Did Universal Music Declare 50 Cent's Own Website Is A Pirate Site?
from the fact-checking dept
You may have heard last week that hip hop star 50 Cent got into a public war of words with his record label, Interscope (a division of Universal Music Group), concerning his upcoming album. 50 Cent claimed that differences would mean that the album was delayed. At the end of the week, it sounded like he had patched things up a bit and worked out the major differences, but he might want to take another look at what his label is doing.As you may know, yesterday, we wrote about Universal Music's involvement in putting together a list of "pirate" websites that ad giant GroupM would place on a big blacklist of sites. GroupM would use the blacklist to bar its ads from appearing on any listed site. We noticed many oddities on the list, including a bunch of websites that are considered the top of the top in the hip hop world when it comes to promoting new works. However, some in our comments noted an even odder site on the list: 50 Cent's own website: ThisIs50.com.
Now, there may be some confusion, because it appears that there are two different "official" 50 sites. However, one of them, 50Cent.com is owned and run by Universal Music. ThisIs50.com is 50's own site and is the one linked from his own Facebook page (which, in turn, is linked from his verified Twitter account). There seems to be little doubt that ThisIs50 is 50's own website. In fact, if you look at the Universal-run 50Cent.com, it very prominently links to ThisIs50:
But, honestly, since supporters of PROTECT IP and other such legislation keep claiming that it's so easy to figure out what is and what is not a "rogue site," can someone explain how Universal recording artist 50 Cent's own site gets on the list, which was apparently put together in part by Universal Music? I have a question in to folks at Universal Music, but once again, I doubt I'll hear back.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 50 cent, piracy, rogue site
Companies: groupm, interscope, universal music, wpp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Spotting a pirate site is easy...
Seriously though, when in doubt, just ask RIAA or the MPAA, they will tell you who the pirate sites are with near 10% accuracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/50cent.com+thisis50.com/
m3mnoch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fitty Cent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's that?
That's what it sounded like anyway. Maybe i misheard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They've spent years and years hiding some of this info. You don't see the real accounting books (when you buy this expensive info), you don't see all the efforts to hide association with the majors when Indies became a hit and they tried to make themselves look Indie for sales, you don't know that a lot of the big sellers are awarded their own personal label to distribute music from as a reward (and it looks like someone else putting out the music instead of the majors). You also don't know when an artist becomes outside the major labels after a fall out and the repurchase of their contract.
Nor are the majors particularly wanting to part with the info unless in a law suit.
Even the anti-RIAA site like riaaradar has problems telling between albums by the same artists, which are property to the majors and which are not. (and they do get them wrong)
So after all this, magically you should just 'know'. Actually that becomes a sales point to try and sell you a worthless filter that is extremely overpriced.
We've had time and again where it has been shown that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing as it isn't co-ordinated at all. Both sides seem to bumble around and claim you should just know while they prove they haven't a clue either as to which is which.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This confounds me. You'd think the cash-strapped government would be all about unravelling that mess.
You'd think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd love to see a good federal probing of entertainment industry finances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One of two things
Or, they are about to say "Oops! We thought that list was the 'approved list' not the 'disapproved list'," and they'll promptly revert the list for the time being (ie: until the bad press dies down).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One of two things
The music industry seems to be pretty good at achieving many pyrrhic victories with great success these days. Perhaps it's time for them to patent that business model before someone else does, and sue themselves back to wealth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One of two things
Wait...what? I thought advertisements paid the site, not the other way around! Although I actually wouldn't be surprised if Universal completely forgot the most basic fact of marketing: you pay to get knowledge of your product out, others don't pay you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, what was I thinking, the rules don't apply to Universal cause they're the ones making them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is BULLSQUABLE
You have a handful of artists who actually get endorsements and other contracts that help supplement their show money.
If people don't get the music and become fans, then artists are left to be heard on radio (Corporate BS too), on TV (O.o) and on iTunes. Who is going to buy a song they have never heard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We noticed many oddities on the list, including a bunch of websites that are considered the top of the top in the hip hop world when it comes to promoting new works.
Now, there may be some confusion, because it appears that there are two different "official" 50 sites. However, one of them, 50Cent.com is owned and run by Universal Music.
Am I the only one who thinks this is obviously an attempt to stifle Warner's competition? One of the main things a label does is promotion, and now a label is essentially attacking competing promoters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think many people here don't realize that these artists would likely sell their own dog for cash, and in signing those contracts, they give up many of their rights in return for a big payout.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if they get the PROTECT-IP act signed in they will only block sites that have infringing content and not just sites they get into an argument with.
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, anyone *can* sue, but I don't think they'd win. It's the same thing as attempts to sue spam filters for declaring email spam, or for search engine rankings, or for anti-malware software calling certain apps malware. In most of those cases, the courts have taken a broad First Amendment view (as they should) in saying that it's perfectly fair to put together such a list.
And, as much as I think this list is ridiculous and misleading, I tend to agree. I think it would be a mistake to consider this defamation, and doubt that it reaches the level necessary to make a defamation claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Okay, I'll concede. I follow Voltaire when he said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". GroupM do have the right to publish this list, but I actually do hope one of the sites on it is able to show damages resulting from this list, however unlikely that will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big ole grin ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Companies significantly larger than Universal get back to me all the time. Doesn't seem so odd to think that after uncovering something and asking them a question that they would respond.
Also, it's worth noting that Universal Music seems to have no problem reaching out to me when they want to promote something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pirate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello cent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello mr . Jackson this is Lakisha I would like to please speak to you could you call me 440 7143788
THIS COULD BE PRIVATE so what they hatin I don't care n you don't either I'm used to the bull I want our friendship back to stay in touch been kickin my tail n going krazy. I'm still recovering my surgeries and may have one to go could u call me please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]