MAFIAA at it again - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

MAFIAA at it again

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby John Kramer » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:04 pm

Skin Blues wrote:Both sides confirm that there was no copyright violation... this seems pretty straightforward. I guess both could be lying, but that doesn't make any sense. Do they all have to make their statements in front of a grand jury? Otherwise it's just he said/she said, even though he and she said the same thing.


Link please. I haven't seen UMG say anywhere that it was not a copyright violation. I've seen them say it wasn't governed by the DCMA, but I have not seen them say it wasn't a copyright violation.

Think of it this way, it's like stealing someone's mail. That is a federal offense, so it isn't governed by the local police, but it is still breaking the law. So in this case, it likely is a copyright violation, it just isn't governed by the DCMA. Now if you can show me where UMG has said it was not a copyright violation, I'll be happy to agree and wonder what the 2 clauses are in their secret contract that they are referring to.
I want to play a game. The rules are simple. All you have to do is sit here and talk to me. Listen to me. We haven't been properly introduced. My name is John.

Live or die. Make your choice.
John Kramer
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor

User avatar

Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Oct 2011
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: I am everywhere.

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Skin Blues » Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:40 pm

John Kramer wrote:
Skin Blues wrote:Both sides confirm that there was no copyright violation... this seems pretty straightforward. I guess both could be lying, but that doesn't make any sense. Do they all have to make their statements in front of a grand jury? Otherwise it's just he said/she said, even though he and she said the same thing.


Link please. I haven't seen UMG say anywhere that it was not a copyright violation. I've seen them say it wasn't governed by the DCMA, but I have not seen them say it wasn't a copyright violation.

Think of it this way, it's like stealing someone's mail. That is a federal offense, so it isn't governed by the local police, but it is still breaking the law. So in this case, it likely is a copyright violation, it just isn't governed by the DCMA. Now if you can show me where UMG has said it was not a copyright violation, I'll be happy to agree and wonder what the 2 clauses are in their secret contract that they are referring to.

Copyright violations on the internet are governed by the DMCA. YouTube is on the internet.
Skin Blues
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3080
(Past Year: 150)
Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby pjalst » Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:50 pm

Another analogy, You stick up one Brinks truck that just made pick ups from 10 different banks. You only get charged with one robbery not 10. ;-D
Last edited by pjalst on Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
pjalst
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1352
(Past Year: 66)
Joined: 3 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Niskayuna, NY

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby John Kramer » Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:50 am

Skin Blues wrote:Copyright violations on the internet are governed by the DMCA. YouTube is on the internet.


Does America's right to free speech (and I use the terms "right" and "free speech" very loosely) override this website's speech policy (no cussing, etc)? Not that I'm aware of, and this situation doesn't sound any different to me. Youtube has rules and has signed a contract with UMG regarding some of those rules, so they dictate policy, not the DMCA. Youtube and UMG are not free to skirt any laws of course, so if they were to, then the DMCA would come into play. Doesn't sound like that's the case here though, in fact, it sounds like the opposite. Looks to me like UMG pulled a video that contained at least a piece of something they own the copyright to, and have a contract with Youtube giving them the power to pull it. And people are upset because Megaupload says it didn't contain any copyright violations, and they "want" to believe Megaupload instead of waiting to see if any real facts are given on this. Now if it were the opposite, where UMG uploaded something Megaupload owns the copyright to and refused to take it down, then of course the DMCA would come into play.

I'd like to see the facts of this come to light and I'd also like to see the contract clauses. Either side could be guilty based on what little we know at the moment and I'm curious as to who is actually in the wrong on this one. Until the facts come out (if they come out), most people are just guessing as to who's guilty based on nothing but "he said/she said", while the rest of us are waiting to see some facts.
I want to play a game. The rules are simple. All you have to do is sit here and talk to me. Listen to me. We haven't been properly introduced. My name is John.

Live or die. Make your choice.
John Kramer
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor

User avatar

Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Oct 2011
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: I am everywhere.

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Tavish » Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:40 pm

John Kramer wrote:
Skin Blues wrote:Both sides confirm that there was no copyright violation... this seems pretty straightforward. I guess both could be lying, but that doesn't make any sense. Do they all have to make their statements in front of a grand jury? Otherwise it's just he said/she said, even though he and she said the same thing.


Link please. I haven't seen UMG say anywhere that it was not a copyright violation. I've seen them say it wasn't governed by the DCMA, but I have not seen them say it wasn't a copyright violation.

Think of it this way, it's like stealing someone's mail. That is a federal offense, so it isn't governed by the local police, but it is still breaking the law. So in this case, it likely is a copyright violation, it just isn't governed by the DCMA. Now if you can show me where UMG has said it was not a copyright violation, I'll be happy to agree and wonder what the 2 clauses are in their secret contract that they are referring to.

