Apparently Veoh Isn't Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks For Rehearing Of Its Bogus Copyright Lawsuit

from the but,-of-course dept

One of the key examples of what happens when you have bad, overly draconian copyright laws that burden companies falsely accused of infringement is Veoh. We've talked about them a bunch in the past, but Dmitry Shapiro, who had been CEO of the company, has written up a great (though depressing) first-hand explanation of how bad copyright law kills good companies. He talks about having the vision for an online video service (which he came up with before YouTube existed, though both happened at about the same time), how he built up the product, raised a bunch of money (including from former Disney CEO Michael Eisner), and put together a really good product. On top of that, to help the big entertainment companies feel comfortable, they installed audio filtering technologies -- even though such things are not (yet) required by law. And yet, the company was still sued by Universal Music, who insisted that Veoh was a "pirate site."

Of course, as we've noted, Veoh has won every bit of their lawsuits. The latest ruling came in December, where an appeals court, once again, said that Veoh was perfectly legal. It complied with the DMCA and actually went above and beyond what the law required (such as by using those filters). Of course, Veoh is also dead. The costs of the lawsuit really were too much for a young company struggling to build a good product and compete in the marketplace.
As you can imagine the lawsuit dramatically impacted our ability to operate the company. The financial drain of millions of dollars going to litigation took away our power to compete, countless hours of executive's time was spent in dealing with various responsibilities of litigation, and employee morale was deeply impacted with a constant threat of shutdown. Trying to convince new employees to join the company in spite of this was extremely challenging. To make sure that our money supply was cut off, in an unprecedented move, UMG sued not only the company, but our investors (Michael Eisner, Art Bilger, and Spark Capital) personally. This move raised lot of eyebrows in the legal community, and at one point was thrown out by a judge, only to continue to be appealed and litigated by UMG. This completely choked off all of our financial oxygen, as trying to convince investors to invest with the threat of them personally being sued is insurmountable.
Even after winning the initial lawsuit, UMG just piled on the appeals, and it made it impossible for the company to survive:
With the appeal looming, financing continued to be choked off for us, and in April 2010 we had to sell the company in a fire sale to a small startup. The company that we had built, that was once valued at over $130 Million was gone. Along with it went the livelihoods of over 120 people and their families, $70 million of money entrusted to us by investors, and a big part of me. I had sacrificed so much to live the life of an entrepreneur. My marriage couldn't stand the strain of this lifestyle and ended in 2009, and while all of this was going on, my father was dying. Instead of spending time with him at his bedside, I was sitting in depositions with lawyers, and stressing over the lawsuit. He died July 13 2009, two months before we won the original judgement on the lawsuit. He would have been proud of me for following through with the fight. I felt so beaten down after this experience, that I couldn't imagine going back to being an entrepreneur. I was disenchanted, disgusted by the system that would allow these kinds of behaviors to go on, and it is not until recently that I have been able to come up to bat again.
Shapiro posted this to explain why he's against SOPA/PIPA, but the amazing thing is that the lawsuit is still going on. Even after that ruling in December that totally eviscerated UMG's arguments and made it abundantly clear that Veoh had been a perfectly legal operation destroyed by a bogus lawsuit, UMG is trying again. Embedded below is the petition that UMG recently filed in the appeals court, asking for an en banc rehearing (appeals courts usually hear cases with a three-judge panel, but parties can later ask for a rehearing with all of the judges in the court -- which is an en banc rehearing).

I'm not going to go through the filing in detail. It's more of the same from UMG. Basically, UMG wants to pretend that the DMCA requires certain actions that it clearly does not. Every judge so far has told UMG this, but it won't give up. And, more importantly, it won't give up even though Veoh is long since dead. Considering that UMG and the rest of the legacy recording business keep complaining that they're not making any money any more, the fact that they're choosing to keep suing a company they already killed years ago really says something, doesn't it?

The truth is that UMG is continuing the lawsuit for one reason: because it's hoping and praying that some court will magically believe UMG's made up interpretation of copyright law. If that happens, it will make it much easier for UMG to kill other legit sites that it doesn't like. It will also allow UMG to pretend that Veoh was a "rogue" site that needed to be killed, rather than a successful legitimate business that was killed via a bogus lawsuit.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:10am

    Turnabout

    I hope to science Veoh can sue UMG for "potential lost revenue". Using music industry math they could show how UMG potentially cost them $4.96 Billion and they should have to pay up--plus damages.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Keii (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:18am

      Re: Turnabout

      It is absolutely disheartening to see UMG get away with something like this. Even through failure they succeeded. The innocent target here was the one who paid for just being a target.
      I would absolutely love to see the judges lay some real justice down on UMG.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 1:15pm

        Re: Re: Turnabout

        Is this the new lie that's being spread? That Universal "killed" VEOH?

