Login / Register
 
The Megaupload Song
Subscribe
Fruit
Thread Starter
#1
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #1
Gear maniac
 
Fruit's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Italy
Posts: 161

Thread Starter
Fruit is offline
The Megaupload Song

Megaupload Mega Song :
with kim kardashian, puff daddy, will.i.am, alicia keys, snoop dogg, chris brown, kanye west, lil john, jamie foxx, serena williams, russel simons, brett rattner, floyd mayweather, estelle, carmello anthony, ciara, the game, mary j blidge, swizz beatz, kim dotcom, kim junior, etc.
Is it fake or real?
#2
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Gary Ladd's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Preparing to escape New York...
Posts: 717

Gary Ladd is offline
Thumbs down

#3
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #3
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248

rack gear is offline
Fruit
Thread Starter
#4
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #4
Gear maniac
 
Fruit's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Italy
Posts: 161

Thread Starter
Fruit is offline
The video has been removed, lol.
BTW the video is not fake, it's on megaupload homepage, there are also the individual advertisement videos from Puff Daddy,Alicia Keys, Will I Am, Kanye West, Snoop Dogg, Chris Brown etc.

UPDATE:

Universal Censors Megaupload Song, Gets Branded a “Rogue Label”

"Earlier today, Megaupload released a pop video featuring mainstream artists who endorse the cyberlocker service. News of the controversial Mega Song even trended on Twitter, but has now been removed from YouTube on copyright grounds by Universal Music. Kim Dotcom says that Megaupload owns everything in the video, and that the label has engaged in dirty tricks in an attempt to sabotage their successful viral campaign.

This morning we published an article on a new campaign by cyberlocker service Megaupload.

Site founder Kim Dotcom told TorrentFreak he had commissioned a song from producer Printz Board featuring huge recording artists including P Diddy, Will.i.am, Alicia Keys, Kanye West, Snoop Dogg, Chris Brown, The Game and Mary J Blige. These and others were shouting the praises of Megaupload.

By this afternoon megaupload was trending on Twitter as news of the song spread. Little surprise interest was so high; Megaupload is described as a rogue site by the RIAA and here are some of their key labels’ artists promoting the service in the most powerful way possible – through a song.

And then, just a little while ago, the music stopped. Visitors to YouTube hoping to listen to the Mega Song were met with the following message.

Mega Song Blocked

TorrentFreak immediately contacted Kim to find out what was happening.

“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’d like to give them the opportunity to apologize.”

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

A few minutes after this exchange Kim contacted us with good news. After filing a YouTube copyright takedown dispute, the video was reinstated. But alas, just seconds later, it was taken down again.

“We filed a dispute, the video came back online and now it’s blocked again by UMG and the automated YouTube system has threatened to block our account for repeat infringement,” Kim explained.

TorrentFreak spoke with Corynne McSherry, Intellectual Property Director at EFF, who says this type of copyright abuse is nothing new.

“This appears to be yet another example of the kind of takedown abuse we’ve seen under existing law — and another reason why Congress should soundly reject the broad new powers contemplated in the Internet Blacklist Bills, aka SOPA/PIPA.

“If IP rightholders can’t be trusted to use the tools already at their disposal — and they can’t — we shouldn’t be giving them new ways to stifle online speech and creativity,” McSherry concludes.

Sherwin Siy, Deputy Legal Director at Public Knowledge, worries that this type of sweeping power would only be augmented with the arrival of the SOPA anti-piracy bill in the US.

“If UMG took down a video it has no rights to, then what we have here is exactly the sort of abuse that careless, overzealous, or malicious copyright holders can create by abusing a takedown law,” he told us.

“What makes this even worse is that UMG, among others, is pushing to expand its power to shut people down by fiat–SOPA lets rightsholders de-fund entire websites with the same sort of non-reviewed demand that removed this video,” he concludes.