This wasn't a copyright violation and it wasn't some secret contract between Google and UMG that gave UMG (and specifically UMG) amazing power over YouTube videos. Everyone has access to Google's content manager and can use that system to pull down videos that they own the rights to (the owner also has the option to place ads on content they own instead of pulling them down). At least that is the designed use of the system, UMG overstepped that purpose and used it to pull down the Megaupload video for a reason other than copyright violation (censorship). There have been plenty of instances of people abusing Google's content manager in the past, this is just one of the biggest one to date. The system is Google's way of being as lazy as possible while still keeping their safe harbor status.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11067
(Past Year: 26)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby John Kramer » Mon Dec 19, 2011 2:21 pm

Tavish wrote:This wasn't a copyright violation and it wasn't some secret contract between Google and UMG that gave UMG (and specifically UMG) amazing power over YouTube videos. Everyone has access to Google's content manager and can use that system to pull down videos that they own the rights to (the owner also has the option to place ads on content they own instead of pulling them down). At least that is the designed use of the system, UMG overstepped that purpose and used it to pull down the Megaupload video for a reason other than copyright violation (censorship). There have been plenty of instances of people abusing Google's content manager in the past, this is just one of the biggest one to date. The system is Google's way of being as lazy as possible while still keeping their safe harbor status.


Makes sense (kind of) and should be easy enough to prove. Anyone broken the story yet? I checked and I'm still just seeing "he said/she said" instead of facts about it. Then again, I use Google so maybe they are censoring my news about it. Haha.

I do find a couple of things about all of this pretty interesting.

#1 - People sure are quick to lampoon UMG/Youtube/Google and believe Megaupload, when zero proof of wrongdoing has been given. Is the hatred toward the aforementioned three really that strong? Or is it just the love for Megaupload? Maybe a combination of both?

#2 - Why do people think Megaupload has any "right" (by any stretch of that word) to upload video to Youtube? Last I checked, Youtube (Google) owns the site and makes the rules, not Megaupload (or anyone else for that matter), and they (we) have no "rights" at all in that matter. I mean they could ban all redheads from appearing in a video if they so chose. It is their right as owners of the site to dictate what content will appear and whom can submit content, and there's nothing we can do about it other than whine, complain, and boycott. So where did the imaginary "right" come from that has people up in arms about this? Really confusing...
I want to play a game. The rules are simple. All you have to do is sit here and talk to me. Listen to me. We haven't been properly introduced. My name is John.

Live or die. Make your choice.
John Kramer
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor

User avatar

Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Oct 2011
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: I am everywhere.

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Tavish » Mon Dec 19, 2011 3:54 pm

John Kramer wrote:
Tavish wrote:This wasn't a copyright violation and it wasn't some secret contract between Google and UMG that gave UMG (and specifically UMG) amazing power over YouTube videos. Everyone has access to Google's content manager and can use that system to pull down videos that they own the rights to (the owner also has the option to place ads on content they own instead of pulling them down). At least that is the designed use of the system, UMG overstepped that purpose and used it to pull down the Megaupload video for a reason other than copyright violation (censorship). There have been plenty of instances of people abusing Google's content manager in the past, this is just one of the biggest one to date. The system is Google's way of being as lazy as possible while still keeping their safe harbor status.


Makes sense (kind of) and should be easy enough to prove. Anyone broken the story yet? I checked and I'm still just seeing "he said/she said" instead of facts about it. Then again, I use Google so maybe they are censoring my news about it. Haha.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "breaking the story'. Google has said that UMG had no right to take the video down and reinstated it. Is there something specific you are looking for?

#1 - People sure are quick to lampoon UMG/Youtube/Google and believe Megaupload, when zero proof of wrongdoing has been given. Is the hatred toward the aforementioned three really that strong? Or is it just the love for Megaupload? Maybe a combination of both?

Well I think there is pretty strong resentment towards UMG due to the previous actions of the RIAA members combined and their strong-arming of anyone who they think is hurting the bottom line. And there is a pretty strong distrust of Google by those who think they would be quick to sellout the community as a whole if it helped them in the slightest. In this specific case one of those two has happened.

#2 - Why do people think Megaupload has any "right" (by any stretch of that word) to upload video to Youtube? Last I checked, Youtube (Google) owns the site and makes the rules, not Megaupload (or anyone else for that matter), and they (we) have no "rights" at all in that matter. I mean they could ban all redheads from appearing in a video if they so chose. It is their right as owners of the site to dictate what content will appear and whom can submit content, and there's nothing we can do about it other than whine, complain, and boycott. So where did the imaginary "right" come from that has people up in arms about this? Really confusing...