        That's a funny one.

        The truth is, YouTube "killed" VEOH. You Tube. Owned by Google.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 3:58pm

          Re: Re: Re: Turnabout

          Actually no

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:59am

          Re: Re: Re: Turnabout

          (citation needed)

          Unless you're trying to say that the reason why Universal's unfounded lawsuits managed to kill Veoh so quickly is because they were smaller than YouTube in the marketplace, and thus Google somehow need to shoulder all the blame for being so successful. Which would be a fantastic amount of misdirection even for the AC troll contingent.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:12am

    If Veoh is so dead, how am I watching a video on Veoh right now which was uploaded within the past few hours?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:13am

      Re:

      It's only dead in Mike's mind.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        MrWilson, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:32am

        Re: Re:

        Translation:

        "Ooh! Someone said something to contradict Mike! I'll pile on without verifying the truth because I just love me some Mike bashing!"

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Bad Translation:

          "Could you help be buy some corn?"

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:59am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Is the site up or down?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 12:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The site is up but that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. The reality is that Veoh the company is dead. It's so dead they had to sell their own name to a third party who has elected not to re-brand their site.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 12:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Are these hipster trolls or something? Is it not cool to actually try to come up with a good argument or fact check your statements?

            "I ain't no stupid try-hard"

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 12:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Are these hipster trolls or something? Is it not cool to actually try to come up with a good argument or fact check your statements?

            "I ain't no stupid try-hard"

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:35am

        Re: Re:

        And trolls claim we defend Mike just because it's Mike, yet they lack the ability to read a short article, and attack Mike just because it's Mike.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 3:01pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          What is the issue? Is the site still up? Yes or no?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Atkray (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 3:34pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Newsflash,
            A website does not mean you have a viable company.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            MrWilson, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 5:26pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Why are you asking this again here when three hours earlier others already responded to the question just a few comments above this?

            But since you apparently don't feel like reading those: The original Veoh company went under and sold everything, including the website, the domain name, and the brand to another company. That new company is not Veoh.

            "Is the site still up?" doesn't answer the question, "is the original company still in existence?"

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 1:08am

        Re: Re:

        No, it's only dead in reality, that place which the rest of us inhabit but which you are yet to visit. Hint: the company that currently runs the URL is not the original company being sued, who are bankrupt.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ComputerAddict (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:18am

      Re:

      For the love of god, read the article before posting,

      "With the appeal looming, financing continued to be choked off for us, and in April 2010 we had to sell the company in a fire sale to a small startup."

      The current company running Veoh is not the one UMG is suing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:19am

      Re:

      Because the Veoh that exists today is not the same as the Veoh that UMG is suing. The owner that is being sued sold the IP for Veoh in order to keep the battle going.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DogBreath, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:23am

      Re:

      Original owners of Veoh are out of business and sold the company off. It is now owned by an Israeli company. One can only hope that UMG tries to sue the new owners out of business, and instead UMG gets a helicopter launched missile into their windows for their congenital stupidity.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Kirion (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:25am

      Re:

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:30am

      Re:

      So what you're saying is that you're too lazy to google.

      "February 12, 2010: Veoh filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 on March 19, 2010.

      April 8, 2010: Veoh assets acquired by Qlipso."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 12:29pm

      Re:

      "how am I watching a video on Veoh right"

      PIRATE!!! Mike report his IP to ICE and UMG immediately. Obviously if he is on Veoh he is infringing, thats all the evidence I need to get him locked up and butt raped.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        mike allen (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:52am

        Re: Re:

        If this is the state of intelligence of those in the entertainment industry, I now understand why they so stupid. The lawyers who act for them must have deplomers from fake universities, they certainly never could have earned them.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      EnJaySee, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 8:34pm

      Re:

      I guess you missed this part of the article:

      "...and in April 2010 we had to sell the company in a fire sale to a small startup."