Megaupload’s Kim Dotcom informs us that he has now submitted an international counter notification to YouTube, informing them that UMG has no rights to anything in the video and that the label abused the YouTube takedown system to sabotage the company’s business.

“It’s ridiculous how UMG is abusing their intervention powers in YouTube’s system to stop our legitimate campaign. They are willfully sabotaging this viral campaign. They own no rights to this content,” Kim insists.

“What UMG is doing is illegal. And those are the people who are calling Mega rogue? Insanity!”

Streisand Effect, here we come again.

Update: “The fact that this expression could be silenced by a major label — without any apparent infringement — should be seriously troubling to anyone who cares about artists’ speech rights,” says Casey Rae-Hunter, Deputy Director, Future of Music Coalition. “If this can happen to Snoop Dogg and others, it can happen to anyone.”
#5
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #5
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: State of Insomnia, sleepless USA
Posts: 2,547

AwwDeOhh is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fruit View Post
The video has been removed, lol.
BTW the video is not fake, it's on megaupload homepage, there are also the individual advertisement videos from Puff Daddy,Alicia Keys, Will I Am, Kanye West, Snoop Dogg, Chris Brown etc.
"it's not fake" because it's on the MegaTheif's site?
Fruit
Thread Starter
#6
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #6
Gear maniac
 
Fruit's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Italy
Posts: 161

Thread Starter
Fruit is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
"it's not fake" because it's on the MegaTheif's site?
it's not fake because now you can clearly see and hear the artists promoting Megaupload, not fake/manipulated audio and video
#7
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #7
Banned
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 911

GearOnTheGo is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fruit View Post
it's not fake because now you can clearly see and hear the artists promoting Megaupload, not fake/manipulated audio and video
Nothing like circular logic...
#8
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #8
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248

rack gear is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fruit View Post
it's not fake because now you can clearly see and hear the artists promoting Megaupload, not fake/manipulated audio and video
So a guy who's made a billion dollars (literally a billion) stealing from artists says to "torrent freak" that he has the rights... that's rich...

OMG WTF what kind of world are we living in when somehow now YouTube are the good guys...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...618116446.html

talk about a race to the bottom...
#9
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #9
Lives for gear
 
XHipHop's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 3,856

XHipHop is offline
Universal is clearly in the wrong.

Disgraceful. I hope they are punished accordingly.
#10
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #10
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,443

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by XHipHop View Post
Universal is clearly in the wrong.

Disgraceful. I hope they are punished accordingly.
What makes you say that? Are you a music lawyer?

If ANY of those artists are signed to UMG that gives UMG the right to license their works - period. And artist from label A can't appear on an artist from label B's album without clearance from label A.

Even if Megaupload paid all those artists, without clearance from all the labels of the artists involved they can't use the song in public.

No record company in their right mind is going to give Megaupload clearance for anything.

If Kim whatshisname resided in the US that would constitute a criminal (not civil) offense and he could get another "vacation" at state expense.

Too bad, he could stand to lose some of that flab.
__________________
All opinions expressed in my posts are solely my own: I do not represent any other forums (of which I may or may not be a member), groups, or individuals although at times my views may resemble those of other entities.

************************************
Inside every old man is a young man wondering WTF happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Ohlsson
The appropriate role for science is the study of observed phenomena to gain an understanding. It is not dictating what people ought or ought not to be observing.
#11
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #11
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: out in the dirt.
Posts: 15,907

charles maynes is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
What makes you say that? Are you a music lawyer?

If ANY of those artists are signed to UMG that gives UMG the right to license their works - period. And artist from label A can't appear on an artist from label B's album without clearance from label A.

Even if Megaupload paid all those artists, without clearance from all the labels of the artists involved they can't use the song in public.

No record company in their right mind is going to give Megaupload clearance for anything.

If Kim whatshisname resided in the US that would constitute a criminal (not civil) offense and he could get another "vacation" at state expense.

