Busta Rhymes Backs Megaupload, Says Record Labels Are The Real Criminals
from the who's-hurting-who dept
Well, well. As we pointed out when the Megaupload shutdown happened yesterday, the company had recently named top producer (and husband to Alicia Keys) Swizz Beatz as CEO. Swizz knows tons of artists who respect him, and it seems that some of the biggest names in the business are pretty pissed off that the US government shut down Megaupload. First there's Diddy, who put out a couple tweets pledging support and telling him to never stop.But what's a lot more interesting are the very direct statements from Busta Rhymes, who is clearly pissed off at the US government claiming that Megaupload is a criminal operation. Putting his tweets together, he states:
1st of all I am soooo proud of my brother @THEREALSWIZZZ 4 being apart of creating something (MEGAUPLOAD) that could create the most powerful way 4 artist 2 get 90% off of every dollar despite the music being downloaded 4 free...You can see the tweets here (full version), here (full version), here (full version) and here.
With labels and companies doin' deals with Spotify and many other companies like it who doesn't give us shit continue 2 do what they do and blatantly show us how much they value the artist with doing deals of such disrespect and lack of value 4 our content...
I am proud 2 stand next 2 my brother @THEREALSWIZZZ and fight the good fight...Our freedom is truly being fucked with in a very significant way and I strongly suggest 2 all artist especially the 1's Swizz repped 4 comes out & reps 4 him!!!
Fuck that I say it again...I'M PROUD OF MY BROTHER @THEREALSWIZZZ #GREATMIND!!
There's a key point in all of this that we missed in our earlier analysis about paid accounts at Megaupload. In the indictment, the government seems to assume that paid accounts are clearly all about illegal infringing works. But that's not always the case. In fact, plenty of big name artists -- especially in the hip hop world -- use the paid accounts to make themselves money. This is how they release tracks. You sign up for a paid account from services like Megaupload, which pay you if you get a ton of downloads. For big name artists, that's easy: of course you get a ton of downloads. So it's a great business model for artists: they get paid and their fans get music for free. Everyone wins. Oh... except for the old gatekeeper labels.
In fact, this is part of the ecosystem, especially in the hip hop world. It's why the artists also support those hip hop blogs that the RIAA insists are dens of pure thievery. The artists release their tracks to those blogs, knowing they'll get tons of downloads -- and actually get money. If they do deals with labels, they know they'll never see a dime. Putting music on Megaupload is a way to get paid. Working with a gatekeeper is not.
And yet... Megaupload is the criminal operation? Seems like the actual artists know otherwise.
What Busta is pointing out is that services like Megaupload -- while it may be run by some sketchy individuals and probably crossed the legal line in some cases -- are actually a great new business model for artists, while also being the future of distribution. It's a great way to distribute, make money, and let fans get the works for free. And that's why the major labels are so freaked out by cyberlockers. It's not because there's so much infringement on there, but because it's a system whereby artists can get paid and can better distribute their own works to fans... without signing an indentured servitude contract with a label, which never pays any royalties.
Did Megaupload break the law? Perhaps. But it seems clear that the real fear on the part of the RIAA and the major labels is not so much about that. It's the recognition that such a distribution and payment system undermines much of their reason for existing, and takes away their ability to control artists. A smart label would learn to embrace these things. But we're talking about the major labels here, and so instead, they run to the US government -- who clearly knows nothing about the way modern artists monetize and distribute music -- and lets them try to paint a picture of just how "evil" services like Megaupload are.
But the artists know better.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: business models, busta rhymes, cyberlockers, diddy, disruption
Companies: megaupload, riaa, universal music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It seems like these artists' own public admissions (together with the details of their record contracts) ought to be enough evidence to indict them for criminal copyright infringement; it shouldn't even be too hard to show they were engaged in a conspiracy with Megaupload (whose new CEO presumably had some contact with them and knew exactly what they were doing on his site).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And he's right, because copyright was originally meant to give the "Authors and Inventors" (Content creators) exclusive right to their "respective Writings and Discoveries".
So an argument saying that the content creators are illegally infringing copyright is basically doomed to failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What about all the independent artists? Just a big fat fuck you to them? And I don't think anyone is talking about commercial music intended for sale.
At least we can now say it's been admitted this has nothing to do with what is good for the artists. Just the gatekeepers desperate to keep control of the uncontrollable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I like nothing more than to see copyright holders abuse the monopoly granted to them and see it backfire bad in their faces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And so does fake Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2012 @ 3:57pm
through copyright infringement of their own songs & indict them for criminal copyright infringement proves what a fucking asshole you are, and I would love, just love, to see that go to a Jury trial. I bet the labels wouldn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[citation needed]
Please provide a valid* contract or other copyright transfer document for each song in question. I seriously doubt you have seen any such document.