      Maybe someone will make a video of the article and post it on Veoh so you can also understand why Veoh.com is still operational.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:14am

    How much of this is UMG and how much of it is driven by UMG lawyers telling them they are THIS close to making Veoh go away?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      GMacGuffin (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:27am

      Re:

      Yeah, probably just one, tiny snippet of dicta in the ruling that gives the attorneys an insanely attenuated argument to rationalize continuing, in the hope of hitting something, anything (plus fees, fees, and more fees).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Loki, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:50am

      Re:

      It's UMG. It's irrelevant if the possibility of success is just a sliver. Until they keep have exhausted every possible avenue to get this ruling overturned, they will never stop, because failure here gives the next "Veoh" to come along (and they will come along eventually) a strong precedent to work with, making it that much harder for UMG (or others) to force out of business (or more costly to buy out/buy into and ruin from the inside).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Beta (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 1:10pm

        Re: Re:

        How would the "strong precedent" of a Veoh victory make any difference in the next case? Veoh achieved a legal victory without that precedent.

        Now if UMG wins, that precedent will actually change things.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Al Bert (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 9:32pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Right, precedents only work in favor of the industry that has a (actual) profit margin which allows them to have a sufficiently large expendable income with which they can pursue any trivial goal indefinitely. I don't know how many other real industries could get away with what the entertainment industry spends on legal abuse. They either have actual costs that dilute their returns or they're subject to more financial oversight.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btrussell (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 3:07pm

      Re:

      What's the difference?

      "I didn't want to rape her, but my penis had other plans!"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Christopher Weigel (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:20am

    I suspect UMG may not be trying for "some court will magically believe UMG's made up interpretation of copyright law" so much as they're hoping that Veoh will run out of money to continue the legal fight.

    Under such a circumstance, I'm sure UMG will be more than happy to provide a "generous" settlement offer of "if you admit guilt, we'll let you die in peace".

    It's much like any other corporation fighting with a smaller entity - they're just swamping the other person down in pointless appeals/paperwork in the hopes of draining their resources. Because, y'know, fair fights are for sissies/paupers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:28am

      Re:

      Pretty much. The hope that a court will side with them is just icing on the cake. Of course at this point, even the hope of a settlement is moot as Veoh has all the legal right to reject any settlement that involves admitting guilt as several courts have ruled that they have no such guilt. While UMG has the financial power, Veoh has the legal power. I think the latter is far more threatening at this point.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Beta (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 1:19pm

        Re: Re:

        Um... walk me through this, would you? Yes, Veoh (or perhaps I should say Shapiro) has the legal right to reject any settlement offer that involves... well, anything. Either party in any suit can reject any settlement offer. As for the "legal power" that you say Veoh has, what exactly is it and how is it threatening?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 2:03pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Veoh has a number of legal rulings all siding with it that it was not infringing. That gives it power over UMG. If UMG comes to it requesting a settlement in exchange for admitting liability, they can flat out say "No" while giving a very strong reasoning why. Without those rulings the ability to say no would be severely weakened. While they still retain the right to say no regardless of the rulings, it would be far harder for UMG to pressure Veoh into such a settlement.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 2:21pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Basically Veoh has nothing to fear except court costs for proving themselves innocent again. As opposed to them being more likely to lose the case because then they would be happy to settle and not face the court's punishment.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 3:13pm

      Re:

      I suspect UMG may not be trying for "some court will magically believe UMG's made up interpretation of copyright law" so much as they're hoping that Veoh will run out of money to continue the legal fight.
      I disagree - with both statements.

      It's pretty obvious to me that UMG doesn't care about Veoh at this point.

      Think about it - why on earth would they sue the *investors*? What they *really* want is to send a not-so-subtle message to everybody else that they will tolerate absolutely no competition.

      You want to start up a legal music sharing site? Fuck you. We'll sue you into the ground and then shit on your grave. We have a multi-million-dollar war chest we will use to obliterate you and anyone that dares to challenge us.

      *THAT* is what UMG is doing here.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    fb39ca4, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:23am

    *sniff* *sniff* that article made me cry :'(

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:25am

    UMG=Satan

    UMG is evil and needs to be destroyed

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    A Guy (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:29am

    Even though the original company is gone, I hope UMG blunders itself into having to pay the opposing side's lawyers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jason, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:40am

    Countersue

    Veoh should countersue UMG for as much money as YouTube has made.

    UMG in my opinion infringed on Veoh's right to start up a new technology company.

    And it should actually be treble damages. I would love to see a jury award them billions of dollars from UMG.

