Megaupload Sues Universal Over Questionable Video Takedown, As Will.i.am Says He Sent Takedown Too
from the this-could-get-interesting dept
Following Megaupload's marketing campaign that involved getting a ton of big name stars (many signed to major record labels) to speak out in support of Megaupload (and then putting those quotes into a song), Universal Music Group started issuing questionable takedowns for the video. We've heard numerous theories as to why UMG might think it can do so, but none seem to hold up to much scrutiny. The music in question is not UMG's.TorrentFreak reported that MegaUpload is preparing to sue Universal Music for the bogus takedowns, while THResq has the details. You can also see the actual lawsuit here (pdf or embedded below).
Universal is claiming that one of its artists, Gin Wigmore, had unauthorized work appear in the song, though it's unclear where or how. Megaupload continues to insist that it owns all of the music. Where it gets more bizarre is that apparently will.i.am, who appears in the video saying that he uses Megaupload to "send files across the globe" also sent his own takedown:
But we've also learned that Ken Hertz, attorney for Will.I.Am, also filed a takedown request last week with YouTube. What's going on here?Now this is where things get interesting. If this is true, it certainly appears that Hertz is admitting to a bogus takedown. Even assuming that what he states is true -- that will.i.am did not give permission -- that's not a copyright claim. It would be a contractual issue. Furthermore, it seems like a pretty strange claim. It's pretty clear that will.i.am did, in fact, state that he uses Megaupload to send files across the globe. Megaupload insists it has clear contracts with all the artists in question, and I'm sure the details will come out as things move forward, but it still seems like Universal (and, now, will.i.am) have a lot of explaining to do.
Hertz says that like many of the artists who appear in the video, his client had never consented to the "Megaupload Mega Song."
UMG echoes that sentiment. “This is an on-going dispute that surfaced several weeks ago with respect to the unauthorized use of a performance from one of our artists," a UMG spokesperson tells us. "We heard from a number of our other artists and their representatives who told us they’ve never consented to being portrayed in this video."
And, of course, it seems really bizarre that UMG would think this was a prudent course of action, when the only thing it's really done is driven a hell of a lot more attention to Megaupload. Congrats, UMG, you just spent your efforts increasing the power of Megaupload's marketing campaign.
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: copyright, dmca, gin wigmore, takedowns, will.i.am
Companies: megaupload, riaa, universal music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Nope, it's a copyright issue. See, Will.I.Am may not be able to consent to being in the video, and all of his work (including what was used in the video) would be by contract copyright to his label. Since the label didn't issue rights to megaupload for his work, it's a copyright issue.
You need to pay attention Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What a crappy contract. I'm surprised that the artist willingly signed his life's creative efforts away.
But it is great marketing for Megaupload.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But merely because you perform on a song does not automatically give you a copyright. So, for example, the bass player for Guns 'n Roses cannot issue takedowns on Guns 'n Roses songs he finds on youtube.
will.i.am might have a publicity rights claim. He might have a contract claim. But I highly doubt he has a copyright claim to the song or video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But merely because you perform on a song does not automatically give you a copyright.
I have seen the video, and to me, it appears that none of the celebrities are actually "performing". They were filmed stating that they like and/or use MegaUpload, and then those segments were inserted into an animated music video. There's one guy who appears to be performing part of the song, but it looks like they just took his words and set them to music. A couple others (sorry, I have no idea who any of them are) appear to be mouthing along to the song, rather than actually singing, but it's impossible to know if their actions were taken out of context. At least one of them looks like he's doing it sarcastically as he seems to have an annoyed look on his face.
To me, it looks like MegaUpload had some promotional clips of celebs endorsing the site and they decided to stick them in a music video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sounds like fair use to me? This tends to get confusing, though, especially since the takedown from Universal means that they're essentially claiming copyright over non-musical spoken statements by the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A person merely orally expressing an opinion isn't copyrightable because it's not fixed. If I asked you what you think of such and such, your response is not copyrightable unless it's in a fixed medium. The copyright to the video is held by whoever produced it or by whoever held the camera.