*note, under US law, if the artists's contract specifies copyright transfer of works that have not yet been created, an additional contract or transfer document is required for each work thus transferred. Failure to do so means that the artist can be in breach of contract (which would be a civil matter, not criminal), but not breach of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Priceless!
You really think that argument will play with anyone in the world who isn't a copyright middleman.
the copyrights for which they had transferred to their record labels through valid contracts
Technically valid maybe - but undoubtedly obtained through a mixture of intimidation and deception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can't tell which.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do agree though on one point. Artists who are already signed with a record company can't do this because they are in a legal contract in which they don't own copyright anymore. But there are still problems thing here is when a contracted artist pulls a deal like on MU, it isn't dealing with copyright infringement but dealing with a breach of contract. It's a matter of by comparison being signed with one record company and saying you can't go anywhere else, and then turning around and writing songs for another record company. It's not a copyright problem at this point but a problem over executive contracts. A copyright problem would be over owned content(having song x owned by Company A be produced by Company B), not over what the artist does with future songs.
But there is an option available for those artists signed with with a record company. Cancel your contract, with the record company that it has over any future songs you write. Simple as that. I hope I made a good point to all you fellow artists out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unfortunately it isn't that simple - these contracts are written so you can't easily get out of them. See George Michael for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think they are pretty smart and this is an example of the "new" capitalism. In order to have a start-up business it needs to stay underground or under the radar of big business - at least until you have deep enough pockets to pay for lawyers defending it.
Yup. That's the way it works now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lawayer: Wasn't your pro SOPA/PIPA rant something like "think about the artists!"?
Label: We are! Diddy's not the artist! We are! Fine him! Take all his money! Take all his bling! Toss him in jail!!!
Lawyer: I rest my case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While it might not be what the labels want, those clauses can be combined to legitimize the action busta rhymes is exploiting.
BTW judging from what happened in the mega upload song, with will i am it is in fact an order of magnitude more likely that those exemptions still exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 20th, 2012 @ 3:57pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Among those with the power to hurt you, who have you pissed off today?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously though, this is just more of the usual Masnick intellectual dishonesty.
If labels were unhappy about artists monetizing themselves, then they'd be upset about Sound Cloud, Kickstarter, etc.
They aren't.
This article is just more of the usual lies that Mike Masnick churns out every day here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You want to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We doan need no stiinkin details !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The labels don't mind that at all.
The premise of this article is just transparently false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course you have to take up the premise of the tweets with the guys that made them rather than do it here. I'd take their opinion over yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It isn't. Bandcamp is a tremendously awesome and innovative tool for musicians. And the labels don't mind it all.
Mike Masnick makes this mistake over and over again. It's like he's trying to keep piracy as part of the equation.
Why is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Until they shut it down without warning like they did MegaUpload.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and the labels don't dare (yet) to express their dislike of it in public.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bet you're plotting ways how you can kill it though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike sees and acknowledges this and then points out that the best way to fight "the problem" is by not making it an issue.
If people aren't buying your discs, what are they buying? Or not "buying"? Answer: Digital downloads.
Are you providing digital downloads? Answer: To some extant, yes. (As in yes, you do provide digital downloads. Unless of course you live in Country B and not Country A. Unless you want it now, but have to wait three months, time release windows. Etc.)
Are you providing digital downloads that are DRM free? Answer: To some extant, yes. (However, while most DRM has been done away with, there are other factors that come into play that restrict use of said digital downloads. Incompatibility with certain devices. Only usable on some devices. Etc.)
Are you providing digital downloads at reasonable prices? Answer: To some extant, yes. (However, there are numerous products and "stores" where the digital equivalent of something is priced the same as, or even more than, the physical equivalent. Yes, prices for the most part are reasonable, but they're not reasonable for what you're getting.)
I can go on, but of course you'll label me a freetard/piracy apologist anyway, so I won't bother pointing out YOUR shortcomings.
Suffice it to say, piracy is a byproduct of a bad business/service model. You aren't giving the people what they want. Somebody else is willing to do that, even if it is illegally. We've reached a point where the majority DO NOT see downloading something as wrong. It's true. So how do you deal with it? Not with bad laws and by limiting innovation and start-ups. You beat it by giving the people what they want. Reasonably priced, drm-free downloads available in multiple formats. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. You provide that, make it available worldwide (a major problem) and ASAP, on a website or through a download service (you can even use torrents to distribute it, thus saving and bandwidth cost) where people log in and pay for the product easily (ala iTunes/Netflix) and you'll see piracy start going down immediately.
