UMG claims rights to a song and hijacks the artist's YouTube revenue • Hacker News Board

Re: UMG claims rights to a song and hijacks the artist's YouTube revenue

#21

Post by stefs » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 4:53 PM UTC

spiritplumber wrote: post #14

spiritplumber wrote: post #7

Offer to face your counterpart at UMG in single unarmed combat as a way to settle the matter honorably.

Why is it that when I say stuff like this it always gets downvoted? It's a lot cheaper than involving lawyers, and it has the benefit of letting all participants work through their testosterone and adrenaline, so that after the match they can sit down and discuss the matter more amicably. A proper refereed and organized fight is a pretty deep bonding experience, for guys anyway. You're more likely to get, and give, a…

the problem is, UMG do have their own people for this. every little mom&pop shop has an army of lawyers, but some companies are so despised they need additional resources for challenges like those.

a lot of musicians and movie stars challenge their opponents to fist fights on a regular basis; and sometimes you get a mickey rourke or an uwe boll, brawlers who know what they're doing, or muscled rappers with a shady past and diamond rings on their fingers that aren't for show.

so UMG hires the biggest, meanest colombian war criminals, send them to fist fight college and employ those guys as "sekundanten" (sorry, no idea about the english term here - stand ins for duels).

poor bjorn lynne wouldn't stand a chance.

Re: UMG claims rights to a song and hijacks the artist's YouTube revenue

#22

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 4:55 PM UTC

spiritplumber wrote: post #18

pjc50 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gets downvoted because if it's a joke it's not very funny and HN doesn't really like jokes anyway, and if it's not a joke it's a 19th-century kind of bonkers.

It's not a joke, and it works. A boxing match, or even a street fight in which there are no serious injuries, is a good way to bond, whoever wins. You walk away thinking "This other person is willing to get into a fight with me, and fight fair". And the physicality of it does cause some amount of bonding. Plus, the adrenaline in your system that builds up when you prepare to get into a negotiation and would otherwise…

We (as a culture) have spent centuries stamping out trial by violence and duelling because as a dispute resolution mechanism it overwhelmingly favors young men with training.

We have in recent years marginalized boxing as it gets people killed or seriously injured, causes lasting brain damage even under controlled circumstances, and normalizes violent behavior.

Edit in reply to sibling: HN seems to have some anti-deep-thread mechanism which hides reply links. Maybe you should find someone to punch about that.

Re: UMG claims rights to a song and hijacks the artist's YouTube revenue

#23

Post by spiritplumber » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 4:58 PM UTC

spiritplumber wrote: post #18

pjc50 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gets downvoted because if it's a joke it's not very funny and HN doesn't really like jokes anyway, and if it's not a joke it's a 19th-century kind of bonkers.

It's not a joke, and it works. A boxing match, or even a street fight in which there are no serious injuries, is a good way to bond, whoever wins. You walk away thinking "This other person is willing to get into a fight with me, and fight fair". And the physicality of it does cause some amount of bonding. Plus, the adrenaline in your system that builds up when you prepare to get into a negotiation and would otherwise…

To pjc50 to whom I can't seem to reply:

The point is not "who wins the fight wins the argument".

The point is "let's you and me fight, then afterwards, we can discuss the argument with more equanimity".

Re: UMG claims rights to a song and hijacks the artist's YouTube revenue

#24

Post by pakled_engineer » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 4:59 PM UTC

spiritplumber wrote: post #18

pjc50 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gets downvoted because if it's a joke it's not very funny and HN doesn't really like jokes anyway, and if it's not a joke it's a 19th-century kind of bonkers.

It's not a joke, and it works. A boxing match, or even a street fight in which there are no serious injuries, is a good way to bond, whoever wins. You walk away thinking "This other person is willing to get into a fight with me, and fight fair". And the physicality of it does cause some amount of bonding. Plus, the adrenaline in your system that builds up when you prepare to get into a negotiation and would otherwise…

You're trolling right? Because settling legal disputes with Marquess of Queensbury rules is indeed 19th century bonkers.

