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."
Ah good old Kim (Score:5, Informative)
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 [youtube.com].
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"
Re:Ah good old Kim (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah good old Kim (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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!
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: (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
Re: (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.
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:Ah good old Kim (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah good old Kim (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.
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: (Score:3)
Interesting allegations. Wouldn't it be nice if we could see the original video and verify them?
Re:Ah good old Kim (Score:5, 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/ [torrentfreak.com]
Now when I check a few YouTube links [youtube.com] 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
Re: (Score:2)
Now when I check a few YouTube links [youtube.com] the message have changed to a terms of use violation instead, convenient for UMG's spin control, eh?
I really dont think UMG has the ability to force the message to change. Someone at youtube makes that decision.
Nice try, but the artists in the video don't get any copyright in the video, the guy holding the camera does.
Rather than bickering endlessly about this, lets just see what the US government says about this:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html [copyright.gov]
Relevant sections...
Initial Ownership. — Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.
So it appears the authors-- the artists-- are the initial owners.
TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP:
The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law,
ie, by a contract, which was almost CERTAINLY in place, and would have transferred ownership to UMG.
In other words, no, UMG really does own the copyright. The works for hir
Re: (Score:2)
What you say is only true only if the artists where directly involved in writing the song and lyrics, if they just performed it, no copyright for them.
The only thing we know from the video is that they preformed, who wrote the song any lyrics we don't know. We do know that Megaupload claims they signed contracts with everyone involved and own the rights. If the artists signed mutually exclusive contracts with both Universal and Megaupload, then again this is a contract dispute.
-greger
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than bickering endlessly about this, lets just see what the US government says about this:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html [copyright.gov]
Relevant sections...
Initial Ownership. -- Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.
So close, but it's 201 b) you should have looked at, not 201 a)
Works Made for Hire. -- In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
Re:Ah good old Kim (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 almo
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately you can still view it here: http://www.megavideo.com/?v=NFS30PZO [megavideo.com]
When will media companies learn that you can't censor the internet? Doing so only causes more people to look at what you tried to hide. UMG really is a dinosaur.
Re: (Score:3)
I should have actually checked the video link: It does NOT say "terms of use violation", it says "Copyright claim by UMG [youtube.com]". 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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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: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: (Score:2)
B-b-b-b-ut he PAID someone to make him a flash web site that played music and had cartoons that proclaimed him a hacker with mad skillz
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, it takes a great degree of skill to become a certified duct tape expert.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ahhhh, posting anonymously while posting your work email in the sig.
Yeah, you're a real hacker.
Re: (Score:2)
That being the case, my guess is that Mr. Dotcom paid an arm and a leg for every hip-hopper who appears in it, plus a boatload more for Printz Board and the Blackeyed Pea who "sings" it.
And then Universal "stole" it. And it even fits the definition of "stole" for us since Megaupload no longer had the item on Youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
/me grabs popcorn (Score:2)
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: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: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:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment. (Score:4, 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.
Re:You must wait 00:59 to read this comment. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 t
but on the toll roads you can pay less to go faste (Score:2)
pay faster with ez-pass and pay less that the cash rate.
Re: (Score:2)
The margin is surveillance/tracking info, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
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:
htt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
just to be fair, the Disney parks don't charge anything for their Fast Pass system, and because of that it actually works fairly well. I think they were one of the first places to do it as a crowd management system. Al l the other parks later saw it as a moneymaking venture. (Next one I saw it at was the Universal parks just up the road from Disneyworld). Pay an extra $20 each on top of your $80 ticket and you get to the front of each ride once. Really separates out those who can and can't.
That said, I'm s
Re: (Score:2)
Thank $deity for BitTorrent. It is just a shame that most browsers don't have built-in support, which is why sites like Megaupload are so popular. If you want to get material out without people having to download client software and without you paying anything then cyberlockers are the only option right now.
Hay, Mozilla, want to differentiate yourself and add some really cool new features? Build in BitTorrent support.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
It is no longer called "nickel and dime" it is now called "driving the revenue stream". Please update your phrase book.
Thanks.
That and it is now $12 and $50.
Re: (Score:2)
Pay to be a Premium Reader:
* Priority reading of comments. * Reading comments in parallel. * Astroturfing free comments. * Support for reading accelerators.
You mean cocaine? I'd pay a premium for that.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean cocaine? I'd pay a premium for that.
That's another good example.
You can go over to the bad side of town and pickup some cocaine for a price, and have to deal with things like the wait time for it to be available, questionable purity. and of course the risk involved with it being illegal.
