Universal Music Takes Down 50 Cent's Official YouTube Video

from the how's-that-work-now? dept

Tue, Dec 27th 2011 11:14am — Mike Masnick

Remember how the music labels like to say that everything they do is for the sake of the artists on their label? Yeah. Then remember how Universal Music had 50 Cent's own personal website declared a pirate site? It seems that UMG quite frequently works against the interests of its artists -- both big and small. It's no secret that 50 Cent and his label (UMG-owned Interscope) are in a state of constant disagreement. But what happens when 50 Cent decides, on Christmas Day, to release his latest "official" video? Universal Music takes it down. 50 Cent's own YouTube account put up the "official video" for the song "They Burn Me," but within hours, if you went to that page, you saw the following:

We've been hearing lots of similar stories lately of UMG being pretty quick on the trigger to take down videos, even ones that its own artists have been releasing. The label got a lot of attention over the bogus takedown of the MegaUpload video, but it seems like UMG pretty much feels free to take down videos all the time, even those that the artists they're claiming to "protect" want up.

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, takedown, video
Companies: interscope, universal music, youtube

108 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Hulser (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 10:40am

Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
Remember how the music labels like to say that everything they do is for the sake of the artists on their label?

No, I don't. I know this is a bit of innocent hyperbole, but even if some representative of a recording company said something that outrageous, it wouldn't be taken seriously. It's understood that the primary purpose of any company, much less a recording company, is to make money. Now, organizations like the RIAA, on the other hand, do claim to represent the best interests of the artists. (A claim that is almost, but not quite as laughable as it would be if made by a recording company.) I'd see your main point about hypocrisy being relevant if it were the RIAA who somehow got the video pulled, but not UMG.

For the record, I think it's counterproductive to UMG's profits to pull the video, but I think they're within their rights. It may be stupid, but not hypocritical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killercool (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:21am
  
  Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
  Actually, I don't think it IS in their rights.
  
  Please explain to us how, if this video is official, it can be unauthorized, ever? Because while UMG might have the ultimate ownership, their subsidiary, Interscope, has management of it.
  
  Once again, just because you don't like the use of a thing, doesn't mean you necessarily have a right to prevent it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:24am
    
    Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
    Didn't UMG already say they have the right to take down anything they don't like?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike C. (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
      UMG stated they had the ABILITY. Google reminded them (and us) that they didn't have the RIGHT.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
        Yes, bit for the "Ability" is a right. Are you forgetting we're talking about scumbag, thieving labels here?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hulser (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:25pm
    
    Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
    Please explain to us how, if this video is official, it can be unauthorized, ever? Because while UMG might have the ultimate ownership, their subsidiary, Interscope, has management of it.
    
    Please explain to us what distinction you make between �ownership� and �management�? You seem to be implying that because Interscope is �managing� the video, it somehow trumps UMG�s rights in �owning� the video. It clearly doesn�t. Of course I don�t have access to the contracts, but I�d bet money that even if UMG is taking the funds to make the video out of 50 Cent�s cut, they still retain ultimate ownership of the IP. Just because someone put an �Official video� stamp on the video doesn�t change this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Killercool (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 2:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
      I would have thought the distinction was quite easy to see. The owner is the person who funds an endeavor, and sets it's goals and direction. The manager is the person (or in this case, group) who decides the best way to achieve those goals, and takes responsibility for such. That's why, when someone decides to do it all themselves, they are an "owner/manager."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hulser (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 4:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
        I would have thought the distinction was quite easy to see.
        
        What's quite easy to see, to everyone but you apparently, is that my question was about the distinction as it relates to your baffling implication that somehow the "managers" have more control of IP than the "owners". Are you sure you don't work for an online help desk? They use the same trick of addressing a single sentence out of a paragraph and ignoring the actual question being asked.
        
        I'll try again...
        
        Because while UMG might have the ultimate ownership, their subsidiary, Interscope, has management of it.
        
        If UMG has the "ultimate ownership" of the video, what relevance does it have who manages it or whether someone designated is as "official"? Do you really think that these factors override who owns the copyright?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:35pm
    
    Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
    It was uploaded by the Artist, not the label or it's parent company. Just because an artist creates something doesn't mean he has ownership. 50 Cent sold the ownership of his works when he signed a contract with the label. They own his works now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 8:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
      And why wouldn't one point out the inherent hypocrisy in the assertion that this arrangement is 'for the artist' as the lobbying groups that represent the labels and act at their behest often do loudly and incessantly?
      