Don't do that. And sucks to be you. Here's a tissue. Use it to wipe the tears that are caused by your own stupidity and inability to compete in a free market effectively. When I worked in retail we had one motto, "The customer is always right." (Even when they're not. But if you want them to remain customers, thus keeping their business and making money, you meet them halfway and DO NOT tell them they'll take what you're willing to give them. Do that, and they'll go elsewhere. Legal or not, moral or not. Etc. Besides, morality is all a matter of opinion. Legality is all a matter of time, what's legal/illegal today, might not be tomorrow.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The labels don't mind that at all."
Wanna bet, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Rarr rarr pants on fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually they did complain about Musopen's Kickstarter project to make new public domain recordings of classical music.
They also complained about the BBC's freely downloadable recordings of Beethoven's symphonies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Show me where Kickstarter can be used, and is being used, to host copyrighted material.
Same with Sound Cloud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would a car company get taken down because the cars are used in homicides ?
Would a gun company have the same kind of treatment ?
And yes we all know the MPAA & RIAA are scared and trying to hold on to their dinosaur ways of doing business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, I get it! The problem is that the corporations are becoming existential! All humans do that some time in their life, and that includes corporations.
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's becoming more and more painfully obvious that this has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with an outmoded industry spending its warchest trying to stifle innovation. They will sacrifice a free and open internet in order to keep their claws sunk into the creative community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It seems like it would depend on the specific details of the contract whether the artist would be allowed to produce their own non-label songs in addition to the songs they produce for the label. (When you're a label negotiating with an artist, the reason you hobble that ability is to maximize your own profits.)
If you really think that's what's happened here though, please provide details of which songs these particular artists chose to produce and distribute (using Megaupload) themselves rather than distribute through their labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't have a problem with a business maximizing its profits. But the least this business could do is stop pretending it's taking down sites like Megaupload in order to protect the livelihoods of its artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Those types of contracts are immoral and should be illegal. They would never happen were it not for the huge imbalance of power that exists between artists and record labels when their first contracts are signed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First you have to prove they were infringing and wanting to, instead they were getting contracts with rapers and cutting out the labels (like youtube).
Next your tossing people in jail from all around the world most restrictive laws.
Soon nations will start making laws protecting there citizens against being removed for violation of other country's laws much like the US has with the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Free music back then did not make much money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But youre right, this has happened before. I'm thinking of a Russian site several years ago that RIAA severed ties with the RU royalty agency because they wanted higher fees - then got the DOJ involved to shut down payment processing Wikileaks style because "they weren't paying royalties".
And now they want to do it faster and wth less oversight?
Reguardless, there is this whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. What if they are cleared? The business and everything they had is gone along with the time to fight this.
Websites are already blocking the US. I can't go into BBC and use their iplayer. The rest of the world can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think the reason you can't get iplayer is that you aren't in the UK (and hence haven't paid the licence fee) I don't think it is usable anywhere outside the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
UK gets it free as it's paid for by the TV Licence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Erm, not exactly. Because the BBC is paid for by a licence fee (tax), it has been restricted to everybody outside the UK until recently. The recent global iPad app will allow paid access from Canada, Europe and Australia, not the US, AFAIK. The reason for this is licencing, not censorship, in the same way that nobody outside the US can legally access Hulu or Pandora, and until very recently UK viewers were not allowed access to Netflix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bottom line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The bottom line
Eh? It's storage on drives.
Innovative business model though- anonymously and illegally distribute content.
Yeah, real progress there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The bottom line
Is that like your business model - anonymously lie, defame and misrepresent anyone who supports artists instead of corporations? I hope you get paid for it, at least, I'd hate to think anyone this stupid is sharing the same air as creative people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Many of them should take a good long look at their employees and data systems. A full staff rotation may not be a bad idea for those that cannot be fully trusted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While it would be fascinating to find out just how many are given IT cutbacks lately I'm not sure that the result would catch the eye of anyone higher up. And certainly not the politicians because there's no dollar bills paper clipped to the reports.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business Model
DICKHEADS don't give a rat's ass about infringement as they, more or less and more than less, are the cause of the "rampant infringement" to begin with.
DICKHEADS want ALL the control over creation AND creators. Period. They definitely don't want the likes of Busta minting coin without their knowledge, advantage and control. They could give another rat's ass about the artist. I'm pretty tired of "for the artist" too (how about "for my DICKHEAD ass only").