    This would be exactly fitting with how the RIAA has treated its customers, in asking for enormous judgments.

    There needs to be justice here. Its amazingly sad to see UMG able to destroy a company with allegations that they cannot prove. They need to pay a hefty price for their unwarranted persecution of a small startup company and its investors.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:43am

    This completely choked off all of our financial oxygen, as trying to convince investors to invest with the threat of them personally being sued is insurmountable.

    The way copyright was meant to work. (Thumbs up with fake plastic smile.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    The Logician (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:55am

    Is it possible for the right of appeal to be denied? If it is, Universal should be barred from any further pursuit of this case. Ideally, they should also be forced to pay for the original Veoh's resurrection so that it might occur.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      GMacGuffin (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 10:37pm

      Re:

      The petition is just asking the same court to hear it again, only with more judges at the same appellate level. They can (and hopefully will) simply deny the petition, saying, "Our comrades have spoken; we're done with this."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Robert (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:57am

    Need proof

    There has to be a way to acquire the real data, the financial records (both legal and otherwise), the actual sales, the memos depicting cost-cutting decisions with dates on them, the profits, the shares given to artists, etc...

    We need the damn data (not a few examples) to back up all of this and make it widely known that companies like UMG are full of it and out to destroy competition.

    Why is it their actions are not considered a breach of anti-trust laws?

    There MUST be a way to bring those companies into litigation, the CEO's themselves, cease all their holdings, all the documents, have loads of volunteers going through them, and it MUST be public. It must companies like UMG are abusing the law, breaking the law, and not being punished.

    They punished Microsoft for anti-competitive behaviour, the broke-up Standard Oil and AT&T, and yet they won't touch the entertainment industry (yes I know, strong tie$$$ with democrats).

    Something has to be done. At what point will the public at large stand up and demand criminal proceedings? We know the banking industry deserves it but it won't happen because they have high positions in the current US administration. But what about Hollywood? Yes they have the DOJ, but isn't there anyone in the administration with integrity?

    And what will it take to wake the masses up to get off their asses, stop watching American Idol or House Swapping or whatever crap is only TV, and do something to help themselves for once?

    It has to be huge, we know apathy is strong in the populous, and we also know people don't want to risk being sprayed with a water canon or pepper spray or sound canon or rubber bullets for trying to right what is wrong in the government. What will it take to make them risk it?

    When we have that answer, then we can punish the banks, the media conglomerates (studios/labels, etc..), and the 'defense' industries.

    Maybe have we wake up the masses we can accomplish some real change.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 11:57am

    how many times have the entertainment industries gone down this same path of losing court cases time after time, but appealing continuously until they find that one judge that can be influenced enough to agree with them?

    and SOPA etc are the types of legislation that these industries want Congress to bring in that will only make things worse, not better. the kind of legislation that helps those legacy industries destroy new businesses in order to save themselves because they will not adapt to the new age. what the hell is wrong with people?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 12:12pm

    You just don't get it Mike, if they called off the lawsuit just because the company they are suing is bankrupt and had to sell off their assets they'd be tacitly admitting the lawsuit was a vindictive attempt to drive Veoh out of business. You see, the only way to show that it wasn't just a vindictive sham is to press forward with as many appeals as the law can stand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 12:24pm

    "The truth is that UMG is continuing the lawsuit for one reason: because it's hoping and praying that some court will magically believe UMG's made up interpretation of copyright law. If that happens, it will make it much easier for UMG to kill other legit sites that it doesn't like. It will also allow UMG to pretend that Veoh was a "rogue" site that needed to be killed, rather than a successful legitimate business that was killed via a bogus lawsuit."

    Exactly, and what better way to win a lawsuit than by suing a company you know has no money for lawyers. They hoping that if Veoh doesn't bother to defend themselves, or doesn't put much money into doing so, they can convince the judges to swallow their bullshit. Though with an en banc I feel like the chances are slim that that enough of the judges will swallow their horseshit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 12:30pm

    Irony 101

    Looks like the music industry is a threat to American jobs, American IP, and the American economy.

    The tech industry needs new laws to protect it from the music industry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 12:43pm

    Anyone buying/licensing "Big Content" is condoning these practices.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Eric Goldman (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 12:46pm

    But as Hollywood routinely insists, they only go after "the worst of the worst."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 12:48pm

    This is why we need loser pays.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      CN, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 5:09pm

      What we need are judges that know assholes when they see them...