      I don't think anyone is arguing they don't have the ability to get the video pulled (clearly the do). I think some would argue they don't have the right under the terms of 50's current contract and the provisions of the DMCA however that fact is largely irrelevant to reality since they don't need a 'right' to get the video pulled thanks to the third party agreement between UMG and YouTube that exists as a directly result of the liabilities created under the DMCA. So in the end what we have a system that's actively used against an artist's best interest or wishes that was created in their name to the rallying cry 'for the artists.' i.e. hypocrisy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:35pm
    
    Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
    It was uploaded by the Artist, not the label or it's parent company. Just because an artist creates something doesn't mean he has ownership. 50 Cent sold the ownership of his works when he signed a contract with the label. They own his works now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:28am
  
  Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
  It's important to remember that apparently Mike Masnick loves piracy, and loves to give reasons to rip off the major labels.
  
  Even when they've done nothing wrong, apparently if he can lie and spin a situation to make them look bad, he'll do it.
  
  That's just the kind of person Mike Masnick is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:30am
    
    Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
    I'm sorry, how do you spin this to make it look good for UMG? Or even neutral?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
      UMG was completely correct in pulling it. 50 cent is the one doing the ripping off. UMG paid for the video, so it is supposed to go on the UMG channel. 50 cent grabs it, gets all the new views, and thus keeps all the ad revenue himself despite UMG being his venture capitalist in this. Totally douche move.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
        I thought there was no money to be made from free videos?
        
        Also if that is the case why didn't UMG or interscope just rerelease the video on their page? Instead of blocking 50s official version and act like it was off the internet, and not on about 100 other peoples pages already.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - rooben (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
        But, doesnt 50 cent actually pay for the video, since they take it out of royalties, before he gets paid?
        
        So, UMG gets to deduct the cost of making the video from 50's salary, and then has a right to the profits from advertising on youtube.
        
        See, what you sre being dishonest about is yes, the probably have the legal right to do so, but that doesnt make it the right thing to do. That is what people get upset about, OF COURSE UMG can do it. But we also feel powerless as entities like UmG get to make all of the rules, and stack the deck, because their money provides undue influence.
        
        50 cent COULD have negotiated video rights, but more likely NO MAJOR studio would sign him if he insisted on it, so it is either play at local clubs your whole life, or sign the contract that is inherently one sided.
        
        Great choice. So, now 50 does some "civil disobedience" by directly releasing the fruits of his labor, his sponsor's profits be damned. And somehow, you think this makes him an asshole...no, the real assholes are the execs who rely on their underlings to correct their bad decisions, and rake in the profits that this virtual monopoly creates.
        
        Profits are NOT a constitutional right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
        Massive promofail. They could have leveraged this into salkes, in a similar manner to LMFAO et al.
        
        UMG proves, once again, that they6 have no clue how to leverage infinite goods.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Loki, 27 Dec 2011 @ 7:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
        And this attitude is why nobody, even people who don't "pirate" stuff, pays any attention to copyright anymore.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 9:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
        So it's not really about the artist and supporting said artist; it's all about the labels.
        
        Thanks for confirming this for us. Now whenever any of your ilk comes along ranting about how Techdirt never supports artists, we'll just forward them to your representative statement. Because it was never about the artists; any attempt by them to make a little extra money is a douche move.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Earnest, 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
        Wait... did UMG pay for it? It has been common practice for artists to pay for their music videos for decades now so that the labels don't have to eat the cost. The labels pretend that they pay for the videos, but they charge those costs back to the artist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:59am
  
  Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
  Pulling the video isn't what's hypocritical. It's hypocritical of them to lobby congress under the mantra "we need take-down provisions 'for the artists'" and then use said take-down provisions to fight said artists. Where the hell do you think organizations like the RIAA get their money, talking-points, and lobbying agenda? Companies like UMG. You're making a distinction between the two that's without any functional difference.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:17am

Remember how the music labels like to say that everything they do is for the sake of the artists on their label?
Only idiots believe that. Labels are the worst organization an artist can work for, even a government job has more freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:24am

But UMG had to take down the video to protect the artist!

It's just like security, imagine if a guy walks up to you at work and says "I'm here to protect you from thieves" and then punches you in the face so hard you're knocked unconscious for a few hours.

