Megaupload Prosecuted and Shutdown

[Spinedriver]

Oooooops....

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition...paign=shorturl

It looks like fmr Sen. Chris Dodd is being investigated for taking bribes from the MPAA to help them pass legislation.

If this proves to be true, who is 'more in the wrong' ? Various websites that are "violating copyright law" or the members of the MPAA who are subverting legal procedure by bribing government officials ?

edit: Apparently, it's just a petition to have him investigated. However, the number of signatures required to have it officially recognized has been surpassed.

[nickgray]

Originally Posted by drgamble

CDs and DVDs didn't start out with all of the DRM stuff, but are a result of piracy

Get your facts straight. Virtually all of DVDs came with a protection method called CSS which was cracked in 1999. Also, don't forget about the region code nonsense. As far as Red Book CDs go, they do have some miniscule anti-copying protection, but in practice it's useless. However, you do have to consider that DVDs came out it 1996, whereas Red Book is about 15 years older. Publishers did try to introduce DRM to Audio CDs, but they didn't have any luck with it.

If there wasn't piracy, these things would not be required

You're very naive. DRM isn't there just to prevent internet piracy, ultimately it's also there to prevent you from giving the material to your friend and to prevent the sales of used copies. The publishers just don't say it because it'll make them look like assholes, so they use piracy as an excuse. They want you to buy product at full price, never share it with anyone, never have the ability to resell it and ultimately they want you to fall for their stupid false advertising tricks. Tell me, why is it legal to make a trailer for a movie or a game that in no way, shape or form represents the actual product? Why can't you get your money back after you've fell for false marketing and decided to watch a horrible movie? As I've said in a previous post, the publishers want their cake, they want to eat it, they want not to get fat from eating cake and on top of that they want brownies, pies, cookies, you name it, they want it.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by drgamble

All of the things you are complaining about are anti-piracy measures. If there wasn't piracy, these things would not be required. The fact is that there is always someone out there trying to find a loophole or workaround to get something without paying for it. CDs and DVDs didn't start out with all of the DRM stuff, but are a result of piracy. Now everyone wants to legitimize piracy by saying, "You'll never stop it and EVERYBODY is doing it." I could make the same argument about drunk driving, but it doesn't make it right.

Right, so you take preventative measures to make not drunk driving the easier choice. A lot of cities do things like free rides home on holidays or discounted cab rates, etc. to help convince people not to drunk drive. In all studies I've sound, strict law enforcement as a deterrent only forces people to try harder not to get caught; doesn't do much to stop them from committing the crime overall.

Filesharing is the same. The file distribution networks and groups have matured a LOT faster than the entertainment industry. That doesn't mean "HURR! mayk yer movies free gaiz" but make the distribution and quality up to the new standard. That's not too much to ask.

I will say, in some defense of the entertainment industry, having multiple marketplaces for buying music or streaming movies/shows has done more to reduce piracy than any of these bullshit lawsuits.

EDIT: And I agree with Ross. On the specifics of Megaupload, yeah, they were making money off the fact people were illegally downloading other people's material and they deserved what they got.

[vampiregenocide]

I do think there are some things that while technically illegal to download, aren't a big deal. For instance, if I illegally download a shit load of impossible to find B-sides and live tracks etc, it's still piracy but if the content is hard to find then what choice do you have? Likewise, if people are watching streamed films or tv shows that are hard to find or rarely on tv then that's understandable too. In that case, I think filesharing is a valuable tool to enable us to appreciate content we otherwise wouldn't be able to access. If people hand't uploaded a lot of tracks to youtube, I wouldn't have found those bands and gone on to buy the albums. I think it's a brilliant service that just needs to be made use of in the right way by consumers and companies alike.

[Randy]

I'd be interested in hearing a comparison between the perception of filesharing or streaming video sites versus the library (particularly libraries that offer CDs, DVD, etc.)

[Xaios]

I've got several disagreements with a lot of things that have been said in this thread, but we can bitch back and forth about semantics all we want and it won't accomplish a damn thing. The biggest issue that I have is moral.