      This is why we need loser pays.

      Sounds good in principle, but what happens when the little guy should win, but the big guy in the wrong can afford much better lawyers than the little guy? Little guy loses, and has to pay the big guy's expensive lawyers, among other things.

      What we need are judges that know assholes when they see them, and punish them accordingly.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 12:54pm

    Racketeering re-invented as copyright?

    You neva know what kinda corp is out there. They could-um hit you with motion after motion. Ya know what I'm sayin? So why not pay our copyright protection fees?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Al Bert (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 9:45pm

      Re: Racketeering re-invented as copyright?

      This quite literally lives on in the form of patent NPE's. No need to reinvent what already exists... unless you want to extend the patent.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DOlz (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 1:24pm

    Not Surprising

    Why is anyone surprised at this action, after all these companies have made an art form out of beating a dead horse into a pulpy mess.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Robert Doyle (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 1:25pm

    'No' means 'no', unless you are UMG, in which case it just means 'ask again.'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mr Big Content, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 2:18pm

    And There's Your PROOF That Piracy Kills Jobs And Destroys Businesses!

    It was piracy that made UMG sue Veoh. As a result of that suit,

    The company that we had built, that was once valued at over $130 Million was gone. Along with it went the livelihoods of over 120 people and their families, $70 million of money entrusted to us by investors...


    That's $130 million of value, along with 120 jobs, and $70 million of real money, killed by piracy! How much more proof do you need of how damaging piracy can be?

    Vote for stronger anti-piracy laws NOW!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 2:22pm

    They're trying to kill a dead zombie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 2:27pm

    We disagree with your opinion

    Mr Masnick, you are only a supporter of criminal acts and we all know you are. Veoh is a direct and secondary infringer, period. UMG had to win on its interpretation of the DMCA!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DogBreath, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 3:19pm

      Re: We disagree with your opinion

      and while they're at the trough, they might as well be charged with tertiary (3), quaternary (4), quinary (5), senary (6), septenary (7), octonary (8), nonary (9), denary (10), and duodenary (12) infringement.

      Hey, if they're going to throw the book, they should at least make sure to include all the chapters.


      NOTE: If you are ever charged with the 11th type, you'll learn that it's name is a State Secret. So when you find out what you have been charged with under said law and try to defend yourself in open court, you and your lawyers automatically have violated the National Espionage Act because someone from a foreign country would learn about it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 3:32pm

        Re: Re: We disagree with your opinion

        I wonder if they can be charged with double, triple, and quadruple jeopardy.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 4:06pm

      Re: We disagree with your opinion

      Good luck with that.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Al Bert (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 9:55pm

      Re: We disagree with your opinion

      UMG had to win on its interpretation of the DMCA!!!

      UMG does not automatically have the right to a given verdict based on their interpretation of a bunch of purposely vague legislation. Check your debilitating sense of entitlement at the door, asshole.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Rapnel (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 4:05pm

    Questions?

    If anyone has any questions as to why this "Battle for the Internet" must continue they need look no further.

    UMG et al has been allowed and continues to be allowed to pervert the role of the court.

    The "system" is in dire need of a fix. There is no "justice" here when even a win is terminal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    CN, Jan 30th, 2012 @ 5:02pm

    If there was justice to be had...

    If there was justice to be had, the "keys" to UMG would be handed over to Veoh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mr bad example (profile), Jan 30th, 2012 @ 5:32pm

    Universal's Behavior

    I*'ll ask again...how is the behavior displayed by the executives at Universal Music Group any different from a protection shakedown by members of the Mafia? Bob Dylan's lyric that read "steal a little and they throw you in jail; steal a lot and they make you the king" has never rung truer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Boo Boo, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:43am

    kicked in the balls

    This is all one way traffic - Big content and music on a roll from Veoh to MegaUpload and all the others in between.
    But , maybe , just maybe these guys will get kicked hard in the balls by a power greater than themselves.
    They clearly believe that current legislation ( like DMCA ) do not apply to them,its time they were told its doe's and to shut the fuck up and deal with it.
    In the meantime boycott their products.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    smart dude, Mar 21st, 2012 @ 5:38pm

    Reform of Hollywood Corruption

    If the Republicans had any brains, they would economically assault the corrupt underpinnings of their sworn enemy, the Hollywood Left: the legendary fake accounting practices, the outrageous tax fraud used by stars and executives, and the kind of gross abuse of the legal system by Universal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This