When you wake up you ask "why did you punch me if you're here to protect me from thieves".

And the security guard replies "thieves can't steal what you didn't make because you were unconscious. I just helped cut down your losses on piracy, your welcome".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:24am

By 50 cent putting it up himself, he takes in all the ad revenue, which, considering UMG paid for the video, doesn't take into account that UMG is his partner in the venture. Dick move on 50 cents part.

Of course UMG should pull it.

And if you weren't such a disingenuous, intellectually dishonest slimeball, Masnick, you would have done some research and explained that- instead of just waiting for someone that actually understands music to do it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killercool (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:28am
  
  Re:
  can't tell if trolling, or just that stupid...
  
  I hate to break it to you, but 50 cent's official youtube channel exists at the behest of Universal - or at least his label, which represents Universal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, 50 cents YT channel exists for himself.
    
    All official videos on ANY label go through the label's YouTube channel.
    
    Are you really as slimy as Mike Masnick, or just stupid?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      100$ says the above pretentious loser AC is a Satanist.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 2:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's offensive to satanists, seriously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 6:31pm
        
        100 what?
        WTF is 100$? I know what $100 is. You must be under 25 years old.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 6:56pm
        
        Re: 100 what?
        who are you talking to?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      citation needed.
      
      Do you have actual documented proof that 50's YT channel is not infact operated and maintained by Interscope or UMG, that 50 himself sits down with his laptop and posts stuff?
      
      It appears that you are making assumptions too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Killercool (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        before the crazy guy (AC#3) comes back, I'd like to issue a correction.
        
        This song is under the "Aftermath Entertainment" label, not "Interscope."
        
        While a petty correction, as Aftermath is also a subsidiary of UMG, my getting the label wrong will probably be used to somehow "disprove" my own, and others', actual point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:31am
  
  Re:
  Oh noes! The artist dares to try and make money! Shoot the bastard!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    If want artists to make money, stop stealing their music, asshat.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How does one go about stealing music that is purposefully put up on a free-to-use video sharing website?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MrWilson, 27 Dec 2011 @ 2:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Any use that doesn't involve sending money to the artist (via the label of course...artists wouldn't know how to properly manage or distribute money if you just gave it to them...) is STEALING. Every time you hear a song playing on someone else's car stereo, even if you don't know who the artist is or can understand the lyrics, you should find out who the artist is and send them a chunk of your paycheck. If you watch a movie that has someone's music playing it in, you should not only pay to see the movie, but you should send royalties to the label. Sure, the movie producers licensed to play the music in the movie, but did you license to hear the music also? Of course not, because you're a thieving thief stealer pirate.
        
        Obligatory: /sarcasm
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 2:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The irony is, UMG have stolent he music in this case.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 4:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You might want to explain your position on this one, because you've just idiot'ed yourself into a corner. No one 'stole' a damn thing. No one even /copied/ a thing. THis is about the artist posting the artist's work, so how is the artist stealing the artist's work and keeping the artist from making money?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:36am
  
  Re:
  This particular video (and the majority of 50's videos) is one he made to promote a mixtape he released for free. It's not an official video for his album, it is promotion 50 paid for out of his own pocket.
  
  A little research goes a long way when making statements born of assumption and presenting it as fact. It
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    You don't understand what you're talking about.
    
    ANY track or music video done while 50 cent has been with UMG was funded at least in part by UMG. His contract stipulates that all of his *music* videos are released via the official label YT site. Basically all artists have this in their contract.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I know full well what I'm talking about. I have half of G-Unit records on speed dial. Do you?
      
      I didn't think so.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How do you know so much about his contract? Did you have access to it? Can we please see it? All in the name of fact checking, of course. Bear in mind that we'll have to assume that you are just talking out of your ass if you don't provide any proof.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        His contract was signed before there was a YouTube kiddo. He's a legacy artist, and he removed his imprint that he release most of his stuff under off of UMG to EMI about a year and a half ago.
        
        Google is your friend.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So...talking out of your ass then? Thanks for clearing that up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oops, I just realize that I answered to the wrong AC...great is my shame...I'll slink back under the bridge
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        EMI doesn't exist anymore- it was sold to... UMG. Google is your friend, freetardo.
        
        50 cent doesn't have the right to post that video on his personal site and make all the money.
        
        But what do you expect from the second wealthiest rapper/hiphop guy in the world- a multimillionaire who wrote "How to Rob"?
        
