Megaupload Details Raise Significant Concerns About What DOJ Considers Evidence Of Criminal Behavior

from the bad-cases-and-bad-law dept

Yesterday I wrote up a first reaction to the Megaupload case. Having spent some more time going through the indictment in much greater detail, I have some more thoughts and concerns.

First, it's important to acknowledge that the founder of Megaupload, who goes by Kim Dotcom, has a long history of flaunting flouting the law in a variety of ways. That makes him quite unsympathetic in a court. On top of that, there are certain claims in the indictment that, if true, mean it's quite likely that he broke the law. Whether or not the violations amount to racketeering & conspiracy is beyond any analysis that we're going to be able to do here. I would say that I would not be at all surprised if he's found guilty.

Where my concerns come in is in some of the "evidence" that's used to add to the overall indictment. To be clear, in a case like this, the issue is the evidence as a whole, combined to show intent and a general pattern to actions. So the allegations in the indictment don't necessarily mean that any individual action is, by itself, illegal. But, I still worry that some of the specific actions used to paint this picture are (1) potentially taken out of context, (2) are presented in a way that likely misrepresents the actual situation and (3) could come back to haunt other online services who are providing perfectly legitimate services.

• For example, the indictment points out that Megaupload did not have a site search, by which users could find material. That's interesting, but it seems like an odd piece of information in making the case. Other copyright cases have specifically found that having a search engine is part of an inducement claim -- so there's an argument that the idea not to have a search engine wasn't so much "conspiracy," as it was an attempt to follow the guidance of the court and to stay legal. To use the lack of a feature, that previously was shown to be a problem, as evidence of a conspiracy is crazy. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.



• Separately, the indictment lists various feature choices as part of making its case. There is, for example, the fact that if certain files aren't downloaded in a certain amount of time, then they are deleted. The indictment presents this as evidence that the service is mainly for infringement, because it potentially precludes the idea that the site is used for long-term backup. Of course, that falsely assumes that long-term backup is the only legitimate use of a cyberlocker. But that might not be the case at all. The service could (and is) used to just distribute large files in a directed, short-term effort. If anything, the fact that files are deleted after they're done being shared highlights a key legal function of the site: it was used by people to exchange large files once or twice, since they're too big to share via email attachment.
  
  On top of that, other, legitimate, sites have similar policies. The popular image hosting site Imgur does the same thing: if people don't access an image for an extended period of time, Imgur may delete it. That's not because it's encouraging infringement, but because it knows that the service is being used for short-term distribution.



• There is also the question of paying certain uploaders. However, there does seem to be a bit of a stretch in assuming that because some uploaders get lots of downloads by posting infringing content, all such "paid" users must be putting up infringing works. There are plenty of viral videos that are quite popular not because of infringement. In fact, much of this seems to be based on the simple assumption that encouraging more usage means they must be encouraging infringement. It's entirely possible that Dotcom did encourage infringement, but it feels like there should be more actual evidence of that, rather than pasting together a bunch of claims that could be interpreted in legitimate ways. Paying users for popularity is not, and should not, be evidence of criminality, or even infringement.



• There is also the claim that, while the company did remove some works upon takedown notice, it merely removed one link to the work, but left up other links. The issue here, as noted elsewhere in the indictment, is that Megaupload has a system for de-duplication -- so that if multiple people uploaded the same file, it only kept one version, but made it available at a different link for each person. This is the same sort of thing that lots of legitimate sites do, including Dropbox. The question, then, is if you do something like that with a locker service, and keep a single file, accessible through multiple locker links, what do you do if you get a takedown? This is still somewhat of an open question -- and was one of the points raised (in a civil copyright infringement context, which is very different) in the EMI vs. MP3tunes case. In that case, the company was told that it did, in fact, have to delete the actual file. But that raises other questions. Let's present a hypothetical: what if infringer A and authorized distributor B both upload the same file. The system de-dupes and uses a single file for each to access. Now, the copyright holder discovers A's version, and issues a takedown. It will automatically take down B's authorized work as well -- even though that copy was not infringing. Or... what if someone uploads a copy, but for their own personal use to access remotely, but never shares the link? In that case, no infringement is occurring... but DOJ seems to claim that the site would have to delete the file anyway, or there may be criminal risk. That's crazy.