Google has the power to block anything they want for sure. But AFAIK they have never chosen to use it other than instances where they were bound by law to block a video (not sure if it has ever been used to block a specific uploader). Megaupload has the "right" because Google has granted it to them (and everyone else). Megaupload has used that right to upload a promotional video for their company.
Google has also given content owners the "right" to remove videos they own. UMG (according to Google) overstepped this "right" by removing something they did not own. That is the reason for the uproar. Not so much that Google removed the video, but that UMG even requested that it be removed.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11067
(Past Year: 26)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby John Kramer » Mon Dec 19, 2011 4:24 pm

Tavish wrote:I guess it depends on what you mean by "breaking the story'. Google has said that UMG had no right to take the video down and reinstated it. Is there something specific you are looking for?


Seems I must have missed that somehow. Was a busy weekend and there was lots of drinking too, but no excuse. I must have missed that, I do see it is back up. Will be interesting to follow the court battle that will continue over this since a ton of Megaupload's traffic is illegal file sharing (not all of it of course, but quite a bit). Will likely be a very long trial and one I wouldn't want to get into if I were on the Megaupload side of the courtroom.

Well I think there is pretty strong resentment towards UMG due to the previous actions of the RIAA members combined and their strong-arming of anyone who they think is hurting the bottom line. And there is a pretty strong distrust of Google by those who think they would be quick to sellout the community as a whole if it helped them in the slightest. In this specific case one of those two has happened.


Yeah, I kinda figured bias was having to kick in. I mean, I'm not a fan of the RIAA, but I also don't despise them or anything. As to Google, if it helps them earn money or take over the world (or even just the internet world), then I'm sure they'd do whatever it is. Haha.

Google has the power to block anything they want for sure. But AFAIK they have never chosen to use it other than instances where they were bound by law to block a video (not sure if it has ever been used to block a specific uploader). Megaupload has the "right" because Google has granted it to them (and everyone else). Megaupload has used that right to upload a promotional video for their company.
Google has also given content owners the "right" to remove videos they own. UMG (according to Google) overstepped this "right" by removing something they did not own. That is the reason for the uproar. Not so much that Google removed the video, but that UMG even requested that it be removed.


Oh, I'm positive that specific uploaders have been banned from uploading content.

One thing to remember, the party that grants "rights", also has the power to take those "rights" away at their discretion. In this case, if Google wanted to take the "right" away that they gave Megaupload, they can. Like I said, I'm sure it has happened tons of times already.

So most everything is like what happens when PETA opens their mouth. Got it. Haha, just kidding. The court battle should be interesting, very interesting.
I want to play a game. The rules are simple. All you have to do is sit here and talk to me. Listen to me. We haven't been properly introduced. My name is John.

Live or die. Make your choice.
John Kramer
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor

User avatar

Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Oct 2011
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: I am everywhere.

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Tavish » Mon Dec 19, 2011 4:26 pm

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/01463417102/explanation-why-umg-may-be-right-that-it-can-pull-down-megauploads-video.shtml
A pretty decent explanation of what has gone on so far, and how "legally" no one may be in the wrong with this case. More or less UMG trying to find a loophole in their contract with Google to give them more power than what Google wants them to have.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11067
(Past Year: 26)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: MAFIAA at it again

Postby Tavish » Mon Dec 19, 2011 4:32 pm

John Kramer wrote:Will be interesting to follow the court battle that will continue over this since a ton of Megaupload's traffic is illegal file sharing (not all of it of course, but quite a bit). Will likely be a very long trial and one I wouldn't want to get into if I were on the Megaupload side of the courtroom.

There very likely won't be any sort of drawn out court battle over any of this. Megaupload doesn't have much of a recourse since the takedown was not an actual "false DMCA" takedown. UMG doesn't have any recourse because they don't own the copyright to the content.

Probably the most interesting case would be is if either Google or UMG went after the other for some sort of breach of contract. I have no idea how profitable Vevo has been for either side, but if nothing else it is an interesting experiment of a Big Media company working with a free content sharing service.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11067
(Past Year: 26)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: unioreimi and 5 guests

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Friday, Aug. 22
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Baltimore at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
Houston at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Chi White Sox at NY Yankees
(7:05 pm)
St. Louis at Philadelphia
(7:05 pm)
San Francisco at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Tampa Bay at Toronto
(7:07 pm)
Atlanta at Cincinnati
(7:10 pm)
Seattle at Boston
(7:10 pm)
Kansas City at Texas
(8:05 pm)
Pittsburgh at Milwaukee
(8:10 pm)
Detroit at Minnesota
(8:10 pm)
Miami at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
San Diego at Arizona
(9:40 pm)
LA Angels at Oakland
(10:05 pm)
NY Mets at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact