5 ms·

So just like YouTube.

by Sven7 11y ago

scrollaway 11y ago
Yeah, people do tend to forget that most media consumption startups essentially got bootstrapped with a huge amount of copyright infringement. YouTube, Spotify, ... The difference is of course that those startups end up making their content legal. But I don't see how what MU did is not okay, but what YouTube and Spotify did is fine.
- hilbertseries 11y ago
  MU was paying the people that upload illegal content, specifically because they were uploading illegal content.
  - scrollaway 11y ago
    How is that different to having your employees scraping torrent sites for music to add to your library?
    - jamespo 11y ago
      who did that?
      - scrollaway 11y ago
        Spotify during their early years. This is pretty well known.
        lmm 11y ago
        Citation needed. Are you sure you're not thinking of Grooveshark?
        scrollaway 11y ago
        Sorry, I can't find an actual citation - if you ask any Spotify employee though, it's pretty much an open secret that Spotify's initial collection was scraped from the pirate bay.
        ewindisch 11y ago
        What is public knowledge is that CEO Daniel Ek was the former CEO of uTorrent. He has certainly made millions from online copyright infringement, if only perhaps, less directly than Kim-dot-com.
        cballard 11y ago
        I didn't know uTorrent was a company! I haven't used Windows in forever, so I've been using Transmission for a long time, but I feel like that's the equivalent of foobar2000 being a company or something.
  - neutronicus 11y ago
    I mean YouTube gives content creators a slice of ad revenue, so... I don't know if this program was implemented before the copyright crackdown, though.
- Oletros 11y ago
  > But I don't see how what MU did is not okay, but what YouTube and Spotify did is fine. What Spotify did?
  - kuschku 11y ago
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/musician-david-lowery-sues-spotify-for-unlawfully-distributing-music/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/musician-david-lo...
- gcb0 11y ago
  not exactly. the studios and distributors sue everyone, even YouTube. then the one that becomes market leader and gets all the eyeballs usually gets a deal for the lawsuits and the studios have them on a leash for cheaper advertising (remember that a Disney film will spend more on advertising than production over the course of its international release life)
nikcub 11y ago
I actually have an unpublished draft post on my blog titled "Is Megaupload as guilty as YouTube?". The idea of the post was to compare and contrast the internal YouTube emails[1] that came out as part of Viacom vs YouTube with the internal Megaupload emails[2] [2.5]. The reason why the post remained unpublished is because after reading the relevant indictments and court rulings I found that there were clear distinctions between the cases. Namely it was that YouTube were grappling with how to deal with the situation and not sure where they stood while Megaupload knew exactly where they were and what they were doing - they were actually assisting users in locating pirated content when support was emailed. Google also implemented ContentID to help identity content, while in contrast Megaupload placed a cap on the number of takedown requests a content owner could file and internal emails show Kim Dotcom being angry at employees for taking down copyright content that wasn't explicitly cited in an DMCA request. The employees also discussed how they built their filtering system to take down child pornography but not affect copyrighted content. In the latest appeal court decision in Viacom vs YouTube the judge vacated all counts against YouTube and found that the company had no knowledge of specific infringements of copyrighted works. The judge also found that there was no evidence that YouTube induced its users to upload infringing videos, or "interacted with infringing users to a point where it might be said to have participated in their activity." MegaUpload did exactly that. Reading the MegaUpload indictment[3] and contrasting it to the appeals court decision[4] in Viacom demonstrates the same with every count or claim (being willful, having knowledge, inducing users, etc.) [1] http://www.fastcompany.com/1588353/steal-it-and-other-internal-youtube-emails-viacoms-copyright-suit http://www.fastcompany.com/1588353/steal-it-and-other-intern... [2] https://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-what-made-it-a-rogue-site-worthy-of-destruction-120120/ https://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-what-made-it-a-rogue-sit... [2.5] http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/1/9436735/megaupload-prosecution-wraps-up-kim-dotcom http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/1/9436735/megaupload-prosecu... [3] DOJ vs Megaupload: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/megaupload_indictment.pdf http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/mega... [4] Viacom vs YouTube district appeals court decision: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District_Court/1--07-cv-02103/Viacom_International_Inc_et_al_v_Youtube_Inc_et_al/452/ https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District...
- Sven7 11y ago

So just like YouTube.

by Sven7 11y ago

So just like YouTube.