• The complaint argues that because Megaupload's "top 100" list does not actually list the top 100 downloads on the site, this is more evidence of conspiracy. The issue here is that the list apparently removes files that are likely infringing. But... again, in other cases (like the IsoHunt case) such lists were also seen as proof of inducement. So, again it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If Megaupload's list showed infringing works, then they'd be charged with inducement... but removing them from the list makes them guilty of conspiracy?



• In addition, the indictment shows that, despite the company not being a US company, it did set up a DMCA agent, a tool to make removing files easier, and did take down works on request. There are some reasonable questions about if it ignored some takedown messages (likely) and the fact that it put limits on how many takedowns could be done per day with its tool. Those certainly work against the company in terms of retaining any DMCA safe harbors. Similarly, there is some evidence that the owners of the site may have uploaded infringing files themselves -- which, again, has no DMCA protections.



• The indictment points out that Megaupload used its hashing system to maintain a list of known child porn and block those files from being re-uploaded. The problem here is that copyright is different than child porn. Child porn is a strict liability issue: it is always illegal. There are no extenuating circumstances. But copyrighted content is different. It could be authorized. It could be fair use. And that depends on the specific use, not the file. So using a hash system there doesn't make sense, whereas it can make sense for child porn.



• The indictment also lists all sorts of emails, some of which are more damaging than others, but some of which may be taken out of context. All of them seem to assume that Megaupload employees can easily tell, often just by file name, what's infringing and what's not. I think this is an assumption that many people who don't understand copyright law make. And while you can guess... it's not always so easy. The recording industry, for example, regularly uses cyberlockers as a legitimate way to distribute promo copies. How would Megaupload know if certain files were legit or not, without further details? Yes, there's obvious infringement happening on the site, but will Megaupload always know which specific files are infringing?



• The indictment discusses demands from Universal Music that Megaupload would need to meet before UMG would even discuss a potential license. This included: "proactive fingerprint filtering to ensure that there is no infringing music content hosted on its service; proactive text filtering for pre-release titles that may not appear in fingerprint databases at an early stage; terminate the accounts of users that repeatedly infringe copyright; limit the number of possible downloads from each file; process right holder take down notices faster and more efficiently." While the DMCA does require action against repeat infringers, there are no legal requirements for the other issues. It's not clear why that should be evidence here. The fact that Megaupload didn't go above and beyond what the law requires shouldn't be seen as evidence of wrongdoing...



• Many of the emails discuss the fact that, in general, there are infringing works on the site. Yeah, but that's the same issue in the YouTube case and other cases. General knowledge that your tool is used for infringement is kind of meaningless, because you can't take works down if you don't know what's actually infringing.



• Money laundering claims are tricky and perhaps there was some "money laundering" going on here, but this indictment seems to include basic payments to Megaupload's hosting companies. Using payments to companies for hosting as evidence of money laundering seems pretty extreme, and suggests the possibility that this is just a "lumping in" situation, just to pile on more things that look bad, but aren't illegal by themselves.

Do these kinds of things work together to paint a picture of the company encouraging infringement? It's certainly possible that a court will add up a bunch of things like this and insist that's true. My fear is that, at least with some of these points, there are perfectly reasonable, non-infringing contexts for them. Then, what I worry about, is that in later cases, these types of things are used as "evidence" against companies and services that are legit. Even worse, there's a real worry that it creates chilling effects for lots of legitimate services who do things like de-duplification, or have legitimate backup services. If you're running Amazon S3 or Dropbox, do you now suddenly change how you do business, just to avoid the possibility of being accused of racketeering and criminal copyright infringement? That's worrisome.

But the bigger overall issue is why this action and why now? Companies in the US have filed civil cases against Megaupload in the US and the company was willing to come to the US and deal in US courts. Taking it up to a criminal "conspiracy" and racketeering charge seems like overkill, with tremendous collateral damage and chilling effects.

Filed Under: censorship, chilling effects, copyright, criminal copyright infringement, kim dotcom, racketeering, takedowns
Companies: megaupload

Did DOJ Provoke Anonymous On Purpose?

from the conspiracy-theory-time dept

I've been on record for a while now that I think the strategy of doing DDoS attacks on websites that people don't like is a bad idea, that will lead to backlash. Though, I will admit that I underestimated their effectiveness in some cases. Indeed, even as the Anonymous DDoS attacks on various targets in response to the Megaupload takedown is getting a ton of attention, I'm still convinced it's a bad idea long-term. I should be clear that I understand the response. Also, the response is not a surprise. If we've learned anything over the last few months, it's that large segments of the internet are exceptionally frustrated with attempts to censor speech online -- and when you get that many people frustrated, and then poke them in the eye with a big stick, it's not a surprise that they might react.