Too bad, he could stand to lose some of that flab.
so shouldnt Universal sue its artists who were in the video for breach of contract?

I AM NOT DEFENDING MEGAUPLOAD EITHER.
__________________
Charles Maynes credits
Charles' webpage



“Judging others makes us blind, whereas love is illuminating. By judging others we blind ourselves to our own evil and to the grace which others are just as entitled to as we are.”
? Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship
#12
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #12
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Location: Portland, Maine
Posts: 1,552

LimpyLoo is offline
lol at "Rogue Label"...this is what happens when the farrrrrr right and the farrrrrrr left butt heads.
#13
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #13
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,443

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
so shouldnt Universal sue its artists who were in the video for breach of contract?

I AM NOT DEFENDING MEGAUPLOAD EITHER.
I don't think it works that way. AFAIK there's nothing in a contract to say who you record with, just who puts it out, but I'd really have to run it by a lawyer to be certain.

I'm sure UMG isn't happy with them though.

For example there's a lot of archived material by acts like Hendrix and The Stones that has never been released due to contractual difficulties, and in the '60s and '70s artists like Dylan and Mike Bloomfield made many pseudonymous appearances on other artist's albums on other labels where they didn't use their real names for contractual reasons. (Bloomfield = Makel Blumenfeld, Dylan=Blind Boy Grunt, etc.) It's the "product name" attached to the contract.

If those UMG stars had used pseudonyms there would be no problem - but that would kinda diminish the point, wouldn't it?
#14
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #14
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,822

chrisso is offline
Every contract is different, but if you wanted to duet with an artist on a different label for example, most times you have to have permission from both labels.
Recording contracts are generally exclusive.
Also, most labels look very dimly on artists damaging their own record sales, or collaborating with any competing interest.
In the end, everyone is in it together and we all depend on each other for the project to successfully make money. So, you can't say you wont appear on a particular chat show, unless you are selling bucket loads of records. I once knew a band who refused to accept a booking from their agent for a festival. For a laugh the band turned up and played (impromptu) anyway. Of course the agent didn't get his percentage fee. So the agent dropped the band.
__________________
Chris Whitten
#15
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #15
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248

rack gear is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by XHipHop View Post
Universal is clearly in the wrong.

Disgraceful. I hope they are punished accordingly.
How would you know?

Major Label artists are usually bound to "Name and Likeness" approvals from the label (for reasons such as these and to protect their investment), seems to me they are well within their rights if they were not consulted.
#16
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #16
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248

rack gear is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
so shouldnt Universal sue its artists who were in the video for breach of contract?

I AM NOT DEFENDING MEGAUPLOAD EITHER.
they are most likely within their rights to do BOTH, it's not either/or. it is a rare case where an artist will have complete control over their name in likeness, and nothing the artist does can supersede any other per-existing agreement. if mr.mega truly believes he is within his rights legally, shouldn't he bring the lawsuit? let's see how that goes... I have a feeling the lawyers, execs, managers, etc of universal and those artists are working overtime this weekend. grab the popcorn.
#17
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #17
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: out in the dirt.
Posts: 15,907

charles maynes is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
they are most likely within their rights to do BOTH, it's not either/or. it is a rare case where an artist will have complete control over their name in likeness, and nothing the artist does can supersede any other per-existing agreement. if mr.mega truly believes he is within his rights legally, shouldn't he bring the lawsuit? let's see how that goes... I have a feeling the lawyers, execs, managers, etc of universal and those artists are working overtime this weekend. grab the popcorn.
it will be interesting to see- I know if I was an A&R person managing any of those artists accounts I would be apoplectic. And I would make sure everyone in the chain of command above was aware of it too.

