4 ms·
It cost Megaupload $3 million to make this video for their own advertising - quashing that advertising fraudulently seems damaging to me. How you'd quantify it
by Vivtek 15y ago
It cost Megaupload $3 million to make this video for their own advertising - quashing that advertising fraudulently seems damaging to me. How you'd quantify it I don't know.
- antiterra 15y agoExcept there's not necessarily a 'right' to have your video on YouTube, and it's possible that UMG was acting, albeit with bad faith, in the capacity of YouTube curator. Megaupload's Friday filing seems to imply their current strategy is to hunt for evidence of DMCA takedown requests sent to other sites like Vimeo, as well as expose whatever they can about the agreement between UMG and YouTube.
- regularfry 15y agoThe hosting agreement for the video is purely between YouTube and the uploaders, though. Both YouTube and the uploaders can make a case for tortious interference.
- Vivtek 15y agoUMG was acting in the capacity of YouTube curator in the same sense script kiddies are acting in the capacity of security leak exposure consultants, perhaps. I'd hate to have to make that argument to a judge that understood the actual situation. Doesn't this obvious bad faith have any negative repercussions for UMG?
- lotu 15y agoTheoretically YouTube could kick them form their automatic filtering program for a period of time or put some other requirement on their continued use of it.
- Vivtek 15y agoLet me be more specific: "Doesn't this bad faith on UMG's part have any bad consequences that aren't graciously bestowed by another large company?" I thought we were a nation of laws, not corporations? Is fraud only a business cost now?
- Natsu 15y ago> it's possible that UMG was acting, albeit with bad faith, in the capacity of YouTube curator. This story is about Google, the owner of YouTube, saying that they were acting outside that capacity.