        As for the rest of the stupidity you freetards are babbling about, it's just more inane record label hate so you can try and justify stealing music.
        
        Exactly what Mike Masnick wants you to do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 1:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He's the President of his own RIAA member label giving him the right to release anything he wants to from the imprint. As far as the EMI/UMG thing that's relatively new and you would be correct, though it really is irrelevant considering the it is nothing more than a distribution deal. You want me to link you to the definition of that or you think you can handle that all by your lonesome?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 1:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        50cent doesnt have the right to post his own video to his own website, and this is suppose to get us on your side?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Right, because he's to gain so much from this. LOL!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think you deserve a raise
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      citation needed.
      
      Do you have actual documented proof ... YADA YADA ...
      
      It appears that you are making assumptions too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 2:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        While I do not have a UMG contract in front of me, do you really doubt that they have a clause in them that says that anything created by the signing artist during the duration of the contract is owned by UMG despite who pays for it, when it's done, or how it's done?
        
        He could probably spend ten minutes farting into the mic and UMG will claim ownership if enough people go to see it. That's why they took down the Megaupload video, they don't own the artists' creations, they own the artists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So what?
        
        What do you care? It was the artist's CHOICE to sign a contract.
        
        Still doesn't justify you stealing music from artists- major label, indie label, independent.
        
        Who exactly do think you're fooling with this nonsense?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 2:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who said anything about stealing anything? How are we stealing/promoting stealing from artists by watching, wanting to watch or discussing watching a video the artist released for free?
        
        Is anyone who points out that the labels are behaving stupidly a thief just because you can't think of anyway to defend their stupidity other than attack those speaking against them?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 2:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who said anything about stealing anything?
        
        The article is yet another lying hit piece by Mike Masnick trying to make record labels look bad. That's how he tries to help pirates justify ripping music off.
        
        Mike Masnick has an incredibly weak business model in mind for himself, but it depends on piracy. That's why he spends every day trying to stop piracy enforcement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hothmonster, 27 Dec 2011 @ 2:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Suuuuuuureeeee, see you later.
        
        Hey who the fuck stole all the tinfoil!
        
        But back to the point, this story has ZERO to do with piracy. Yet anyone who thinks the what the labels did was completely stupid is a "thieving fucking pirate" despite this again having nothing to do with piracy. So I will ask my question again, "Is anyone who points out that the labels are behaving stupidly a thief just because you can't think of anyway to defend their stupidity other than attack those speaking against them?" and add an addendum: or is because you are a looney nutjob and anyone who doesn't agree with you must be part of some conspiracy to support piracy or is it just that anyone who doesn't like copyright or the corrupt actions of the labels must just be a petty thief because otherwise it would shatter your worldview?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 3:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        p.p.s
        
        the labels do not need any help looking bad, its kind of like how the daily show turned from making up news stories to reporting real news. Their is more than enough stupidity going on without anyone making anything up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 3:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The article is yet another lying hit piece by Mike Masnick trying to make record labels look bad. That's how he tries to help pirates justify ripping music off.
        
        No offense, but I have no reason nor desire to make the labels look bad. They do that themselves.
        
        Mike Masnick has an incredibly weak business model in mind for himself, but it depends on piracy. That's why he spends every day trying to stop piracy enforcement.
        
        My business model has fuck all to do with "piracy" and it shows your desperation that you feel the need to lie and smear me for reporting on how some of your buddies in the industry are too stupid to adapt to a changing market.
        
        I am curious how you think my business model depends on piracy, though? I guess when you have no facts on your side, lying about people is the best you can do. Pathetic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 3:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        some of your buddies in the industry are too stupid to adapt to a changing market.
        
        "Changing market" = rampant illegal behavior. Masnick is too slimy and intellectually dishonest to call it what it is.
        
        I am curious how you think my business model depends on piracy, though?
        
        Your business model (in your head, at least) is currently two-fold:
        
        1. Present yourself as an alternative marketer of entertainment in a world of piracy. No piracy = no need for a person like you. IOW, that part is dependent on piracy.
        
        2. Write a blog that is primarily devoted to railing against piracy enforcement. That is exactly what you do, and you're a liar if you try to deny it.
        
        I guess when you have no facts on your side, lying about people is the best you can do. Pathetic.
        
        Yes Masnick, I guess when you have no facts on your side, lying about people is the best you can do. Pathetic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 3:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Put up or shut up. You clearly have skin in this game, so why not tell us who you are?
        
