3 ms·

Wow, that article's certainly not biased! </sarcasm> > "MegaUpload.com is already engaged in a legal fight with Universal Music Group over a promotional video

Wow, that article's certainly not biased! </sarcasm> > "MegaUpload.com is already engaged in a legal fight with Universal Music Group over a promotional video featuring some UMG artists." I suppose there are some reading that that don't know MegaUpload hired all the artists and had contracts and copyright licenses with them and had complete rights to the video, which UMG illegally and fraudulently filed a takedown notice against YouTube. Also, the loaded term "file-sharing site" certainly confuses the issue that the site is like DropBox and sells on line storage space. Plenty of legitimate businesses and artists use it to distribute files which they own all rights to. Just like YouTube, yes, some misuse that. Is YouTube also fairly called a "file-sharing site" by the Journal now? Would not know any of the real facts from reading this article. How far has fallen the formerly great, but now Murdoch owned and controlled Wall Street Journal. I was a subscriber for years, but gave up a few years ago when the quality plummeted and objectivity flew out the window. Update: Oh boy, today two of the programmers that worked for Megaupload have been arrested and another is wanted for arrest: http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-shut-down-120119/ http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-shut-down-120119/ All face 50 years in prison. (20 years for racketeering, 5 for copyright conspiracy, 20 for money laundering conspiracy, 5 for copyright violation.) This will certainly send a chilling message to any talented engineers considering a job interview at a company that allows third party uploads some of which are DMCA violations, such as YouTube.

tomp 15y ago
> UMG illegally and fraudulently filed a takedown notice against YouTube I don't necessarily agree with UMG's action (and that's completely beside the point), but AFAIK (according to the news articles), UMG didn't file a DMCA takedown notice, but a takedown notice that was completely a contractual issue between two businesses (UMG and YouTube). There's nothing illegal there.
- _delirium 15y ago
  While I don't think it's good that it could be possible, their violation of a computer-usage agreement with Google could be criminal under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The CFAA's prohibition on "exceeding authorized access", where you had legitimate access to a system but used it in ways that exceeded your agreed-upon authorization, has been read extremely broadly, to basically criminalize violations of computer-access agreements. So if they deleted videos that the terms of their contract with Google didn't authorize them to delete, that could be a criminal matter rather than just civil. (The chances of anyone being prosecuted in this case are another matter.)
- Natsu 15y ago
  And then Google restored it, claiming UMG had breached that contract which only permitted them to take down content they owned. That said, it's obviously some sort of grey area. Will be interesting to see how this plays out, though I already have my guesses, knowing that ex-RIAA lawyers were appointed to top Justice Department spots at the start of this administration.
untog 15y ago
I suppose there are some reading that that don't know MegaUpload hired all the artists and had contracts and copyright licenses with them and had complete rights to the video TechCrunch claims that for at least a few, this was not the case: In December, Will.I.Am, Sean “Diddy” Combs, and the others pulled their support, and it was claimed that they never consented to appearing in the video, which was subsequently removed from YouTube. (http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/19/megaupload-taken-down-on-piracy-allegations/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/19/megaupload-taken-down-on-pi...) I don't have any personal evidence either way, of course.
- kermitthehermit 15y ago
  Can we know for sure some of those folks didn't make those statements after being blackmailed by their record labels or some "interested party"? The way I see it, people change their positions when: a)they're blackmailed - either you stop endorsing that shit or you're history b)they notice everyone else is on the other side and they switch so that they're on the winner's side - see some of the beloved politicians & companies (BSA, MS, etc) pulling the plug on their support of SOPA It's pretty easy to blackmail a musician when you're the record label. You certainly have far more money than the musician and dying from an overdose happens in the world of the musicians; the death of the musician even helps the record label with sales, doesn't it?
bostonvaulter2 15y ago
What's the basis for the money laundering conspiracy charges?

tomp 15y ago

> UMG illegally and fraudulently filed a takedown notice against YouTube I don't necessarily agree with UMG's action (and that's completely beside the point), but AFAIK (according to the news articles), UMG didn't file a DMCA takedown notice, but a takedown notice that was completely a contractual issue between two businesses (UMG and YouTube). There's nothing illegal there.

_delirium 15y ago
While I don't think it's good that it could be possible, their violation of a computer-usage agreement with Google could be criminal under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The CFAA's prohibition on "exceeding authorized access", where you had legitimate access to a system but used it in ways that exceeded your agreed-upon authorization, has been read extremely broadly, to basically criminalize violations of computer-access agreements. So if they deleted videos that the terms of their contract with Google didn't authorize them to delete, that could be a criminal matter rather than just civil. (The chances of anyone being prosecuted in this case are another matter.)
Natsu 15y ago
And then Google restored it, claiming UMG had breached that contract which only permitted them to take down content they owned. That said, it's obviously some sort of grey area. Will be interesting to see how this plays out, though I already have my guesses, knowing that ex-RIAA lawyers were appointed to top Justice Department spots at the start of this administration.

untog 15y ago

I suppose there are some reading that that don't know MegaUpload hired all the artists and had contracts and copyright licenses with them and had complete rights to the video TechCrunch claims that for at least a few, this was not the case: In December, Will.I.Am, Sean “Diddy” Combs, and the others pulled their support, and it was claimed that they never consented to appearing in the video, which was subsequently removed from YouTube. (http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/19/megaupload-taken-down-on-piracy-allegations/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/19/megaupload-taken-down-on-pi...) I don't have any personal evidence either way, of course.

kermitthehermit 15y ago
Can we know for sure some of those folks didn't make those statements after being blackmailed by their record labels or some "interested party"? The way I see it, people change their positions when: a)they're blackmailed - either you stop endorsing that shit or you're history b)they notice everyone else is on the other side and they switch so that they're on the winner's side - see some of the beloved politicians & companies (BSA, MS, etc) pulling the plug on their support of SOPA It's pretty easy to blackmail a musician when you're the record label. You certainly have far more money than the musician and dying from an overdose happens in the world of the musicians; the death of the musician even helps the record label with sales, doesn't it?

bostonvaulter2 15y ago

What's the basis for the money laundering conspiracy charges?