GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   mega upload response to being put on the rogue list (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1049250)

kane 12-13-2011 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18626597)
actually read the dmca act again

the process is

1. takedown
2. counter notice
3. court decide content stays up

not
1.takedown
2. counter notice
3. back to step 1 again.
It appears to me that this case is following the correct pattern. Universal and apparently some of the people in the video filed a takedown notice. The video was taken down. Mega Upload filed a counter notice as well as a law suit and now the court is going to decide who is right and who is wrong.

kane 12-13-2011 04:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18626602)
btw you might want to read your own statement



the issue isn't HOW the footage was put together it WHO owns the footage.

NOTHING in the artist statement contradicts the ownership by mega upload

and of course your trying to misrepresent mega uploads statement as if they are saying they didn't cut together the footage they OWNED in a way the artist doesn't like

which they never ever said.
You just restated exactly what I said. Some of the artists claim that Mega Upload does not have the right to use the footage they did in the way that they did. Again NOBODY INCLUDING YOU knows what kind of contracts or releases have been signed (or not signed) between any of these people and Mega Upload. The artists say the Mega Upload doesn't have the right to use it and they spliced together stuff they have no rights to use and Mega Upload disagrees. The court will decide.

gideongallery 12-13-2011 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 18626609)
You just restated exactly what I said. Some of the artists claim that Mega Upload does not have the right to use the footage they did in the way that they did. Again NOBODY INCLUDING YOU knows what kind of contracts or releases have been signed (or not signed) between any of these people and Mega Upload. The artists say the Mega Upload doesn't have the right to use it and they spliced together stuff they have no rights to use and Mega Upload disagrees. The court will decide.
no i didn't read it again

1. mega upload said they owned the copyright to all the videos they used

2. will i am says he never gave permission to use that content in that way


it is possible for both statements to be true

your misrepresentation hides that possiblity

here the key point

will i am is only allowed to use DMCA takedown process for content that infringes on copy right (either full, or partially assigned) that HE OWNS


Quote:
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

gideongallery 12-15-2011 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 18626591)
This is you in vintage form. You know NOTHING about what was signed between any of the people in that video and Mega Upload. You are just assuming because you think you know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING when it comes to media.

If you read the article I linked to and some of the others linked to after mine you would see that it appears Universal is saying that Mega Upload doesn't have releases nor the rights to put that stuff up which is why they had it taken down. Mega Upload is saying they do have signed releases and the rights and that they have now been damaged by Universal. The court will settle this. IF Mega Upload has signed releases as they claim and they have the rights to the content they used they should win their case easily and be allowed to sue for damages. IF they don't they should be punished. This is a case of he said she said and nobody other than then people who are involved in it really know the truth of the story including you.
oh really

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/8aa...2b106d6bca.jpg

don't ever say i didn't produce proof again motherfucker.

kane 12-15-2011 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18633397)
oh really

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/8aa...2b106d6bca.jpg

don't ever say i didn't produce proof again motherfucker.
Wow, I am actually impressed. However, you didn't read this until today because it was just posted to day on torrentfreak. When you posted the stuff above you were just guessing.

http://torrentfreak.com/will-i-am-i-...kedown-111214/

So you got lucky and someone bailed you out. But still, you actually provided proof for one thing. It has nothing to do with you and your personal claims, but it is a step forward. I suppose you want Will I Am to now forfeit all his copyrights.

gideongallery 12-15-2011 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 18633521)
Wow, I am actually impressed. However, you didn't read this until today because it was just posted to day on torrentfreak. When you posted the stuff above you were just guessing.

http://torrentfreak.com/will-i-am-i-...kedown-111214/

So you got lucky and someone bailed you out. But still, you actually provided proof for one thing. It has nothing to do with you and your personal claims, but it is a step forward. I suppose you want Will I Am to now forfeit all his copyrights.
nope the record label

since the lawyer is a record label lawyer it would be the record company

they ball face lied, they knew they didn't have a copyright, and they did it with the sole intent of censoring a message they didn't want heard.


of course that only if law was changed to be balanced which hasn't happened yet

and the record company can't convince mega upload not to ask for such a penalty by adequately compensating them for the deliberate censorship.

kane 12-15-2011 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18633534)
nope the record label

since the lawyer is a record label lawyer it would be the record company

they ball face lied, they knew they didn't have a copyright, and they did it with the sole intent of censoring a message they didn't want heard.


of course that only if law was changed to be balanced which hasn't happened yet

and the record company can't convince mega upload not to ask for such a penalty by adequately compensating them for the deliberate censorship.
So you want Universal to now lose all of their copyrights?

blackmonsters 12-15-2011 05:57 PM
A few people got duped into making a video; that's not exactly an endorsement.

LOL!

:1orglaugh

kane 12-15-2011 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmonsters (Post 18633563)
A few people got duped into making a video; that's not exactly an endorsement.

LOL!