Over at News.com, Molly Wood is suggesting that DOJ did this all on purpose -- including the timing of the release -- in order to provoke just such a response. This serves multiple purposes for the government. It gives them the chance to make the (obviously bogus and laughable) argument that the wider protests were done by this same group. But, it also gives DOJ and law enforcement the chance to go even further, and use this as an excuse to crack down online and put people in jail. It also gives a (again, bogus) reason to pass far-reaching cybersecurity legislation. The end result could be a lot worse.

Supporters of these actions may claim that it's the only way to be heard. But I'm not convinced that's true. What happened Wednesday showed that there are ways to be heard without resorting to tactics that can be described as vandalism. I don't think it's fair to call it vandalism -- as I've said that I believe that such actions are a lot more like a digital sit-in. But I'm just not sure it's productive. I'm sure it feels good to vent... but the end result may not be productive at all.

Filed Under: anonymous, attacks, backlash, crackdown, ddos, doj, pipa, sopa, takedowns
Companies: megaupload

DOJ Gives Its Opinion On SOPA By Unilaterally Shutting Down 'Foreign Rogue Site' Megaupload... Without SOPA/PIPA

from the screw-you-all----we're-the-doj dept

If you've been paying attention to the MPAA/US Chamber of Commerce/RIAA claims about why they need PIPA/SOPA, a key argument is that they need it to go after these "foreign rogue sites" that cannot be reached under existing US law. Among the most prominent sites often talked about is Megaupload -- which accounts for a huge percentage of the "rogue site traffic" that the US Chamber of Commerce and other bill supporters love to cite. However, it certainly appears that the US Justice Department and ICE don't think they need any new law to go after people in foreign countries over claims of criminal copyright infringement. As lots of folks are currently digesting, the Justice Department, along with ICE, have shut down the site and arrested many of the principles (with the help of New Zealand law enforcement) and charged them with massive amounts of criminal copyright infringement.

Of course, just last week, we had noted that Megaupload was immune from SOPA/PIPA because it doesn't apply to dot coms -- but this is still interesting and crazy for a whole variety of reasons:

• ICE and DOJ have a pretty freaking dreadful record so far in bringing these kinds of cases for online copyright infringement. It's kind of amazing that they did this so soon after they totally screwed up and had to give back Dajaz1 (without an apology, by the way). Megaupload may be a different type of site... but, still...
• Similar cyberlockers, like RapidShare, have already been declared legal in both Europe and the US. I don't know the details of Megaupload's situation -- and certainly its founder has a... um... colorful history... but it seems pretty extreme to totally shut down the site prior to any adversarial hearing.
• In the last few days and months, Megaupload had announced plans to help artists make more money... and had announced that very successful and famous music producer Swizz Beatz had become CEO of Megaupload. Beatz is also married to recording superstar Alicia Keys and was responsible for getting all those RIAA artists to endorse Megaupload. All indications were that the company was clearly building a legitimate system for artists to make money and fans to get content. And it seemed that many artists clearly supported the site.
• So why do we need SOPA/PIPA again? It seems like the DOJ/ICE just undermined the key argument of the MPAA/RIAA/US CoC for why they need these laws. After all, Megaupload was one of the key examples used for why the law was needed.
• At the same time there are huge questions about why the government is involved here. Megaupload is currently engaged in a lawsuit in the US -- and contrary to claims of SOPA/PIPA supporters, the company seemed more than willing to appear in court to deal with civil copyright claims. Why leap to criminal claims?
• Is this really the message the US DOJ and White House want to be giving the day after mass, widespread protests happened concerning a fear that this new law would be used to take down websites? Honestly, this is a big "fuck you" to the protestors, showing that the government already has this power thanks to the last law they passed: ProIP (which they promised they'd never abuse).
• The indictment itself -- embedded below -- is so full of hyperbole ("Mega Conspiracy") it sounds like it was written by the entertainment industry itself...

