
Megaupload Video Reinstated - llambda
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-video-reinstated-universal-says-you-cant-touch-us-111216/
======
ColdSnickersBar
So Congress is going on the assumption that the industries wont abuse SOPA,
but the industry is abusing existing law, which proves their intentions.

~~~
tantalor
> the industry is abusing existing law

Sounds more like UMG has a deal with YT to short circuit DMCA, which isn't
against the law.

I expect that contract requires UMG to demonstrate a copyright claim on video.

In this case, obviously UMG didn't do that, and violated the contract. It's
similar to a false DMCA takedown, except that its not against the law.

YT could cancel the contract, sue UMG for damages, or simply fine them if the
contract allows that.

My point is no laws were broken.

~~~
mikeash
Intentional misrepresentation for the purpose of gaining some advantage or
harming the other party is fraud, and _is_ illegal. If lying about the
copyright can be shown to have hurt YT or helped UMG then there may well be a
legitimate case there. Not that I'd ever expect to see it prosecuted.

~~~
tantalor
Granted, but what if no intentional misrepresentation happened?

Did UMG ever assert a copyright claim on the video? Or do they have carte-
blanche to remove any video they want?

If they asked YT to remove it, that might be fraud, because somebody on YT's
side would remove the video on the assumption that UMG had a claim.

But if they just flagged the video for automatic removal, is that fraud? Can
you lie to a computer?

~~~
mikeash
If the contract lets them request the removal of any video, I imagine they
would be in the clear. If it requires a claim of copyright, then perhaps not.

As for lying to a computer, I think that counts as lying to whatever
organization is running it. Try lying to a bank's computer to tell it to
transfer money from somebody else's account into yours, for example....

------
kayoone
funny, i played Quake2 with Kim Dotcom (aka Kimble) back in the 90s and he was
actually very good at it. He went on to built a couple of scammy businesses,
got arrested for insider trading and left germany to resurface as the guy
behind megaupload which apparently is very successfull, but still a bit shady
;)

Be aware of this guy, his hands are dirty
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Schmitz>

~~~
burgerbrain
He's paid his debt to society. It seems rather unfair to hold what he was
doing nearly a decade ago against him now.

Megaupload abides by the DMCA by taking things down when asked. Just because
they don't apparently have an under the table deal with media companies like
youtube does isn't a reason to say they're "a bit shady".

~~~
mikemoka
Want to know why they are shady? Are you able to find their company
information or do they still own that PO Box based in Hong Kong? How can you
be sure where the money from Mega Companies will go? Do you think they give
(or would never give) anything back to the community by paying taxes or by
financing any honest no profit initiative? I doubt it. I am not standing with
the corporations but a company like Mega, in my opinion, is not their best
answer.

~~~
burgerbrain
To be honest, that falls completely flat trying to reach my bar for "shady".
(Legal) tax avoidance is par for the course these days.

~~~
mikemoka
Yes right, companies owning millions of dollars (they have 50 million users a
day..) shouldn't pay their share of taxes in times like these. But what if
"legal tax avoidance" by such companies was one of the very reasons why you
and me are now living in "days like these"? I don't want to convince you, I
know I can't, but just consider it if you can.

~~~
mMark
Legal tax avoidance in the United States (I'm not American - qualifier) is a
common trait throughout most large businesses. If anything, taking part in
avoidance would put Megaupload into the same company as GE, Wells Fargo,
DuPont, Boeing, Honeywell... All companies who had revenue in the hundred of
millions and billions of dollars, yet still received Government rebates.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073743/Revealed-
The...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073743/Revealed-
The-30-corporations-spent-lobbyists-taxes-debt-rose-economy-faltered.html)

Furthermore, Google does +2 billion queries daily yet they still only pay
between %2-3 in taxes.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/10/googles-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/10/googles-
tax-loophole-scheme-is-legal-but-is-it-evil/65030/)

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that it doesn't make Megaupload
"shady" for using these legal loopholes.

Furthermore, most people in the piracy "scene" know not to use Megaupload
because of their quick compliance with DMCA takedown notices - something
that's come over years of investment in their technology and takedown
procedures. Anything but shady in my opinion.

------
teyc
It is quite clear to me that YouTube is a private property and as such it has
no obligations to host anything it doesn't want. This is not a 1st Amendment
issue or even a DCMA issue, if UMG had a contractual agreement with YouTube,
whereas MegaUpload might not.

------
redthrowaway
_Interesting..._

It looked like UMG had made a strategic mistake in issuing takedown requests
for content they didn't own, but this could potentially be a win for them on a
much larger stage.

If, as they claim, their contract with Youtube gives them the right to take
down content they have no rights for, and that contract will necessarily be
revealed in discovery, then Google comes out of this the biggest loser by far.
UMG gets off scot-free in the Mega case and Google loses the trust of users
and content creators. I wouldn't be surprised if the content industry views
anything that hurts Google at this point as a win for them.