Or, you can go pay a premium to a doctor, to have him/her write on a piece of paper such that grants you permission to pay a premium at the pharmacy to pickup some Adderall.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
When I'm dead, I'm sure I won't be all that worried about my shoes.
you always blame the devil (Score:5, 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
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame the devil for doing bad things with your sole after you sold it to him.
What does the devil want with my pet flounder? Oh, god, Bessie, I'm sorry, I didn't know it was him!
Re: (Score:2)
A great opportunity to contact your representative (Score:2)
I see this an a great opportunity to contact my representative. Most often, congressman get letters from tons of ignorant people mixed with intelligent an unintelligent letters from mobs of people in various campaigns against _____ bill. This is a great showcase of what is wrong with the system; a clear, unambiguous example of its corruption and flaws. I will be contacting my representative about this story in the hopes that he can see exactly why we don't want SOPA to pass.
Re:A great opportunity to contact your representat (Score:5, Interesting)
WHOOSH!!! (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What what? (Score:5, Insightful)
What does it have anything to do with UMG blatantly missusing take-down notice system?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty you can do about it - you're just too scared to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
My point here is that the only one so far stating it was illegal is Kim, a known embezzler, and criminal, but is it truly illegal? If so why should I care if "megaupload" or their "video" goes offline it's a non-issue to me
Ask Martin Niemöller why you should care.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
These days the criminal is the hero and the law is the villain...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dear god is that song horrible. It's a bunch of celeb-statements about megaupload incorporated into a cringeworthy advertisement-song. I'm all for the message, but please don't make me listen to that song again.
Taking into consideration those artists and the stuff they've put out recently, you actually thought it was going to be good?
Re: (Score:2)
M-E-G-A, upload to me today...
Send me a file, MEGAUPLOAD
MEEEEEEEGAAAAA
MEEEEEEEGAAAAA
What's not to like in such poetry?
did they sign a work for hire with universal? (Score:2)
if so and if Universal clams that they own this then where is the over time and back taxes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well...maybe these artists should in turn uses the fraudulent claim clause to sue the RIAA?
Re: (Score:2)
Youre not understanding. Parent is saying that the copyright to any song produced by them is almost certainly held by their label, which makes this entire article a load of speculative nonsense.
If the takedown was indeed nonsense, and one of the artists or Kim wants to put their own necks on the line, they can always use the DMCA to file a counter-claim. Of course, then they really are on the hook if theyre lying, so I doubt youd see that; this makes MUCH better publicity for folks ignorant of how the DMC
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they signed over the copyright, then the labels have the copyright and they absolutely CAN sue anyone who violates it. It doesnt matter how the artists feel about it (though theyre welcome to file a futile lawsuit), the labels currently, now, this instant, hold the copyrights and can take legal action against third parties to defend them.
Moreover, the "automatic" copyright on that video is legally assigned to whoever was holding the camera,
Thats really not accurate, multiple parties have a stake in the video depending on what contracts were signed, and one of those parties is UMG.
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of label contracts are not work-for-hire contracts and signed artists are not generally considered label employees -- I would be very surprised if these artists are exceptions to the rule.
The automatic copyright on the video was assigned to the cameraman('s employer) and nobody else could have a stake in it -- including the people in the video. Even if those artists have exclusivity agreements with UMG, the artists never owned a copyright on this video and therefore neither would UMG under
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be the classic scenario of the so called "Equity's Darling", i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_purchaser [wikipedia.org], albeit in the realm of "Intellectual" property instead of tangibles.
I'm not totally sure whether this principle applies, but it might. Though if it does, it would be really hard to argue that Mega___ didn't have any (constructive) knowledge of the deals, since any prudent person in their shoes would have asked about any exclusivity deals....
PS: Stop arguing like school children a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible to be a "bad artist". In the same way as a kangaroo in a Ford pickup is still a "bad driver".
Re: (Score:2)
Well... can art even be rated objectively? Subjectively it can, of course.
But regarding art, instead of "objective" I have heard this funny term "intersubjective", which roughly means that by average a certain song is rated good or bad by the listeners. So if some songsmith creates a new hit for Mileh Cyruz and people generally think it's kinda catchy, then it could be seen as an intersubjectively successful song.
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
So they derive income for premium services by replacing adverts on the web? Google, Facebook etc. are going to love that. Top of the stack wins.
So yes, it sounds slimy, AND YET, it's MY browser and I should be the one who decides which ads, if any, that I care to view.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.