Anyway, I'm sure we'll have much more to say about all of this... but wow is the timing dumb on the government's part. Not only does it undermine the argument for PIPA/SOPA, but it raises significant questions about whether or not the feds already have too much censorship power.

Filed Under: copyright, criminal copyright, cyberlockers, doj, fbi, foreign rogue sites, ice, indictment, kim dotcom, pipa, protect ip, seiruzes, sopa, swizz beatz
Companies: megaupload

Indian ISP Blocks A Bunch Of Websites To Try To Prevent File Sharing Of A Single Movie

from the overblocking dept

TorrentFreak has the story of an Indian court seemingly having no problems issuing widespread ISP blockades in response to a request from movie studio Reliance Entertainment. The reasoning is that Reliance is hoping to prevent the file sharing of its latest movie. But rather than narrowly targeting the file sharing of that movie (or of other Reliance properties), the court ordered complete blocking of a variety of websites including Megaupload and BTJunkie. The Times of India, which wrote about this as well, notes that the whole thing is quite "strange" to cyberlaw experts.

Beyond just the oddity of massive overblocking, the blockades themselves present a rather bizarre message: Yes. It appears to claim that the block page itself is covered by Reliance Entertainment's copyright. At the very least this implies that the court simply gave Reliance the right to craft the blocked page itself which is quite incredible when you think about it.

Other experts quoted in the Times of India article suggest that perhaps Reliance is misinterpreting a court order, because such broad blocking is not reasonable, nor permitted under the law. As the article says it's "debatable" if a site can be held responsible for the actions of users (especially when the actions are predicted future actions!).

"Yes, there is a John Doe order. But Reliance Communications seems to have misinterpreted it. If the judge, who gave the order, comes to know about how it has been used, I am sure he will disagree. So far, there is no evidence that members at the blocked file-hosting websites had indulged in piracy of Don 2. It's purely speculative. It is like shutting down a public library just because some one may go there and leave a book about bomb making," he said.

Prakash added that even if there was piracy of Don 2 on the said websites, proper procedures should have been followed to block them. "Blocking websites at ISP level is arbitrary and illegal. According to the IT rules in India, only DIT is empowered to issue orders on blocking of a website. Not even Department of Telecom, which looks after the affairs of ISPs, can order blocking of websites without involving DIT," he said.

The ISP doing the blocking is Reliance Communications, which appears to have the same parent company as Reliance Entertainment (shocking, I know), says that the blocking is perfectly legal, because it "has to adhere to any copyright infringement notices and court orders." Of course, it's still not entirely clear what the court actually ordered.

Either way, those in India who use these services for legitimate purposes are up in arms. TorrentFreak quotes Gaurav Shukla, who runs an Android news site and makes use of file lockers for legitimate purposes, but who's now blocked from doing so.

"Since Friday morning I can't access any file-hosting websites. Not all web users are pirates. We share legitimate files through websites like Megaupload and Filesonic."

Once again it seems like in the desperate attempt to block any and all infringement, you get significant collateral damage. Oh, and apparently the block hasn't worked... as a DVD screener copy of the film was ripped and is being widely shared online.

Filed Under: blocking, copyright, india, movies
Companies: megaupload, reliance communications, reliance entertainment

An Explanation For Why UMG May Be Right That It Can Pull Down MegaUpload's Video [Updated]

from the but-it's-still-sleazy dept

See the update at the end

The legal fight between Megaupload and Universal Music Group keeps getting more and more... odd. After the court gave UMG basically a day to respond, the company filed its response and made a rather surprising point: that a deal with YouTube/Google lets it take down videos it has no copyright over. This seems odd, and lots of people are screaming about some crazy clause that lets UMG censor anyone's videos. But I think I understand what's going on here -- and it's a very specific situation, where UMG sorta used a loophole -- so read on for the details. UMG is still being questionable, sleazy and short-sighted... but probably legal.

The key part of the company's legal response likely is accurate and probably kills MegaUpload's case. There are a few different ways that content can be taken down off of YouTube concerning copyright claims. One is via ContentID, the automated system that matches fingerprints. One is via a DMCA takedown notice. And one is via YouTube's Content Management System. This last one doesn't get much attention and isn't that well known, but it's basically halfway in between the other two (loosely speaking), granting partners the ability to spot and block videos that aren't matched by ContentID, but without sending a DMCA takedown. If you're familiar with the details of the system (which it appears MegaUpload and its lawyers were not), it was actually easy to tell this was a CMS block by the message that appeared on the blocked video. It said "This video contains content from UMG, who has blocked it on copyright grounds." That's the message that shows up on CMS blocks. DMCA takedowns say that the video is "no longer available."