:1orglaugh
When you read that release that Gideon posted it looks like he- meaning Will I Am- (and so I would assume the others as well) signed a pretty broad based release, did some kind of work for them of some kind or made an appearance of some kind for them and then it ended up in this video appearing to be an endorsement of the service.

I don't doubt some of them knew they were endorsing it. Kim Kardashian would endorse the holocaust if you paid her enough, but I would guess some of them didn't fully realize what they were getting into and weren't smart enough to fully read the release.

After all, this is a signed release, but it from a few months back and we have no idea what he signed it for or what he was doing for them when he signed it.

blackmonsters 12-15-2011 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 18633587)
When you read that release that Gideon posted it looks like he- meaning Will I Am- (and so I would assume the others as well) signed a pretty broad based release, did some kind of work for them of some kind or made an appearance of some kind for them and then it ended up in this video appearing to be an endorsement of the service.

I don't doubt some of them knew they were endorsing it. Kim Kardashian would endorse the holocaust if you paid her enough, but I would guess some of them didn't fully realize what they were getting into and weren't smart enough to fully read the release.

After all, this is a signed release, but it from a few months back and we have no idea what he signed it for or what he was doing for them when he signed it.
Signing a release is a legal argument. The fact that they don't want the video up is
a negative endorsement no matter what they signed.

You could get a hot babe to sign a contract on Friday night saying she loves you but if
she wakes up on Saturday and tells you to eat shit and die are you going to go
around waving the contract to your friends claiming that you have legit proof that
she loves you?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

kane 12-15-2011 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmonsters (Post 18633785)
Signing a release is a legal argument. The fact that they don't want the video up is
a negative endorsement no matter what they signed.

You could get a hot babe to sign a contract on Friday night saying she loves you but if
she wakes up on Saturday and tells you to eat shit and die are you going to go
around waving the contract to your friends claiming that you have legit proof that
she loves you?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
I agree. There is no way of knowing what exactly this release is for and it looks a lot like the standard broad release they have you sign when you appear on a talk show or things like that. For all we know they hired him to appear at an event and this is the release from it, but that event may have nothing to do with the video they put together.

gideongallery 12-17-2011 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 18633587)
When you read that release that Gideon posted it looks like he- meaning Will I Am- (and so I would assume the others as well) signed a pretty broad based release, did some kind of work for them of some kind or made an appearance of some kind for them and then it ended up in this video appearing to be an endorsement of the service.

I don't doubt some of them knew they were endorsing it. Kim Kardashian would endorse the holocaust if you paid her enough, but I would guess some of them didn't fully realize what they were getting into and weren't smart enough to fully read the release.

After all, this is a signed release, but it from a few months back and we have no idea what he signed it for or what he was doing for them when he signed it.
seriously what exactly about

Quote:
1. mega upload said they owned the copyright to all the videos they used

2. will i am says he never gave permission to use that content in that way


it is possible for both statements to be true

your misrepresentation hides that possiblity

here the key point

will i am is only allowed to use DMCA takedown process for content that infringes on copy right (either full, or partially assigned) that HE OWNS

the validity of the endorsement doesn't matter to the abuse of the DMCA

universal was 100% aware they didn't own the copyright to the work
and they deliberately lied to censor mega uploads $3 million dollar viral campaign.

gideongallery 12-17-2011 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 18633802)
I agree. There is no way of knowing what exactly this release is for and it looks a lot like the standard broad release they have you sign when you appear on a talk show or things like that. For all we know they hired him to appear at an event and this is the release from it, but that event may have nothing to do with the video they put together.
in addition to explicitly waiving copyright claims

the contract also says "in any promotional materials of any kind in connection with the program, and megaupload limited's networks and other services"

the mega upload song would clearly qualify as a "promotion material of any kind"

gideongallery 12-17-2011 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmonsters (Post 18633785)
Signing a release is a legal argument. The fact that they don't want the video up is
a negative endorsement no matter what they signed.

You could get a hot babe to sign a contract on Friday night saying she loves you but if
she wakes up on Saturday and tells you to eat shit and die are you going to go
around waving the contract to your friends claiming that you have legit proof that
she loves you?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
cool so your saying every porn girl who changes their mind about the porn they got paid to do should have a right to abuse DMCA take down notice process to purge your work from the internet.

the second thoughts of the talent are irrelevant to who fucking owns the copyright to the work.

adendreams 12-17-2011 10:27 AM
Great PR Stunt (scam) Ask stars to say the words "Mega Upload" to a camera and hand them a BIG stack of cash right there on the spot to sign a small 1 page release form...

Of course they have no idea what Megaupload is... but hey a big stack of cash right there in their face why turn it down. THEN cut it all together into a song and music video they never agreed to - big win for the Pirates :thumbsup

adendreams 12-17-2011 10:41 AM
curious that youtube stopped taking down the vids... thats outright capitulation to who they think is in the right

gideongallery 12-17-2011 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adendreams (Post 18636649)
curious that youtube stopped taking down the vids... thats outright capitulation to who they think is in the right


YouTube Says Universal Had No ?Right? to Take Down Megaupload Video


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:20 PM.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123