Mike's right, there is no copyright issue here by will.i.am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The copyright claim is not for the video, but for the song.
If Will.I.Am. or any of the other artists in the video have a publishing deal with UMG, that means UMG owns at least 50% of any song that these people participate in the writing of.
If Megaupload had simply made a video showing various artists speaking about their site, there would have been no copyright claim. However by using their words as "lyrics" in a song, they opened themselves up to a UMG copyright claim.
And any agreement Megaupload claims to have with the artists does not matter one bit, as the artist's publishing contract will be controlling and usurp any "agreement" Megaupload obtained.
Although as we have seen, apparently the whole endeavor was done under phony pretenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The artist would be in breach of contract with the publisher. It doesn't automatically invalidate the contract with MegaUploads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What a crappy contract. I'm surprised that the artist willingly signed his life's creative efforts away.
Invariably, this is the part where darryl comes to sing the label's praises and blame the artist for being stupid enough to sign such a contract.
He's been making such posts after Fridays in the hopes that no one will catch him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(All the content was new and specific to the video by artists who consented to appear)
"Megaupload attorney Ira Rothken, who filed a lawsuit against UMG today, says Will.i.am and other artists did consent to their use: 'UMG didn't do proper due diligence before sending the takedown notice....And each of the other artists, including Will.i.am signed a broad written agreement allowing the use of their likeness and their statements in the context of the video.'"
You need to pay attention, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pay attention son!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'd like to hear from Mike or some specialist on the issue before jumping to any conclusions.
Pay attention, troll, it's not that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, its hard to keep up with all the shit you make up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How do you make the leap from Will.I.Am breaking his contract with UMG to UMG having a valid copyright claim on a third party's creation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's contract law, specifically employment contract law, a strange enough entity to start with but that's what it is. When an artist consents to an agreement with a label that's employment contract eve if the artist works "part time" for the label.
Unless that contract specifially spells out exclusivity in that will.i.am can only perform when and in locations and for causes etc that the label preapproves then it's will.i.am that is in breach of his contract with UMG not Megaupload and will.i.am who is liable and, perhaps, they ought to sue him.
No matter how you cut it the takedown notice is still bogus and that's what Megaupload is suing UMG over, not will.i.am's performance. Got it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Will.i.am does not own copyright over sounds coming out of his mouth. He owns copyright over words he writes. Someone who records him owns the copyright over that recording.
It does not matter what deal he has signed to UMG in terms of copyright. Yes, he may well have assigned most of his copyrights to UMG - but he cannot sign over "anything with me in it", because he does not own those rights. If I snap a photo of Will.i.am on the street, or record him talking on my phone, the copyright does not automatically go to UMG. It's MY copyright - some past document that Will.i.am signed has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Yes, there may be other contractual issues: for example, he may have agreed not to do appearances for other people. But that would mean HE is in breach of contract - there is no way that Megavideo can be in breach of a contract that they didn't sign and were never party to and had nothing to do with them at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As soon as it is recorded, it is "performance", which he owns the copyright on unless he assigns it to someone else.
"but he cannot sign over "anything with me in it", because he does not own those rights. If I snap a photo of Will.i.am on the street, or record him talking on my phone, the copyright does not automatically go to UMG. "
You are right, but we aren't talking about that, are we? We are talking about a performance that is part of a music video / song. He can very specifically assign all of those rights, because HE OWNS THEM TO START WITH. What you pointed out are rights that he does not own to start with.
Marcus, you are just being dense again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it is like you are some kind of comment posting chatbot programmed with bogus quotes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If he agrees to do a performance for Megavideo, and they record that performance, then they own the copyright on the recording of the performance. There is no copyright on the performance itself - only on the fixed recording of it. And that belongs to the people who made the recording.
What copyrights are you saying he "owns to start with"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
None of that affects in any way the separate contract will.i.am has with his music publisher who, it seems, aren't complaining.
You're right, the contract with Megaupload would be null and void IF and only IF UMG has an specifically and carefully set out exclusivity clause covering where, when and for whom will.i.am and the black eyed peas could perform. (Jointly and severally.)