So, on that point, UMG may very well be correct in its filing, that it's not subject to DMCA sanctions because it didn't actually file a DMCA notice. This is kind of a weak excuse, frankly, and really calls into question how YouTube's CMS system works, more than anything else. In theory, this also means that the only retribution that can happen for UMG wrongly taking down the videos of others is that Google cuts them off. But seeing as Google has a big partnership with UMG to build and run Vevo, that's unlikely to happen. That's a bit scary, but it suggests UMG more or less has a free pass to shut down certain videos it doesn't like without much recourse (well, beyond public ridicule).

That said, a part of UMG's explanation isn't entirely clear, but I have some guesses as to what happened. UMG claims that its agreement with YouTube goes beyond just copyright, and that it's allowed to pull videos for other (unnamed) reasons. This is new, in a sense, because YouTube has always suggested that CMS is for copyright issues -- and, in fact, the original message on the video, did, in fact, say that it was a copyright issue. YouTube later changed that message to say it was a terms of service issue. And that provides a clue.

I believe that part of the Vevo agreement is that UMG gets to "pull" videos of its own artists from YouTube for the purpose of putting them on Vevo. That's the intention anyway. I know when Vevo launched, that was part of the deal. All the YouTube videos of UMG artists magically jumped over to Vevo. So, I'm guessing that UMG basically used this loophole, which was supposed to be about taking videos off YouTube for the purpose of putting them on Vevo, and realized it could just "take the videos off YouTube" as long as they had UMG artists in them, without ever putting them up on Vevo.

In other words, due to the specific nature of the Vevo agreement -- which was intended to move videos from YouTube to Vevo -- UMG can pull videos that show its artists off of YouTube. Of course, in this case, it used it for an entirely different purpose, which was to try to censor this ad. That backfired in all sorts of ways, and it sounds like YouTube told UMG to knock it off, knowing that this was not the intention of the agreement at all. And, for what it's worth, UMG has stopped getting the video blocked, and says it will allow it to stay up for now.

This situation is messy and silly, but it seems like an unintended result of contract language over Vevo that UMG exploited. It may be legal, but in the end, it was pretty dumb by UMG. This whole thing, in true Streisand Effect fashion, actually drove a lot more attention to the ad. And even if it was legal, it sure makes UMG look petty and vindictive.

Update: Received a response from a YouTube spokesperson which makes this a little more interesting.

Our partners do not have broad take-down rights to remove anything they don’t like from our service. In limited cases, if they so choose, and based on exclusive agreements with their artists, partners can take down live performances.

That confirms some of what I thought: that UMG does not have the right to take down any videos (as people keep implying), but that it may be able to take down some videos. The new bit of info is that it's just live performances. So, that would suggest UMG is even slimier. They tried to claim that those video clips of artists in the MegaUpload song were "live performances." That's clearly bogus.

Update 2: And... MegaUpload has conceded that its restraining order request is moot, and so the judge has denied it (pdf), while giving the company the right to file for a preliminary injunction and for discovery. So, not much of anything, but the case will likely continue.

Filed Under: contentid, dmca, takedown, videos, will.i.am
Companies: google, megaupload, umg, universal music group, vevo, youtube

UMG, MegaUpload Case Gets Even Stranger; Will.i.am Says He Didn't Authorize A Takedown

from the so-what's-going-on dept

Things keep getting stranger with the legal dispute over the whole Megaupload song. As you may remember, Megaupload hired a bunch of celebrities to say nice things about Megaupload, which the company turned into a song and video. Universal Music flipped its lid and issued a takedown, claiming that there was a performance from singer Gin Wigmore, which they held the copyright on. MegaUpload then sued Universal Music. At the same time, singer will.i.am's lawyer claimed that will.i.am sent a takedown also, saying that the singer had never agreed to the project.