Yeah, people do tend to forget that most media consumption startups essentially got bootstrapped with a huge amount of copyright infringement. YouTube, Spotify, ... The difference is of course that those startups end up making their content legal. But I don't see how what MU did is not okay, but what YouTube and Spotify did is fine.

hilbertseries 11y ago
MU was paying the people that upload illegal content, specifically because they were uploading illegal content.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  How is that different to having your employees scraping torrent sites for music to add to your library?
  - jamespo 11y ago
    who did that?
    - scrollaway 11y ago
      Spotify during their early years. This is pretty well known.
      - lmm 11y ago
        Citation needed. Are you sure you're not thinking of Grooveshark?
        scrollaway 11y ago
        Sorry, I can't find an actual citation - if you ask any Spotify employee though, it's pretty much an open secret that Spotify's initial collection was scraped from the pirate bay.
        ewindisch 11y ago
        What is public knowledge is that CEO Daniel Ek was the former CEO of uTorrent. He has certainly made millions from online copyright infringement, if only perhaps, less directly than Kim-dot-com.
        cballard 11y ago
        I didn't know uTorrent was a company! I haven't used Windows in forever, so I've been using Transmission for a long time, but I feel like that's the equivalent of foobar2000 being a company or something.
- neutronicus 11y ago
  I mean YouTube gives content creators a slice of ad revenue, so... I don't know if this program was implemented before the copyright crackdown, though.
Oletros 11y ago
> But I don't see how what MU did is not okay, but what YouTube and Spotify did is fine. What Spotify did?
- kuschku 11y ago
  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/musician-david-lowery-sues-spotify-for-unlawfully-distributing-music/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/musician-david-lo...
gcb0 11y ago
not exactly. the studios and distributors sue everyone, even YouTube. then the one that becomes market leader and gets all the eyeballs usually gets a deal for the lawsuits and the studios have them on a leash for cheaper advertising (remember that a Disney film will spend more on advertising than production over the course of its international release life)

nikcub 11y ago

I actually have an unpublished draft post on my blog titled "Is Megaupload as guilty as YouTube?". The idea of the post was to compare and contrast the internal YouTube emails[1] that came out as part of Viacom vs YouTube with the internal Megaupload emails[2] [2.5]. The reason why the post remained unpublished is because after reading the relevant indictments and court rulings I found that there were clear distinctions between the cases. Namely it was that YouTube were grappling with how to deal with the situation and not sure where they stood while Megaupload knew exactly where they were and what they were doing - they were actually assisting users in locating pirated content when support was emailed. Google also implemented ContentID to help identity content, while in contrast Megaupload placed a cap on the number of takedown requests a content owner could file and internal emails show Kim Dotcom being angry at employees for taking down copyright content that wasn't explicitly cited in an DMCA request. The employees also discussed how they built their filtering system to take down child pornography but not affect copyrighted content. In the latest appeal court decision in Viacom vs YouTube the judge vacated all counts against YouTube and found that the company had no knowledge of specific infringements of copyrighted works. The judge also found that there was no evidence that YouTube induced its users to upload infringing videos, or "interacted with infringing users to a point where it might be said to have participated in their activity." MegaUpload did exactly that. Reading the MegaUpload indictment[3] and contrasting it to the appeals court decision[4] in Viacom demonstrates the same with every count or claim (being willful, having knowledge, inducing users, etc.) [1] http://www.fastcompany.com/1588353/steal-it-and-other-internal-youtube-emails-viacoms-copyright-suit http://www.fastcompany.com/1588353/steal-it-and-other-intern... [2] https://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-what-made-it-a-rogue-site-worthy-of-destruction-120120/ https://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-what-made-it-a-rogue-sit... [2.5] http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/1/9436735/megaupload-prosecution-wraps-up-kim-dotcom http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/1/9436735/megaupload-prosecu... [3] DOJ vs Megaupload: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/megaupload_indictment.pdf http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/mega... [4] Viacom vs YouTube district appeals court decision: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District_Court/1--07-cv-02103/Viacom_International_Inc_et_al_v_Youtube_Inc_et_al/452/ https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District...

Sven7 11y ago