Re: UMG claims rights to a song and hijacks the artist's YouTube revenue

#25

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 5:04 PM UTC

pkehah wrote: post #19

[deleted] wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

That's an extraordinarily disingenuous description of the status quo. MegaUpload was explicitly meant to host pirated content, and Kim Dotcom (a convicted felon) explicitly arranged for it to be seeded with pirated content. It was possible to use it for other things, but that's not why it existed. I get that the popular narrative is that he's supposed to be a victim, but let's be honest about it: he didn't "fail to b…

[deleted]

Re: UMG claims rights to a song and hijacks the artist's YouTube revenue

#26

Post by pkehah » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 5:10 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #25

pkehah wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an extraordinarily disingenuous description of the status quo. MegaUpload was explicitly meant to host pirated content, and Kim Dotcom (a convicted felon) explicitly arranged for it to be seeded with pirated content. It was possible to use it for other things, but that's not why it existed. I get that the popular narrative is that he's supposed to be a victim, but let's be honest about it: he didn't "fail to b…

[deleted]

There's less than zero value in bringing Megaupload into the discussion at all. They're not some 'content hosting site' that was 'aggressively prosecuted'. Megaupload was run by pirates who left mountains of evidence that they were ensuring that their content site was filled with pirated content.

Do you have an actual example of an actual content site that was aggressively criminally prosecuted?

Re: UMG claims rights to a song and hijacks the artist's YouTube revenue

#27

Post by nemothekid » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 5:13 PM UTC

pkehah wrote: post #19

[deleted] wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

That's an extraordinarily disingenuous description of the status quo. MegaUpload was explicitly meant to host pirated content, and Kim Dotcom (a convicted felon) explicitly arranged for it to be seeded with pirated content. It was possible to use it for other things, but that's not why it existed. I get that the popular narrative is that he's supposed to be a victim, but let's be honest about it: he didn't "fail to b…

That's an extraordinarily disingenuous description of the status quo.

Then are we going to pretend that the Music Industry didn't try to sue YouTube out of existence and possibly only survived thanks to Google's deep wallets?

If you need deep corporate wallets to protect yourself to create a service like YouTube its not hard to see how a system like ContentID might come about to protect yourself from lawyers. Mountains of "pirate" evidence or not, protecting yourself from Hollywood's lawyers is expensive.

Re: UMG claims rights to a song and hijacks the artist's YouTube revenue

#28

Post by pkehah » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 5:18 PM UTC

nemothekid wrote: post #27

pkehah wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an extraordinarily disingenuous description of the status quo. MegaUpload was explicitly meant to host pirated content, and Kim Dotcom (a convicted felon) explicitly arranged for it to be seeded with pirated content. It was possible to use it for other things, but that's not why it existed. I get that the popular narrative is that he's supposed to be a victim, but let's be honest about it: he didn't "fail to b…

That's an extraordinarily disingenuous description of the status quo. Then are we going to pretend that the Music Industry didn't try to sue YouTube out of existence and possibly only survived thanks to Google's deep wallets? If you need deep corporate wallets to protect yourself to create a service like YouTube its not hard to see how a system like ContentID might come about to protect yourself from lawyers. Mountai…

Civil lawsuits != prosecution.

Different problem than the one that the coward who deleted his posts was talking about. Sadly, we lost context because he hit delete after realizing that he was wrong.

That said, YouTube survived those lawsuits and continues to exist because of laws that the music industry itself lobbied for... they just hadn't considered all of the ramifications terribly deeply.

There are lots of companies that don't have Google's deep pockets that survive because of the DMCA. So while it's true that YouTube was sued, and that Google defended it, it's absolutely NOT true that the only way for a content company to survive is to have Google's access to capital.

Re: UMG claims rights to a song and hijacks the artist's YouTube revenue

#29

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 5:40 PM UTC

pkehah wrote: post #26

[deleted] wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

There's less than zero value in bringing Megaupload into the discussion at all. They're not some 'content hosting site' that was 'aggressively prosecuted'. Megaupload was run by pirates who left mountains of evidence that they were ensuring that their content site was filled with pirated content. Do you have an actual example of an actual content site that was aggressively criminally prosecuted?

[deleted]

Re: UMG claims rights to a song and hijacks the artist's YouTube revenue

#30

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 5:45 PM UTC

pkehah wrote: post #28

nemothekid wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an extraordinarily disingenuous description of the status quo. Then are we going to pretend that the Music Industry didn't try to sue YouTube out of existence and possibly only survived thanks to Google's deep wallets? If you need deep corporate wallets to protect yourself to create a service like YouTube its not hard to see how a system like ContentID might come about to protect yourself from lawyers. Mountai…

Civil lawsuits != prosecution. Different problem than the one that the coward who deleted his posts was talking about. Sadly, we lost context because he hit delete after realizing that he was wrong. That said, YouTube survived those lawsuits and continues to exist because of laws that the music industry itself lobbied for... they just hadn't considered all of the ramifications terribly deeply. There are lots of compa…

> Civil lawsuits != prosecution.

Yes, the act of initiating legal action is prosecution, whether the action is civil or criminal. We don't call the people doing that act "the prosecution" in a civil case, but the act itself is still prosecution.