Almost none of this made sense. We'd heard from various sources that Wigmore doesn't even appear in the video at all and had nothing to do with the song. Furthermore, the will.i.am stuff was really confusing. First of all, if he hadn't agreed to this, why did he say things about how wonderful MegaUpload is on video? He must have agreed to do that. Second, even if he didn't agree to it, at best there's a contractual claim there and/or a publicity rights claim. There's simply no copyright claim. His words are not his to copyright, as they're not fixed in any medium. Whoever made the video would hold the copyright -- which, in this case, is MegaUpload. Even more ridiculous was the notion, floated by some in our comments, that will.i.am's contract with Universal grants them automatic copyright, which is why UMG could issue a takedown. Again, this makes no sense for a variety of reasons. First, the same reason as above, without the works being fixed, there's no copyright in those words for will.i.am to assign to Universal. Second, UMG can't claim copyright on everything someone says. Third, even if this preposterous claim was true, will.i.am still would have no right to send a takedown, because he wouldn't own the copyright either. UMG would.

MegaUpload, has now hit back. It notes that Gin Wigmore does not appear in the song, did not write the song, and has absolutely nothing to do with the song. The company had apparently spoken to her about participating, but eventually went with Macy Gray instead. So the claim that this is under UMG copyright because of Wigmore doesn't appear to be true. Furthermore, MegaUpload provided the contract signed by will.i.am (embedded below), allowing them to make use of his words... the company's boss claims that will.i.am personally insists that he did not authorize a takedown. That raises questions about whether or not will.i.am's lawyer was confused or if he was just acting on his own.

"On December 12, 2011, I spoke directly with will.i.am about this issue, and he personally advised me that he absolutely had not authorized the submission of any takedown notice on his behalf."

In the meantime, it looks like the judge is skeptical. Judge Claudia Wilken has given UMG until the end of the day to respond and explain the takedown...

Either way, this is going to remain quite the fascinating case to watch.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, takedowns, video, will.i.am
Companies: megaupload, riaa, universal music

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?

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."

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.

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.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, gin wigmore, takedowns, will.i.am
Companies: megaupload, riaa, universal music

Universal Music Issues Questionable Takedown On Megaupload Video That Featured Their Artists [Updated]

from the this-is-going-to-get-interesting dept

As a bunch of you have noticed, the video that we had a couple posts ago, involving a bunch of the RIAA's biggest artists singing or speaking along to a song endorsing MegaUpload (which the RIAA insists is a rogue site) has been... taken down due to a copyright claim from Universal Music. Here's a screenshot: We're hearing a few different stories as to what's going on, but some people are insistent that nothing in the video violates a UMG copyright. We will do an update or do a new post once there's more info, but (of course) trying to censor information online only seems to make it that much more popular. And it appears that the video is already showing up elsewhere. Either way, it's quite a story isn't it? RIAA and Universal Music insist that they're trying to shut down this site "for the artists." Then the artists speak up in support of the site... and Universal Music censors them using the same copyright law they're trying to expand...

Update: TorrentFreak has the response from MegaUpload:

“Those UMG criminals. They are sending illegitimate takedown notices for content they don’t own,” he told us. “Dirty tricks in an effort to stop our massively successful viral campaign.”

So did Universal have any right at all to issue YouTube with a takedown notice? Uncleared samples, anything?

“Mega owns everything in this video. And we have signed agreements with every featured artist for this campaign,” Kim told TorrentFreak.

“UMG did something illegal and unfair by reporting Mega’s content to be infringing. They had no right to do that. We reserve our rights to take legal action. But we like to give them the opportunity to apologize.”

“UMG is such a rogue label,” Kim added, wholly appreciating the irony.

The TorrentFreak has some quotes from some legal experts, pointing out that that is exactly why we don't need things like SOPA and PIPA which would go much further and allow significantly more collateral damage on such bogus takedowns.

Filed Under: artists, censorship, copyright, takedown
Companies: megaupload, riaa, universal music

A Bunch Of RIAA Label Artists Endorse MegaUpload... As RIAA Insists It's A 'Rogue' Site

from the how's-that-working-out-for-you? dept

Supporters of PROTECT IP and SOPA are continuing to insist that they need to take down these horrible "rogue sites" to protect the artists, who they insist are being robbed blind by the sites. The US Chamber of Commerce keeps trotting out stats about how much traffic these sites get. Yet, as we noted recently, a huge percentage of the traffic that bill supporters keep insisting is "rogue" is from the sites MegaUpload and MegaVideo. So, it seems noteworthy, as TorrentFreak has revealed, that a large group of the biggest RIAA music stars have all performed on a song/video endorsing MegaUpload and how useful it is: Among the stars taking part: P Diddy, Will.i.am, Alicia Keys, Kanye West, Snoop Dogg, Chris Brown, The Game, Mary J Blige , Kim Kardashian, Floyd Mayweather and Jamie Foxx.