Either way, that doesn't trigger a DCMA takedown notice. At worst it triggers a letter or two between lawyers and will.i.am gets edited out of the ad.
IF though, all will.i.am is repeat statements he's made publically prior to the ad being recorded, even if he used different words to that effect, the exclusivity clause itself, should one exist, is in question. He's on the public record as saying this so UMG still hasn't a leg to stand on. Well, not a good one, anyway.
Complex, isn't it? Now, pay attention and drop your prejudices at the door, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pay attention son!"
Happily, "fair use" allows up to eight bars of copyrighted music without violating copyright.
Pay attention, kid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
8 bars????
This site is so funny. It's full of people that know absolutely nothing about music (except how to rip it off) pontificating about music and the music industry.
You have no idea just how much 8 bars is, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd dispute, strongly, that making what is essentially a political statement on a political issue can be considered "creating new content' in any way shape or form.
In that way, you're saying copyright trumps free speech. That would prevent an artist from saying or doing anything in the political realm that a label couldn't leap on claiming (wrongly) copyright. (Actually the creation of new content would legally offend will.i.am's music publisher not the label. If it's in violation of a contract then, both, together, could sue will.i.am for damages and THEN claim copyright in the new performance (UMG) and the new content (the music publisher). Remember, legally, the two parties are entirely separate persons (entities).
Incidentally performances can be copyright which is what that P with the circle around it means on recordings. That replaces the verbage that used to appear on 78s dating back to the 1930s which went "Performance copyright RCA Blister Music copyright Great Southern Songs Not for radio play or public performance."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Will.I.Am: (licks VP's palms)
Would breach of contract be a copyright issue? Please explain. Can the contract with the label state that they get all copyright on all content he creates or appears in? If W is supposed to clear everything through UMG then he breached his contract...not Megaupload.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As for a contract that states they get all copyright on all content he creates or appears in, that contract is voidable since just because will.i.am appears in something absolutely does not mean he owns or can assign the copyright to it and therefore does not have capacity to enter into such a contract with a recording company, no matter what they or he thinks.
Will might of breached his contract, though I can see "unconscionable terms" coming into play as any defence on will.i.am's behalf against UMG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a big whopping "may" in your sentence. So your assertion that Mike's speculation is wrong is based on ... speculation? And stretched pretty thin, I might add. I've never heard of labels having the ability to prevent their artists from doing ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike knows this, he is just ignoring it because it makes the story suck.
It actually looks like Mega did this specifically to bait the labels into giving them promotion. No matter what the labels did (legal action or nothing) they end up looking bad. Kimber is a fucking asshole, and knows how to manipulate people. It sucks that Techdirt is giving this guy MORE promotion based on his actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They could look good by releasing a press statement that was along the lines of:
"Hey everyone, we admit we screwed up. We didn't understand this internet thing until now. We'll stop suing our customers, stop treating our artists like crap, stop lobbying Congress for draconian laws and copyright extensions, and release some real services that are what our customers want and are reasonably priced."
Oh, and then they have to go and do that stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you fucking kidding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
- "So you want them to lie down and take it in the ass?"
I think this about sums up all we need to hear from you, AC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are YOU fucking kidding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you want them to fight a completely unwinnable battle, as you pointed out yourself, in which they are wasting time, money, and the goodwill of everyone they even remotely interact with?
To put it in a meme: "When fighting piracy, the only winning move is not to play."
Or, you know, they could adapt reality and compete in the real market, and very likely make even more money than they used to under the old way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If he is a lawyer, that is probably his goal.
Gotta keep them lawyers employed. Just like we have to make sure that all harmful parasites are given every opportunity to make our lives miserable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So you admit that your assumptions on their face carry equal weight. Fine.
But, I know who Mike Masnick is, I can see years of posting history, his business credentials and appearances/writings elsewhere.
You are... who are you again?
"Kimber is a fucking asshole"
My assertion is that you'll see a bigger one by looking in the nearest mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's start with the pertinent question I asked above: who are you? Since you won't provide citations, nor identify yourself, why do you consider yourself an authority over and above someone whose work and identity can be readily verified? "This is my option and I am right" is not a valid launching point for intelligent discussion.
If you don't wish to identify yourself, fine - either provide citations for the things you have "researched" about Kimber, contracts and this specific case or provide a reason why we should trust your opinion without those citations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
""This is my option and I am right""
Fuck off. That isn't what I am saying. I am providing another, plausible situation where copyright could apply. I may be right, I may be wrong. Just shut the fuck up and accept that I am allowed to have an opinion. Why do you insist on being a dick all the time? Maybe it's living in Spain that gets you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because he appeared in a video, or talked on a show, or screamed the opening words from some speech he wrote, this does NOT pass copyright on the filming, recording, or anything else in the actual video in question here to some other party OTHER than the party who commissioned it.
If he has some sort of unconscionable contractual terms forbidding him from doing this in no way makes MegaUpload a contributor to a breach of copyright, or even for that matter a forfeiture of contract.
The only person on the hook, so to speak, is the actual artist who did these things.
Megaupload has no legal, ethical nor moral obligation whatsoever to do what UMG wants in regards to their contracted artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sigh... "NO U". that's all you have, right?
There's enough information I've posted about myself to be able to identify me if you so wished. Hell, my username is simply a shortened form of my real name.
But, no I won't directly identify myself. The reason is that I'm not trying to argue from authority. Your entire argument, on the other hand is "Mike is wrong and I'm right". In the absence of any citations, we'd need to know who you are before we would even consider taking your word for anything.
So, who are you and why do you claim greater authority for your opinions than Mike's opinions? Why should we disbelieve Mike's opinions and believe yours?
"I am providing another, plausible situation where copyright could apply. I may be right, I may be wrong."
Hmmm... that's somewhat different from "Mike knows this, he is just ignoring it because it makes the story suck.", implying you know not only more about the facts but also knowledge of Mike's personal reasoning.
"Just shut the fuck up and accept that I am allowed to have an opinion. Why do you insist on being a dick all the time?"
...and we're back to the kindergarten. Well done, you almost acted like an adult there for a moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
" personal service and label contracts work (because of reading Techdirt and similar sites) I know it is very likely that UMG automatically gets all rights to any performance"
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is no such thing as a copyright over a "performance" - only over a fixed recording of that performance, or over the piece being performed.
Try to understand this: Will.i.am cannot sign over someone else's copyrights. If someone else snaps a photo of him, they own it. Some contract he has with UMG doesn't change that. Will himself might be in breach of contract (if he agreed not to appear for others) - but the photographer is not. Same goes for a video or an quote or anything else.
There may well be a contractual breach here - on Will.i.am's part. Not on Megavideo's. And there is definitely not a copyright issue.
So no, Mike is not "ignoring" anything - you are just woefully misinformed about the basics of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship anyone?
IF will.i.am created new music/material then it's his music publisher who is offended, in law, as they have the exclusive copyright on his creations.
All UMG can do is prohibit will.i.am from recording for a competing label (his contract with UMG is essentially an employment contract remember) or by invoking a performance exclusivity clause prohibit him from performing in any way, time, location or for any entity without UMG's permission. Though I can't see how that can stop will.i.am from making a public statement regarding a polticial issue. Keeping in mind that a recording is, technically, a performance.
Of course, Kimber is jerking the label's chain. That's part of what HE's paid for. So what?
If anyone is actionable here, on the surface, it appears to be will.i.am for violating whatever contract and exclusivity clause is in it with UMG and then violating it by signing another contract with Megaupload that MAY violate that contract for one public statement which makes what is essentially a political statement on a hot political issue.
To add to the fire: Censorship anyone?
No matter how you slice it UMG has no grounds for a DCMA notice as they don't own the copyright. If anyone does, on the performance in the ad, Megaupload does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's better than being a "fucking asshole" and NOT knowing how to manipulate people, like Universal and other record companies... ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And all everyone else is saying is that it's not. Go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's still a contractual issue between will.i.am and his label - will.i.am signed the contract with MegaUpload - and if his label is unhappy with that, it can sue will.i.am for breach of contract.
will.i.am still does not own the copyright to the video, or any part of it. Which makes this a bogus takedown, and gets either him or his lawyer in trouble under the perjury clause of the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't know if I can hit the "funny" button enough for this. People getting in trouble for illegal takedowns...now THAT'S funny!
And sad that it's funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
While I agree that this doesn't happen anywhere near as often as it should, its mostly because no one contests them.
MegaUpload has contested and sued UMG over its takedown request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm, that would still be a contract issue. You cannot own copyright in your acting, or singing, because those are not fixed. You can own the copyright to a video of your acting, or a recording of your singing, because those are fixed,
the copyright in any such recording belongs to the person or company that makes the recording, not to the person doing the performance. Will.I.Am may have an agreement with UMG not to perform anywhere without approval from UMG, but that's a contract issue between Will.I.Am and UMG. Will.I.Am may have a publicity rights issue with Megaupload, but that's publicity rights, not copyright, so the DMCA does not apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It still is not a copyright issue it is a contract issue in that Will.I.Am was in breach of the contract with UMG. Assuming that you are correct stating every thing stated by Will.I.Am belongs to UMG according to his contract with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uh, no. Will.i.am's part of the video was merely him speaking to a camera. No matter what his contract with UMG is, I will assure you it does not include anything and everything he *SAYS*.
Either way, it remains a contract issue and not a copyright issue. Even if you're ridiculous scenario is correct and every word that Will.i.am says is owned by UMG, then the only part who could issue a takedown is UMG. NOT Will.i.am. Once again, even under the preposterous scenario you describe, will.i.am has no copyright claim.
You need to pay attention Mike.
I'd urge you to do the same, but we both know that'll never happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If any of the performers could be characterized as having created an "original work of authorship", and if the work for hire doctrine comes into play in favor of the labels, then it is possible that the labels would have a basis for submitting a take-down notice under the DMCA.
If any of the labels do in fact hold rights to the works contained in the video, it may be that Megaupload has a breach of contract action against the performer(s).
The recent Stanford decision by the Supreme Court highlights the difficulties associated with one who executes conflicting contracts with two separate entities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just because the artists might not have had the capacity to enter into a contract to create NEW, and yes this is new material, does not matter to the alleged ownership of copyright.
If the artists have breached part of their own contracts, That is the artists problem, Though it might mean that the contract megaUpload has with them is now forfeited it still does not give the Recording companies ownership of any New material that by basic contractual law MegaUpload commissioned from them.
The DMCA was submitted, multiple times too, either by malice, mistake, or ineptitude (or all three) for what is NOT a copyright problem in any way shape or form, and UMG and the Does need to be accountable for any damage that has occurred due to that submission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What the record company owns is the copyright to a particular performance on a particular record not the song itself.
You see, in the strange world of the RIAA copyrights get scattered left right and centre and all the label really gets from all of this is the copyright to the performance on a particular CD.
Unless UMG is now claiming to be a music publisher, of course, which, in that case they might, just might, have an itty bitty claim on the music itself. I doubt it though. You see it's the music publisher that has the rights to the music itself, signed over to them so the artist could get a recording contract so that the likes of BMI and ASCAP could wander around telling barber shops and mechanics that they had to pay a royalty each time the song is played anywhere where the public can hear it.
There's an additional problem here. As will.i.am is the composer then neither the label or the music publisher, strictly speaking, can stop him from performing a song or playing it blasting out of his boom box car or in his barber shop or whatever. The label is on extremely thin ground in that no two performances are ever the same so it's next to impossible to say what will.i.am did on a small stage behind the garage is protected by the same copyright as the performance on a CD is which is, invariably, different.
It MAY become a contractual issue if UMG is claiming that they have an exclusive on appearances and performances of will.i.am or the black eyed peas (jointly or severally) in their contracts. In that case produce the contract. But it's not liable in terms of a take down notice based on copyright but on exclusivity. That's remotely possible. And if will.i.am signed a contract with megaupload to take part in a song that is original and NOT covered by outside copyright then his performance there is an issue for UMG to take up with will.i.am's agent for him breaking his contract with THEM.
