4 ms·

Megaupload Video Reinstated

64 points by llambda 15y ago

ColdSnickersBar 15y ago
So Congress is going on the assumption that the industries wont abuse SOPA, but the industry is abusing existing law, which proves their intentions.
- code_duck 15y ago
  Congress is going on the assumption that the people who support SOPA will hire their children and spouses for more lucrative fake employment than will the people who oppose SOPA.
- tantalor 15y ago
  > the industry is abusing existing law Sounds more like UMG has a deal with YT to short circuit DMCA, which isn't against the law. I expect that contract requires UMG to demonstrate a copyright claim on video. In this case, obviously UMG didn't do that, and violated the contract. It's similar to a false DMCA takedown, except that its not against the law. YT could cancel the contract, sue UMG for damages, or simply fine them if the contract allows that. My point is no laws were broken.
  - mikeash 15y ago
    Intentional misrepresentation for the purpose of gaining some advantage or harming the other party is fraud, and is illegal. If lying about the copyright can be shown to have hurt YT or helped UMG then there may well be a legitimate case there. Not that I'd ever expect to see it prosecuted.
    - tantalor 15y ago
      Granted, but what if no intentional misrepresentation happened? Did UMG ever assert a copyright claim on the video? Or do they have carte-blanche to remove any video they want? If they asked YT to remove it, that might be fraud, because somebody on YT's side would remove the video on the assumption that UMG had a claim. But if they just flagged the video for automatic removal, is that fraud? Can you lie to a computer?
      - mikeash 15y ago
        If the contract lets them request the removal of any video, I imagine they would be in the clear. If it requires a claim of copyright, then perhaps not. As for lying to a computer, I think that counts as lying to whatever organization is running it. Try lying to a bank's computer to tell it to transfer money from somebody else's account into yours, for example....
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
kayoone 15y ago
funny, i played Quake2 with Kim Dotcom (aka Kimble) back in the 90s and he was actually very good at it. He went on to built a couple of scammy businesses, got arrested for insider trading and left germany to resurface as the guy behind megaupload which apparently is very successfull, but still a bit shady ;) Be aware of this guy, his hands are dirty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Schmitz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Schmitz
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  He's paid his debt to society. It seems rather unfair to hold what he was doing nearly a decade ago against him now. Megaupload abides by the DMCA by taking things down when asked. Just because they don't apparently have an under the table deal with media companies like youtube does isn't a reason to say they're "a bit shady".
  - mikemoka 15y ago
    Want to know why they are shady? Are you able to find their company information or do they still own that PO Box based in Hong Kong? How can you be sure where the money from Mega Companies will go? Do you think they give (or would never give) anything back to the community by paying taxes or by financing any honest no profit initiative? I doubt it. I am not standing with the corporations but a company like Mega, in my opinion, is not their best answer.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      To be honest, that falls completely flat trying to reach my bar for "shady". (Legal) tax avoidance is par for the course these days.
      - mikemoka 15y ago
        Yes right, companies owning millions of dollars (they have 50 million users a day..) shouldn't pay their share of taxes in times like these. But what if "legal tax avoidance" by such companies was one of the very reasons why you and me are now living in "days like these"? I don't want to convince you, I know I can't, but just consider it if you can.
teyc 15y ago
It is quite clear to me that YouTube is a private property and as such it has no obligations to host anything it doesn't want. This is not a 1st Amendment issue or even a DCMA issue, if UMG had a contractual agreement with YouTube, whereas MegaUpload might not.
redthrowaway 15y ago
Interesting... It looked like UMG had made a strategic mistake in issuing takedown requests for content they didn't own, but this could potentially be a win for them on a much larger stage. If, as they claim, their contract with Youtube gives them the right to take down content they have no rights for, and that contract will necessarily be revealed in discovery, then Google comes out of this the biggest loser by far. UMG gets off scot-free in the Mega case and Google loses the trust of users and content creators. I wouldn't be surprised if the content industry views anything that hurts Google at this point as a win for them.