But I guess Elvis Costello got away with telling people not to buy his collection this week too though....
#18
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #18
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,822

chrisso is offline
Double bluff.
Quote:
While Costello's comments may embarrass his record label, they have also generated considerable publicity for the "super deluxe" edition, which is available from December 6.
#19
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #19
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: out in the dirt.
Posts: 15,907

charles maynes is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Double bluff.
I think EC was probably sincere in his comments though....


but hell- why should anyone complain if it actually sold legitimate product....
#20
11th December 2011
Old 11th December 2011
  #20
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,443

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
it will be interesting to see- I know if I was an A&R person managing any of those artists accounts I would be apoplectic. And I would make sure everyone in the chain of command above was aware of it too.
I would guess they probably are.
#21
11th December 2011
Old 11th December 2011
  #21
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: State of Insomnia, sleepless USA
Posts: 2,547

AwwDeOhh is offline
i'm just wondering how many millions of other people's money the MegaThief payed these folk.
#22
11th December 2011
Old 11th December 2011
  #22
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 181

J-S-Q is offline
Does no one else think some of the shots in that video look a little bit suspect? Like the lips aren't quite in sync with the vocals? Almost as if this was put together with some clever video editing techniques? Hmmm.....
#23
11th December 2011
Old 11th December 2011
  #23
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: State of Insomnia, sleepless USA
Posts: 2,547

AwwDeOhh is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-S-Q View Post
Doesn't no one else think some of the shots in that video look a little bit suspect? Like the lips aren't quite in sync with the vocals? Almost as if this was put together with some clever video editing techniques? Hmmm.....
Not out of the realm of possibility.
I was thinking the same thing.
#24
11th December 2011
Old 11th December 2011
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
... Too bad, he could stand to lose some of that flab.
Uncalled for. You were doing OK up until that point.
#25
11th December 2011
Old 11th December 2011
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
... grab the popcorn.
My thoughts exactly. We don't have the full story yet.
#26
12th December 2011
Old 12th December 2011
  #26
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,443

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Uncalled for. You were doing OK up until that point.
Have you seen his picture? That dude's fatter than I am!
#27
12th December 2011
Old 12th December 2011
  #27
Gear addict
 
frawnchy's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 480

frawnchy is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Have you seen his picture? That dude's fatter than I am!
Methinks the ad hominem disguises the fact that John wants to motorboat Mr. Upload.
#28
12th December 2011
Old 12th December 2011
  #28
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: out in the dirt.
Posts: 15,907

charles maynes is offline
the whole topic is dangerously close to being shut down here.....


just sayin'
Fruit
Thread Starter
#29
12th December 2011
Old 12th December 2011
  #29
Gear maniac
 
Fruit's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Italy
Posts: 161

Thread Starter
Fruit is offline
#30
12th December 2011
Old 12th December 2011
  #30
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,443

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fruit View Post
You misunderstood me: I was referring to my previous post: the artists have also made promotional videos for Megaupload. Probably I didn't wrote it correctly,("individual advertisement videos"), sorry!
Btw, those are some of the videos, from the Megaupload home page:
Will I Am
Alicia Keys
Puff Diddy
Snoop Dogg
Chris Brown
Kanye West
Jamie Foxx
Serena Williams
The Game
Mary J Blidge

BTW, Megaupload is suing Universal
The misunderstanding here is by Megaupload. What they don't understand is that it doesn't matter if they paid for the recordings and the video. If an artist/act signs a recording contract with a record label, everything that artist/act does during the period of that contract belongs to that label regardless of who paid for it and the label has the right to say if it gets released or shelved. The only "exception" to this is a person like George Clinton who signs contracts for different acts which he leads with different labels, but the legal language to pull this off is very, very tricky and you can bet cash money that none of the artists involved here have any such contracts. (AFAIK Clinton was able to do it because his only relationship under his own name with the labels was as a freelance producer/manager - the actual contracts were under the name of the acts specifically.)

Megaupload is going to get their ass beat on this one.
Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Matt R / Work In Progress / Advice Requested / Show & Tell / Artist Showcase / Mix-Offs
2
chumusic / So much gear, so little time!
0

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.