        Oh, wait, you aloso love piracy, seeing as how you love anonymity, andonly the amonymous thieving pirate terrorists hate the labels.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 4:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So... you're saying you have no idea at all what it is Floor64 is about, then.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 8:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Changing market" = rampant illegal behavior.
        
        classic response from a narcissist in denial... but but but it's not ME it's ALL OF YOUUUUUUUU CRIMINALLLLLLLLS
        
        seek help.. seriously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Keep digging your own grave with that nonsensical bullshit. Even a moron in a hurry reading your drivel sees you're full of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - sumquy (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 4:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ANY track or music video done while 50 cent has been with UMG was funded at least in part by UMG. His contract stipulates that all of his *music* videos are released via the official label YT site. Basically all artists have this in their contract.
      
      why? because you own him? asshats like you are the reason it took 80 years and a bloody war to end slavery in this country.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:06pm
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 27th, 2011 @ 11:24am
  So, which division of UMG did you work for again?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re:
  "considering UMG paid for the video, doesn't take into account that UMG is his partner in the venture. Dick move on 50 cents part."
  
  Since the cost of production comes out of 50 cents' income from the video, how did UMG "pay" for it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:39pm
  
  Re:
  "considering UMG paid for the video, doesn't take into account that UMG is his partner in the venture. Dick move on 50 cents part."
  
  Wrong, boy.
  The cost of the video is taken out of income from the video before 50 cents sees a single...cent.
  So, in essence, 50 cents is paying for his own work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Loki, 27 Dec 2011 @ 7:55pm
  
  Re:
  We can just solve the problem by abolishing copyright altogether. Than "piracy" won't be an issue.
  
  As far as I am concerned anything less than the complete and total abolishment of copyright is not negotiable at this point.
  
  Go get a job slacker.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colin, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:27am

"They Burn Me"? Couldn't ask for a more perfect song title in this situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hothmonster, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:28am

Fucking 50 cent is a dirty pirate. How dare he steal that video, doesn't he know how hard he worked on it? How 50 can sleep at night knowing that he is taking money right out of 50s pockets I will never know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:33am

and yet...
And yet, Universal and all the other *AA's and labels and media companies INSIST that Google, Youtube and ISP's can stop all piracy overnight, because they should "just know" what is and isn't infringing, when clearly UMG doesn't even know what it's own artists are doing, and then moves AGAINST them to take their content down when it's clearly legit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:39am

This particular video (like the majority of 50's videos) is one he made to promote a mixtape he released for free. It's not an official video for his album, it is promotion 50 paid for out of his own pocket, for a project his label put nothing into.

A little research goes a long way when making statements born of assumption and presenting it as fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 1:00pm
  
  Re:
  This is bullshit. The "song" and video were made while he was under contract.
  
  If he doesn't want to be signed, take money from a label, and follow the rules of a contract, he shouldn't sign one.
  
  Grow up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 27 Dec 2011 @ 2:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Seriously! Play by the broken, corrupted system's rules and get fucked in the ass daily by profiteering asshats at the labels or be poor and unknown!
    
    Exercise the real choices you have!
    
    /s
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 2:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wait, I thought the mantra here was that nobody needs record labels and they're all going to die? And that everyone can do it themselves using the internet?
      
      Get your propaganda straight.
      
      oh, and if all the labels ceased to exist and all artists sold their music directly, would you stop stealing it?
      
      Of course not.
      
      You buffoons are transparent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Wait, I thought the mantra here was that nobody needs record labels and they're all going to die?"
        
        unlike you most of the posters here are not part of a hivemind
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 2:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wait, I thought the mantra here was that nobody needs record labels and they're all going to die? And that everyone can do it themselves using the internet?
        
        Wow, then you really haven't been paying attention. Stop projecting your fears onto us.
        
        oh, and if all the labels ceased to exist and all artists sold their music directly, would you stop stealing it?
        
        Still fixated on getting people to pay for music I see. Cute.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 2:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wait, I thought the mantra here was that nobody needs record labels and they're all going to die? And that everyone can do it themselves using the internet?
        
        Well, there's your problem. You either can't read, or can't comprehend the idea that disagreeing with a particular startegy doesn't mean that all labels are useless. In fact, we've argued exactly the opposite of what you claim our "mantra" is.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/173833576.shtml
        
        You seem to do this a lot -- insist we say stuff where we've said the exact opposite.
        
