal use.
Proving that you have been in talks with "legitimate" organizations (wow... I can't believe I just called the MPAA leg
Re: (Score:2)
In many countries, including both the one where Kim is being tried, and the one doing the trying...
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like some(eg. Disney) were just nibbling, and tryin
nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Personally, I believe it was more "both sides tried to gain an unfair advantage over the other and ended up getting screwed" situation. Of course, getting screwed doesn't affect a multinational corporation as much as it does an individual.
work (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Better question. Keeping in mind the laws today are the same as they were 4 years ago, SOPA et al didn't go through and all that, why did they wait 4 years to drop the hammer on him?
Re: (Score:2)
It appears they waited for SOPA to give them a stronger case, but when that failed, they used the second best solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:work (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if, say, Disney, struck a deal with MegaUpload, MegaUpload would still be distributing pirated versions of other companies' files. So Disney would buy a service from a company they think is illegitimate.
But I agree that the point is not very strong.
Re:work (Score:4, Insightful)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the fact that the media companies uploaded their own material *for marketing purposes* (according to the TFA). That's basically admitting that piracy is good for them, at least some of the piracy.
doesn't make sense... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that money is DotCom's main objective. He could easily live his dream of being an independent larger-than-life millionaire on the money he made with MU. Why sacrifice all that and become a middle manager at Disney?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because a) he didn't want to have to answer to anyone else (or share profits), and b) he didn't care about the risks (or wasn't worried about them).
I mean, I was surprised at the Kim Dotcom raid, but only because the raids were successful and Megaupload got nuked off the 'net. Up until this point, pretty much everything the MAFIAA has done to stem file sharing has been like fighting the hydra; cut one head off, two grow in it's place. The Pirate Bay has been thumbing their noses at the MAFIAA for
Re: (Score:3)
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."
His name is Kim Schmitz... (Score:2, Informative)
... and he's a fraud.
Re:His name is Kim Schmitz... (Score:5, Interesting)
So? Chris Dodd is a fraud [zdnet.com], 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Kim Dotcom provides a useful service to the public by making copyrighted works available for a very low cost.
Sorry, "provided".
Business-speak (Score:2)
Verification? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the shadiness scale, next to the entertainment companies he is Doris Day.
Hedging their bets -- why not? (Score:2)
It sounds like the studio bosses have decided to hedge their bets. On the one hand they are constantly busy lobbying to have laws passed to introduce more censorship that will hopefully be effective enough at countering piracy. On the other hand they may actually realize at some point that their lobbying efforts are futile and want to try out new business strategies, but of course any such efforts are bound to take place while their anti-piracy policing efforts are still in full swing.
So perhaps the next