See?
You're the one who needs to pay attention and you're the one who needs to become familiar with the web that is artist contract (a form of employment contract), exclusivity, and then copyright, preferably in that order.
One way or another this becomes contract law and the takedown become bogus.
Clear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then UMG would be able to sue for breach of contract - it would not give them copyright in the video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And it's about control again
It may be that UMG and Will.I.Am have a legitimate beef with the commercial and should sue MegaUpload if they have a case.
I ask this next question not to be adversarial but as I'm honestly ignorant. If this commercial WAS on TV, would UMG or Will.I.Am have the same ability to have the commercial pulled, prior to the case being heard in court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it's about control again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And it's about control again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And it's about control again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And it's about control again
Do they have the same take-down abilities, granted by law, that they have through the DMCA on the Internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And it's about control again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And it's about control again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He was also in X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(Also, I recognize a few months ago that I misread a comment you made regarding the comments here on TD and a tweet you had sent out about it. I apologize for being rude to you)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
8)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Microsoft got in trouble for killing Netscape in the 90s and that situation could be considered worse yet IE is still used by half of the Internet users out there.
Another example, Tom Cruise. He went nuts on Oprah and did his Scientology 'stuff' but that hasn't stopped him from being a box office draw.
Some of us care, but most of the people don't give a shit. Sad as that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's the trick - I think that Mega pretty much figured out that no matter what happens, they look "good" in the eyes of the people they are trying to attract as users. They stuck it to the man... no matter what.
"Masnick effect" might be the local term for it, they put UMG in a place where no matter what they did, they promoted mega.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Personally, my knowledge of the phrase "Streisand Effect" predates Techdirt by about 6 years.
So, local? Uh, no. Its all over the internet, son.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe you mean it predates your knowledge of techdirt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Surprise Here
It is true to say these people gave their signed consent and it is also clear their opinions with their claims of "I Love MegaUpload". Such promotional work is not unusual in this business and they would not have consented were it banned.
The creation of the Mega Song was certainly a surprise but that changes things none when their endorsement message is still contained. They may have badly chopped and diced the original videos but this is no different to had they run these full promotional videos by adding their own subtle and owned music track in the background.
So I still cannot see that MegaUpload has done anything wrong when all content is what they are authorised to use. Their only flaw was not making clear to these musicians their full plan to start with and that is hardly a crime.
We should keep in mind the big issue here. These UMG artists endorsed MegaUpload the same "rouge site" who is the sworn enemy of the RIAA/MPAA including their UMG boss. One would have hoped they were "very aware" of what they were doing instead of a surprise "poo hits the electric fan" time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Surprise Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would like to amend my lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Owning the copyright
Of course, if the copyright claim is deemed to be valid, it would give UMG veto power over any appearance by its musicians, wouldn't it? "You can't appear on Letterman, because we own the copyright over everything you do, and we're refusing to sell it to the show because they once made a joke making fun of us." I can't imagine that a contract which would allow something like that would be found valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Owning the copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Owning the copyright
Well seeing as copyright can only be fully assigned and not assigned in parts, this would mean that UMG owns the actual skin that the person is in. Means the person would need permission to go about all day to day activities, need permission to travel down the road, never be allowed to go to any place that might have CCTV's, still cameras, or people with eyeballs mark 1.0, let alone audio recording devices (and ears).
Even slaves were given a better ability to interact with the world.
As for appearing on Letterman.. That's a specific contractual clause that stops them appearing on a specific forum talking about specific things and does not in any way stop them from appearing and talking about something OTHER than what they are not allowed to contractually talk about. Even then they are CONTRACTUAL and not copyright issues and are very rarely enforced, and NEVER against political or public interest situations. Think Non disclosures for publicity reasons when talking about Media spots.
I really think you are trying to make copyright into a catch all situation for every wrong you see with the world. Probably best if you re-looked and studied up on basic tort law & contract law again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a multiple rights 360 degree contract issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a multiple rights 360 degree contract issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]