        Kinda strange.
        
        You buffoons are transparent.
        
        Really, now?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 3:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, please quote an article from almost 4 years ago- that will surely inoculate you from all the negative things you've said about record labels since.
        
        And are you going to deny that people regularly comment about how they can't wait for "the death of the industry" and "record labels dying" here???
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 3:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, but it puts the falsity to your assertions. So, either come back with some actual claims or fuck off.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 4:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Go ahead and quote anything more recent that supports your position that Masnick is against the labels and wants them to fail. Pointing out where they are wrong and/or stupid isn't the same as what you want to believe.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 6:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Everyone is fully aware your discontent has nothing to do with the theft of content and everything to do with your fear of being irrelevant. As much as I enjoy watching a narcissistic rage induced meltdown that rivals any toddler, it would be more entertaining if you weren't trying to take away everyone's rights in the process.
        
        Rather than listen to anyone or anything that could actually bring your business model in line with technology you chose to stick your finger in your ears and scream PIIIIIIIRAAAAAAAATTTTTTTEEEEEEEEEE at the top of your lungs until we stopped looking for scary thieves with guns and started looking for a shirtless Johnny Depp sporting an eye patch.
        
        Mmmmm I love me some Johnny Depp. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 6:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        damn I replied the wrong AC again. sowwy
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 10:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        >Yes, please quote an article from almost 4 years ago- that will surely inoculate you from all the negative things you've said about record labels since.
        
        The RIAA/MPAA's fears are far older than 4 years; they've lasted several generations' worth of technology. Somehow, that manages to inoculate and justify every horrible decision they make, like suing dead people and forum shopping for judges.
        
        What's good for the goose...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 1:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, please quote an article from almost 4 years ago- that will surely inoculate you from all the negative things you've said about record labels since.
        
        Okay, fine. How about me saying the same thing last month?
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111111/03372116719/believing-legacy-gatekeepers-will-fa il-to-adapt-is-not-same-as-wanting-them-to-fail.shtml
        
        I showed you that other one because we've been saying the same thing forever.
        
        And are you going to deny that people regularly comment about how they can't wait for "the death of the industry" and "record labels dying" here???
        
        I'm sure some commenters say it. But, then again, you keep saying I'm a sociopath. Amazingly, what some anonymous commenter says on the site is hardly representative of the views of the site (or of reality).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Dec 2011 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Talk about missing the forest for the trees. People don't just say record labels are going to die, that you don't need them anymore and you're better off self-publishing and using the internet in a vacuum. They say this is light of the legacy content publishing industry fighting change at every turn. That's what they're wishing death on and suggesting folks can do without, the idea that the future should be fought at every turn. If labels had a history of innovating quickly and responding to consumer demands with convenient products at reasonable prices do you really think those kinds of comments would proliferate at the rate they do now? People say these things not because they 'hate labels' but because they thing the labels failing to adapt is a forgone conclusion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:42am

Music companies..
don't give a rats tushie aout artists - they only care about raking in more money to pay huge executive salaries. I'm sure they would even block independent artists who work entirely on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:57am

Universal also has a hand in coordinating with ISPs to send warnings to IP addresses belonging to people who are downloading Lil Wayne's FREE mixtape that he posted online for his fans.

UMG doesn't want their artists connecting directly with fans, because then they lose their power. Then they lose their distribution monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:59am

Foul!
@Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 11:43am claims:

"His contract stipulates that all of his *music* videos are released via the official label YT site."

I claim FOUL! FOUL! FOUL!

YOU of all people have actual access to 50cent/UMG contract??? You've seen this clause on 50cent/UMG's signed comtract? Really????

And then you make the further claim: "Basically all artists have this in their contract."

Really? Really??? You've access to other comparable artists/UMG contracts to provide a statistical analysis? Can you give the actual percentages with standard deviation of contacts so analyzed? Enquiring minds want to know!

I have no idea what's in 50 cent/UMGs contract. But I do know not to make such stupid assumptions. I also know that 50cent is considered a 'major artist'. I also know that 'major artists' generally have a bit more clout with regards to negotiating the conditions included in their contracts.

'Assume' makes an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me'. But I'm just going to shorten this to 'ass' as in "You're one." Leave 'me' out of it. I make no presumptions regarding any particular contract I haven't read myself.