64 points by llambda 15y ago

So Congress is going on the assumption that the industries wont abuse SOPA, but the industry is abusing existing law, which proves their intentions.

code_duck 15y ago
Congress is going on the assumption that the people who support SOPA will hire their children and spouses for more lucrative fake employment than will the people who oppose SOPA.
tantalor 15y ago
> the industry is abusing existing law Sounds more like UMG has a deal with YT to short circuit DMCA, which isn't against the law. I expect that contract requires UMG to demonstrate a copyright claim on video. In this case, obviously UMG didn't do that, and violated the contract. It's similar to a false DMCA takedown, except that its not against the law. YT could cancel the contract, sue UMG for damages, or simply fine them if the contract allows that. My point is no laws were broken.
- mikeash 15y ago
  Intentional misrepresentation for the purpose of gaining some advantage or harming the other party is fraud, and is illegal. If lying about the copyright can be shown to have hurt YT or helped UMG then there may well be a legitimate case there. Not that I'd ever expect to see it prosecuted.
  - tantalor 15y ago
    Granted, but what if no intentional misrepresentation happened? Did UMG ever assert a copyright claim on the video? Or do they have carte-blanche to remove any video they want? If they asked YT to remove it, that might be fraud, because somebody on YT's side would remove the video on the assumption that UMG had a claim. But if they just flagged the video for automatic removal, is that fraud? Can you lie to a computer?
    - mikeash 15y ago
      If the contract lets them request the removal of any video, I imagine they would be in the clear. If it requires a claim of copyright, then perhaps not. As for lying to a computer, I think that counts as lying to whatever organization is running it. Try lying to a bank's computer to tell it to transfer money from somebody else's account into yours, for example....
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

kayoone 15y ago

funny, i played Quake2 with Kim Dotcom (aka Kimble) back in the 90s and he was actually very good at it. He went on to built a couple of scammy businesses, got arrested for insider trading and left germany to resurface as the guy behind megaupload which apparently is very successfull, but still a bit shady ;) Be aware of this guy, his hands are dirty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Schmitz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Schmitz

burgerbrain 15y ago
He's paid his debt to society. It seems rather unfair to hold what he was doing nearly a decade ago against him now. Megaupload abides by the DMCA by taking things down when asked. Just because they don't apparently have an under the table deal with media companies like youtube does isn't a reason to say they're "a bit shady".
- mikemoka 15y ago
  Want to know why they are shady? Are you able to find their company information or do they still own that PO Box based in Hong Kong? How can you be sure where the money from Mega Companies will go? Do you think they give (or would never give) anything back to the community by paying taxes or by financing any honest no profit initiative? I doubt it. I am not standing with the corporations but a company like Mega, in my opinion, is not their best answer.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    To be honest, that falls completely flat trying to reach my bar for "shady". (Legal) tax avoidance is par for the course these days.
    - mikemoka 15y ago
      Yes right, companies owning millions of dollars (they have 50 million users a day..) shouldn't pay their share of taxes in times like these. But what if "legal tax avoidance" by such companies was one of the very reasons why you and me are now living in "days like these"? I don't want to convince you, I know I can't, but just consider it if you can.

teyc 15y ago

It is quite clear to me that YouTube is a private property and as such it has no obligations to host anything it doesn't want. This is not a 1st Amendment issue or even a DCMA issue, if UMG had a contractual agreement with YouTube, whereas MegaUpload might not.

redthrowaway 15y ago

Interesting... It looked like UMG had made a strategic mistake in issuing takedown requests for content they didn't own, but this could potentially be a win for them on a much larger stage. If, as they claim, their contract with Youtube gives them the right to take down content they have no rights for, and that contract will necessarily be revealed in discovery, then Google comes out of this the biggest loser by far. UMG gets off scot-free in the Mega case and Google loses the trust of users and content creators. I wouldn't be surprised if the content industry views anything that hurts Google at this point as a win for them.