How many songs older than 10 years can you name where the musicians call out "The Labels" for polluting their cause and molesting their income? I got one from Bad Brains and one from Sublime just today. They've always been DICKHEADS and DICKHEADS never change. Down with DICKHEADS!
And fuck all you bitches that try to provide cover for your DICKHEAD masters (yah, bob, I like the beer, good to loosen up my free speech muscles... speaking of..). out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business Model
You douchebags rip off music whether it's on a major label or not.
Your bullshit rationalizations are stale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Business Model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Business Model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh noes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh noes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh noes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or, take files from anyone and get shut down.
Which would you rather?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And how exactly would you do that?
After all Megaupload checked out all the rights for the megasong - but UMG went after them anyway...
[ 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 ]
Operation Litigation
There could soon be thousands of people suing the Feds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cloud Computing business environment? Who in their right mind would trust that their hard work stored in the cloud would not be blown away by the big bad wolf in sheep's clothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You people are hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Much will be accomplished, I'm sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know what'd be a good idea? Having some sort of meeting to determine whether or not someone broke the law. You could have one guy speaking for each side, and maybe a neutral third party who listens to both sides and gives a judgement based on their statements. Maybe get a dozen or so regular people to talk it over in private and give a consensus on whether it was legal or not.
Something like that could revolutionize law enforcement. It'd probably never happen in this day and age, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How was Megaupload making money?
So how is that Megaupload was able to do what they couldn't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How was Megaupload making money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The very same can be said for virtually every other business enterprise within the creative arts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What you are describing is not an inevitable it is merely inefficiency made possible by monopoly power.
Given modern technology the large team is unnecessary and the equipment is now cheap.
Also - in the current context - why should the labels also need a monopoly on songs they didn't contribute to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't deny that in some ways, performers are part of the problem. At times they demand salaries and lifestyles that need to be propped up by legacy systems. But the way you're disagreeing with the above statement is suggesting that the artists don't matter squat to the equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The labels stopped cultivating talent and grooming artists years ago. You're responsible for getting hot and staying hot. The labels only get off their asses and give any project attention after you've done the work to make it buzz. The only thing the labels do well is bogart all the money and bully everyone into believing they are more important to the process than they really are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you are going to attack labels because all the do is bring money to the table and insist on controlling process for the creation of the eventual product, then you should probably do the same with respect to VC's in the tech sector. I have as yet never met a VC that puts up money and does not likewise almost total control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is pissing a lot of people off, including the artists that labels are supposed to protect. More artists are deciding that they don't need labels, and there are people willing to support such ambitions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Personally, that's not why I attack labels. I attack labels because they are rabid, bald-face thieves & liars.
They steal from the artists through accounting tricks and unconscionable contracts. They steal from the consumers through predatory pricing & unreasonable terms of use. They steal from the public by enacting laws that remove content that the public should own and causing collateral legal & societal damage that was far out of proportion to the problem they are purportedly trying to solve.
If the labels behaved more like legitimate VCs, I would have some measure of respect & sympathy for them. But they don't. They are criminal organizations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please explain this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wrong
p.s. looks like someone is pissed - FBI vs ANONYMOUS video:
http://www.peeje.com/anonymous-hackers-we-legion-211/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
I know that reading and thinking is hard, but please at least try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hasn't it always been..
RIAA discussing dens of thievery.. did they forgot to mention themselves somewhere or was that the funny? What is there to miss? Did I miss something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steal from artists? Give me a break. They front money, and the artists lap it up. Perhaps I am limited in my experience dealing with labels and studios, but as a general rule the money they front is not repayable with interest should the investment go bust. That is part of the risk assumed by all investors, whether in the entertainment business or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Famous Amos
When an Artist sells the rights to songs to the music industry, the song doesn't belong to the artist any longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Industry is Fighting the Hydra and Losing
Killing off Megaupload will only fracture the users into seeking alternative means of doing what they're doing already. Megaupload provided a perfect "You can't beat em, so join em" system where artists could rake in cash while not having to worry about people getting their tunes for free (which is going to happen regardless of whatever checks and balances are put in place by the industry).
Now instead of the artists getting paid, they're pissed and the content is still getting out for free... What have they solved? People earning money on their creations. That's all they've managed to stop.
Keep chopping those heads, RIAA & Company, it's clearly working...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The words you hear, the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes
It's one for all, all for one
We work together, common sons
Never need to wonder how or why
We are the priests of the temple of Syrinx..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bet your ass its not over
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kimble vs. Music Industry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]