My best guess is that 50cent most likely does indeed own his own promotional material particularly as a result of his own contract negotiations. Of course, I'm just guessing.

If you want to prove me wrong, then post this mythical actual copy of the 50cent/UMG contract you imply that you have access to. Otherwise, stop making up bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:59am

Simple
The music these artists think they own... they dont. They sold their souls, and publishing rights to the devil. To the labels they "own" everything the artists do. Slavery is alive and well in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stuart, 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:26pm
  
  Re: Simple
  It is not slavery.
  These are people who because of the changes to the market in the last 5 or more years do not have to have a label. They sign with one because they get cash up front and then the fame be easy.
  Fuck em. If an artist signs with some scumbag label, let them. I am cool with idiots looking for a quick buck and easy fame to get fucked.
  50 cent is a complete moron. Here he is with all his fame and fans and he continues with a label? Really? Why?
  A label that owns HIM. Idiot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:09pm

so what is the word from 50cents on the take down? disagreeing with it? fighting it? rolling over and playing dead? what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hothmonster, 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:18pm
  
  Re:
  its out there now and if you look for it you can find it hosted by others on youtube and bunch of other hiphop blogs. I found working links for it on 50s site too. So I think he doesn't care as he knows what he set out to do (release his video for free) was accomplished.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re:
  50 got shot 9 times and stab and left for dead in a gutter, do you really thing he would roll over for these corporate punks and their lawyer shills? Fuck that shit, I say he should get his crew and unload a few hundred rounds on those fuckers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    rap fans: making rap fans look bad since the invention of rap
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:11pm

Looking at it, there seems to be a lot of "official" claims going on, but it's not clear who is really official and who is not.

I am suspecting that the video was put up before it's official release, and UMG moved to get it taken down before it spread.

I would say that much of the "official site" and "official channel" stuff I am seeing for Fiddy ain't looking so official.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mr. sim (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:18pm

everyone should be thanking UMG. thanks to them the court is going to be ruling that a flase copyright takedown notice constitites infringement and that a false copyright takedown notice is able to get the insane damages that they claim through the riaa housewives/the elderly/the dead/ people who don't own the internet owe them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Me again, 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:26pm

Just a Thought,
So 50 Cents made a half dollar. It's all the man wants. After all. Look at the name. If he wanted more he would have called himself 50 million.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:42pm

I think that the Content ID so praised by the labels is showing its limitations LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:52pm

It's just the 'Mob version' of 'protecting artists' is all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 2:16pm

For those interested...
Here's the video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello Again, 27 Dec 2011 @ 4:12pm

Who cares.
Really, the ultimate question is, who cares about 50Cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 27 Dec 2011 @ 4:33pm
  
  Re: Who cares.
  Really, the ultimate question is, who cares about 50Cents
  
  Given his success, I think it's fairly obvious that the "ultimate" answer is: a lot of people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 3:32am
    
    Re: Re: Who cares.
    Watch your cents and the dollars will take care of themselves!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TY, 28 Dec 2011 @ 12:06am

UMG have no right to take this down because this track in particular isn't owned by them it was made from 50`s own cash. Mixtape songs have nothing to do with major labels their from the artists funds for self promotion. I saw some ignorant comments so i just needed to get that out there and the youtube channel and 50`s site aren't owned by Universal do your research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
freddy, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:47am

Half of you don't even know what your saying, these are mixtape videos (common in hiphop), where the artist self-finances the songs and videos himself. UMG have no right too this song or video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 28 Dec 2011 @ 7:06am

Telling it like I see it
The major record labels are the biggest thieves I can think of. When an artist signs a contract with one of them, they basically own that person like a slave and hoard what should be the artists' rightful profit. Furthermore, they have full control over their stable and copyright all of the artists' works as their own. Signing to a major label is basically submitting to indentured servitude. Therefore, I don't feel sorry for 50 cent nor any of their other corporate slaves. If he were an independent artist, he could do whatever he wanted, but he's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your Retarded, 28 Dec 2011 @ 6:54pm

Other Rights
I don't know details of the song in question here, but UMG may have pulled this video because underlying rights weren't cleared for inclusion on YouTube.

There are more than just artist/label rights embedded in a sound recording (for example, each embedded sample must be cleared with its owners) that 50 may have forgotten to check on before releasing. Online music is more complicated than you think, so check the facts before jumping to conclusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]