“When I got to send files across the globe, I use Megaupload,” declares Will.i.am, an artist signed to labels owned by RIAA-members Warner and Universal.

“When I’m sending my hits out I use Megaupload, ‘cos it’s fast. I can receive hits and I can send ‘em out,” declares P Diddy, an artist signed to Interscope, a label owned by Universal.

Kanye West, signed to Universal-owned Def Jam, likes to use Megaupload “…because it’s the fastest and safest way to send files – period.”

Alicia Keys, who is signed to Sony-owned RCA, says she uses Megaupload “….because I know that I can get my music safely and quickly -and you know that I’m serious about my music.”

Snoop Dogg, signed to EMI-owned Priority, uses it “…because it keeps the kids off the street,” and The Game (Universal) says that even his lawyers know he uses it, “…and I got plenty of them.”

And yet the RIAA, the MPAA and the US Chamber of Commerce are still insisting that MegaUpload is "rogue" and must be shut down? How's that work now?

TorrentFreak's article also reveals some other info about MegaUpload's plans -- some of which may be pretty controversial in other areas. For example, they want to get people to use a product called Megakey, which basically gives them access to "premium" services for free... but in exchange for having ads you see on other sites replaced by ads sourced from Mega. That's a lawsuit of a different nature waiting to happen. Replacing ads on other sites has resulted in lawsuits in the past. The details of how that actually work would be interesting, but I don't see how it doesn't end up tied up in court at some point.

Filed Under: cyberlockers, diddy, kanye west, pipa, protect ip, rogue sites, sopa, will.i.am
Companies: megaupload, riaa

Court Finds Megaupload Could Be Guilty Of Direct Infringement In Perfect 10 Case

from the say-what-now? dept

Perfect 10 is probably a lot more famous for filing copyright infringement lawsuits than publishing any sort of images. And it seems to always lose. In the process, the company has helped set a variety of useful precedents, mainly in the area of fair use. Yet the company forges on, suing every third party it can find. Last year, we detailed RapidShare's fascinating response to Perfect 10, which finally lays out in great detail some of the company's practices -- such as allegations that it sends faulty or otherwise questionable takedown notices in the hopes that they're not taken down so the company can sue.

Earlier this year, we noted that its latest target was the well known file storage service, MegaUpload. Given the similarity with this case to many other Perfect 10 cases, we had hoped that the judge would make quick work of dismissing it. Tragically, that's not what happened. Embedded below is the unfortunate ruling from Judge Irma Gonzalez, who mostly ruled against MegaUpload in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit. You can read the whole thing, but the truly scary part for me is where the court says MegaUpload may be guilty of direct infringement.

This is crazy. Direct infringement charges are used against the actual party doing the infringing. Most service providers don't have to deal with that, but instead the focus is on third party liability, things like contributory infringement, vicarious infringement or inducement. Here, however, the judge actually says that MegaUpload is involved enough that it could be found guilty of direct infringement:

Drawing all reasonable inferences in Perfect 10's favor, Megaupload serves as more than a passive conduit, and more than a mere "file storage" company: it has created distinct websites, presumably in an effort to streamline users' access to different types of media (e.g., megaporn.com, megavideo.com)... it encourages and, in some cases pays, its users to upload vast amounts of popular media through its Rewards Programs.... it disseminates URLs for various files throughout the internet... it provides payouts to affiliate websites who maintain a catalogue of all available files... and last, at a minimum, it is plausibly aware of the ongoing rampant infringement taking place on its websites. Taken together, Perfect 10 has adequately alleged Megaupload has engaged in volitional conduct sufficient to hold it liable for direct infringement....

This still doesn't make any sense. Everything described seems relevant to indirect third party liability. None of it seems to involve direct infringement. Honestly, I'm just confused how the court made the leap here. While this was just to deny the motion to dismiss, this might not bode well for Megaupload... and Perfect 10 may finally score a big legal win.

Filed Under: copyright, direct infringement
Companies: megaupload, perfect 10