> But I don't see how what MU did is not okay, but what YouTube and Spotify did is fine.
What Spotify did?
not exactly. the studios and distributors sue everyone, even YouTube. then the one that becomes market leader and gets all the eyeballs usually gets a deal for the lawsuits and the studios have them on a leash for cheaper advertising (remember that a Disney film will spend more on advertising than production over the course of its international release life)
Re:Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
by hilbertseries on Wednesday December 23, 2015 @05:33AM
(#10782774)
MU was paying the people that upload illegal content, specifically because they were uploading illegal content.
Re:Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
by scrollaway on Wednesday December 23, 2015 @05:46AM
(#10782800)
How is that different to having your employees scraping torrent sites for music to add to your library?
who did that?
Re:Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
by scrollaway on Wednesday December 23, 2015 @09:45AM
(#10783520)
Spotify during their early years. This is pretty well known.
Citation needed. Are you sure you're not thinking of Grooveshark?
Re:Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
by scrollaway on Wednesday December 23, 2015 @11:12AM
(#10783949)
Sorry, I can't find an actual citation - if you ask any Spotify employee though, it's pretty much an open secret that Spotify's initial collection was scraped from the pirate bay.
Re:Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
by ewindisch on Wednesday December 23, 2015 @01:30PM
(#10784777)
What is public knowledge is that CEO Daniel Ek was the former CEO of uTorrent. He has certainly made millions from online copyright infringement, if only perhaps, less directly than Kim-dot-com.
Re:Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
by cballard on Wednesday December 23, 2015 @10:54PM
(#10787022)
I didn't know uTorrent was a company! I haven't used Windows in forever, so I've been using Transmission for a long time, but I feel like that's the equivalent of foobar2000 being a company or something.
Re:Kim Dotcom loses extradition case
by neutronicus on Wednesday December 23, 2015 @11:43AM
(#10784129)
I mean YouTube gives content creators a slice of ad revenue, so...
I don't know if this program was implemented before the copyright crackdown, though.
The difference is of course that those startups end up making their content legal. But I don't see how what MU did is not okay, but what YouTube and Spotify did is fine.