mega upload response to being put on the rogue list

[gideongallery]

get all these people to endorse them
Kim Kardashian
Diddy p
Will.i.am
Alicia Keys
Snoop Dogg
Chris Brown
Kanye West
lil John
Jamie Foxx
Serena Williams
Russel simmons
Vrett Ratttner
Floyd Mayweather
Estelle
Carmello Anthony
Ciara
The Game
Mary J Blige
Swizz Beatz
Kim Dotcom
Kim Junior

[FlexxAeon]

video fail

[Caligari]

that's right get lame ass Kim "CC fraud bitch" Kardashian to back you up

Where's Bernie Madoff and Dick Cheney's endorsement

complete fail

.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Caligari

that's right get lame ass Kim "CC fraud bitch" Kardashian to back you up

Where's Bernie Madoff and Dick Cheney's endorsement

complete fail

.

surprise surprise you don't get

musicians promoting the site endorsing the sharing feature at the same time their trade organization is misrepresenting it as a rogue company "dedicated to copyright infringement"

they get to quote the artist documenting the legit uses of the service.

btw

that not in order of important that just the order they appeared

Will.i.am
Alicia Keys
Snoop Dogg
Chris Brown
Kanye West

are all in the video

[fris]

they probably had no idea what they were speaking about, they probably got paid a pretty penny

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by fris

they probably had no idea what they were speaking about, they probably got paid a pretty penny

pretty penny not likely

more than the royalties they get from the record companies for the "sale" of their albums

dam straight

that the point artist aren't against the shift

it the outdated record companies

[porno jew]

if you don`t think those are paid endorsements you are a fucking retard.

[fris]

Originally Posted by porno jew

if you don`t think those are paid endorsements you are a fucking retard.

the guy can afford it.

some alexa ranks

megaupload.com 72
megaclick.com 104
megavideo.com 164
megaporn.com 1005
megacloud.com 6153
megalive.com 40061
megapix.com 51733
megabox.com 77963
megakey.com 88617
megapay.com 524186

[porno jew]

Originally Posted by fris

the guy can afford it.

some alexa ranks

megaupload.com 72
megaclick.com 104
megavideo.com 164
megaporn.com 1005
megacloud.com 6153
megalive.com 40061
megapix.com 51733
megabox.com 77963
megakey.com 88617
megapay.com 524186

yes the guy is loaded. i think he has the most expensive house in australia.

http://www.3news.co.nz/The-mystery-o...6/Default.aspx

[itto]

Kim does it again.

..oh, and he brought teh fireworks to auckland last year.

[SmokeyTheBear]

if you think any of those people have ever used megaupload or likely even know what it is you are deluded

[Jakez]

Pretty much all of those people put music out for free all the time, the hip hop industry is built on free today.

[porno jew]

if you think floyd mayweather uses megaupload and is giving a free endorsement you are seriously fucking retarded.

[georgeyw]

Ahhh I remember that guy - he made big bucks years ago and posted images and videos of him acting up all over the world.

Enteringsome canonball type race in the UKand making a mess of it etc...

[garce]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

surprise surprise you don't get...

Don't get WHAT? C'mon, dont leave me hanging.

[epitome]

Gideon, you will never change our opinion and we won't change yours. Stop trying.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by garce

Don't get WHAT? C'mon, dont leave me hanging.

seriously what about the following statement did you not understand

Originally Posted by gideongallery

musicians promoting the site endorsing the sharing feature at the same time their trade organization is misrepresenting it as a rogue company "dedicated to copyright infringement"

they get to quote the artist documenting the legit uses of the service.

riaa /mpaa spend 100 of millions trying to push thru sopa

painting mega upload as a site who's sole purpose is copyright infringement

by buying some endorsements specifically promoting the sharing for free they prove that claim is bullshit

that sopa is about taking down fair use and legit sites that CAN be used for infringement

ie destroying the VCR because you CAN use it to make bootleg copies of movies

[Fletch XXX]

megaupload is so last year wth the wait time shit LOL

mediafire ftw

[V_RocKs]

I mega uploaded my cock in your mom's ass last night.

[Hentaikid]

This is a variant on the pirates who buy some content as a fig leaf and loudly trumpet it when accused. If all those artists want to work with the company, great, wonderful, cool. The problem is the other 99% of the stuff you can download from megaupload which wasn't licensed

[fris]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

megaupload is so last year wth the wait time shit LOL

mediafire ftw

most people use a service like mirrorcreator which uploads to dozens of hosts, mediafire, megaupload, filesonic, etc all at the same time, so every host gets love.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Hentaikid

This is a variant on the pirates who buy some content as a fig leaf and loudly trumpet it when accused. If all those artists want to work with the company, great, wonderful, cool. The problem is the other 99% of the stuff you can download from megaupload which wasn't licensed

and that what a valid takedown notice is for

do your job and it not a problem.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

musicians promoting the site endorsing the sharing feature at the same time their trade organization is misrepresenting it as a rogue company "dedicated to copyright infringement"

so you should be able to find ONE artist who agrees with you correct ?

let us see ANY popular artist say they do NOT support the designation of rogue company to megaupload..

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

and that what a valid takedown notice is for
.

the reason they are on the rogue list is because they not only have to comply with takedown but they must take steps to mitigate future repeat infringement . They did not , now they are on rogue list. pretty simple..

[Just Alex]

Very impressive

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

so you should be able to find ONE artist who agrees with you correct ?

let us see ANY popular artist say they do NOT support the designation of rogue company to megaupload..

how about one artist who is completely against the entire concept of SOPA


http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/...-so-hackin-mad

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

the reason they are on the rogue list is because they not only have to comply with takedown but they must take steps to mitigate future repeat infringement . They did not , now they are on rogue list. pretty simple..

TOTAL BULLSHIT

IF they didn't meet the minimum requirements of the safe harbor provision (of their home country) there would be no need to put them on a rogue list because the MPAA could sue them into oblivion

The only reason they need to be put on a ROGUE list is because they are already doing exactly what they are legally obligated to do.

PERIOD.

oh and BTW

the take down notice process your complaining about, wrongfully took down a video that was actually paid for / original work that had 1st amendment protection.

[Splum]

Copyrights are dead

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Splum

Copyrights are dead

copyright is not dead

it still a very powerful conditional monopoly

it just fair use that is being extended with technology shift

shared backup is now a mass market technology instead just being in corporations with sms servers.

your cost have gone way down, just provide the life time "free" access for your customers and you will be fine.

[kane]

Looks like the plot thickens.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...p-diddy-272414

Apparently several of the artists that appeared in this video served Youtube with takedown notices saying that they never gave their permission for their work or likeness to be in the video. They claim that Megaupload spliced together random footage to come up with this endorsement video. Of course Megaupload says otherwise.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

[Operator]

The fact that there is even a rogue list should be the major cause for concern

[DVTimes]

who cares?

so what if its blocked or not.

its a bit late in the game.

its like going around dusting a room, after a nuclear fall out.

[porno jew]

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/ne...utube-20111212

[Paul Markham]

So 21 people endorse it, so what?

Originally Posted by DVTimes

who cares?

so what if its blocked or not.

its a bit late in the game.

its like going around dusting a room, after a nuclear fall out.

Sadly you're right. With the 10 or 20 major Tubes giving it away for free. Porn is a shadow of what it was.

Movies, music, games. They are going to benefit. they weren't stupid enough to give the whole product away.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

Looks like the plot thickens.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...p-diddy-272414

Apparently several of the artists that appeared in this video served Youtube with takedown notices saying that they never gave their permission for their work or likeness to be in the video. They claim that Megaupload spliced together random footage to come up with this endorsement video. Of course Megaupload says otherwise.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

you do realize that not a copyright issue right

if mega upload paid those artist to do a puff piece interview and got them to sign a release that allowed it distribution in whole or in part.

cutting those parts together into a music video would in fact be perfectly legal

it like when porn girls signed open releases for you guys expecting that the video would be shown only on dvd, but then have them cut together for web sites.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you do realize that not a copyright issue right

if mega upload paid those artist to do a puff piece interview and got them to sign a release that allowed it distribution in whole or in part.

cutting those parts together into a music video would in fact be perfectly legal

it like when porn girls signed open releases for you guys expecting that the video would be shown only on dvd, but then have them cut together for web sites.

If they have a release. They say they do so if they are correct it should be a very easy case for them to win. If they don't have signed releases well. . . that is a different story.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

If they have a release. They say they do so if they are correct it should be a very easy case for them to win. If they don't have signed releases well. . . that is a different story.

seriously you are clueless about how unbalanced the law is right now

now universal is going to minimize the damage by saying we "accidentally" censored your content because the artists didn't realize what they agreed too.

as if i don't know checking the contract first was too hard.

i am betting if the penalty was you lose your copyright if you use the censor option they would have dam well double and triple checked first.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

seriously you are clueless about how unbalanced the law is right now

now universal is going to minimize the damage by saying we "accidentally" censored your content because the artists didn't realize what they agreed too.

as if i don't know checking the contract first was too hard.

i am betting if the penalty was you lose your copyright if you use the censor option they would have dam well double and triple checked first.

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.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

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.

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.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

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.

btw you might want to read your own statement

Apparently several of the artists that appeared in this video served Youtube with takedown notices saying that they never gave their permission for their work or likeness to be in the video. They claim that Megaupload spliced together random footage to come up with this endorsement video. Of course Megaupload says otherwise.

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.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

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]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

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]

Originally Posted by kane

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

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]

Originally Posted by kane

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]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

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]

Originally Posted by kane

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]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

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]

A few people got duped into making a video; that's not exactly an endorsement.

LOL!

[kane]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

A few people got duped into making a video; that's not exactly an endorsement.

LOL!

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]

Originally Posted by kane

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?