The developer, CD Projekt RED, kept very close tabs on how many copies were being torrented. While he game sold about a million copies, it was pirated 4.5 million times.

Now I ask you, what makes it not wrong to not pay for their game? What kind of ....ed up morality says "well, I wouldn't have paid for this anyway, so there's nothing wrong with pirating it," is a valid excuse? I'm not even going to get into developer's lost profits. What makes you believe that you shouldn't have to pay for a product that was developed so TO BE SOLD?

I'll be honest, I think that RIAA, MPAA and ESA are all a bunch of assholes, and also that SOPA and PIPA are incredibly flawed pieces of legislation. And you know what? Maybe they DO have some ulterior motive for all this, maybe they look at this legislation and see nothing but their new yacht moored outside their italian villa. But since when did two wrongs make a right? Why do so many people say "well, they're only out to wrong us, so we'll just wrong them back?" It's an endless cycle of escalation. But you know what? I don't care if they win. I don't really care that I'm overpaying for consumer (emphasis on consumer) goods. Because it's just money, and I can always make more. It's a lot harder to replace dignity and self-respect.

So I say, if those greedy record execs and software publishers want to screw us over for their product (and let's be realistic here, we're not talking about necessities of life, we're talking about forms of entertainment), let them. Because it's more important for me to be able to look at myself in the mirror and say "you were honest," than it is to look at someone else and say "you weren't." And even though the true creators of the product may not be the ones seeing the profit from the fruits of their labour, maybe I can give their corporate overlords reason to at least keep them employed by sending the message that, "Your guy here made something that I believe is worth spending money on. Keep him on the payroll, because he does good work."

[drgamble]

Originally Posted by nickgray

Get your facts straight. Virtually all of DVDs came with a protection method called CSS which was cracked in 1999. Also, don't forget about the region code nonsense. As far as Red Book CDs go, they do have some miniscule anti-copying protection, but in practice it's useless. However, you do have to consider that DVDs came out it 1996, whereas Red Book is about 15 years older. Publishers did try to introduce DRM to Audio CDs, but they didn't have any luck with it.

You're very naive. DRM isn't there just to prevent internet piracy, ultimately it's also there to prevent you from giving the material to your friend and to prevent the sales of used copies. The publishers just don't say it because it'll make them look like assholes, so they use piracy as an excuse. They want you to buy product at full price, never share it with anyone, never have the ability to resell it and ultimately they want you to fall for their stupid false advertising tricks. Tell me, why is it legal to make a trailer for a movie or a game that in no way, shape or form represents the actual product? Why can't you get your money back after you've fell for false marketing and decided to watch a horrible movie? As I've said in a previous post, the publishers want their cake, they want to eat it, they want not to get fat from eating cake and on top of that they want brownies, pies, cookies, you name it, they want it.

I happen to be one of those publishers and if you want to talk about having cake and eating it too, then I look like your local crackhead that weighs 80 lbs at 6'1". "Sharing" as you mean is unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted works where in my case means 1 sale for every 1000 "shares". My music is available everywhere. There are plenty of places to hear and even download the highest quality DRM free files, but the ratio of 1:1000 still remains, and that is just an estimated ratio based on info that I can find. I work a regular job as do some of the folks I know, Goatwhore, Soilent Green, EyeHateGod, Squint, and distribute my own music. Piracy hurts me. I think it's a farce to make this into a Big fat rat record company vs. the consumer. One place you won't find my music now is at MegaUpload! I see it as one small step in the right direction.

[Necris]

Originally Posted by vampiregenocide

If people hand't uploaded a lot of tracks to youtube, I wouldn't have found those bands and gone on to buy the albums. I think it's a brilliant service that just needs to be made use of in the right way by consumers and companies alike.

Many people will go through the same process as you, but rather than find a place to buy the album they'll go to a music filesharing blog, or the pirate bay, or soulseek or any number of other places to find that album for free. Moreover if they don't find it immediately because it's only been recently released or just generally not widely distributed they will wait days, weeks, months etc for it to pop up for free just so they don't have to pay. It doesn't matter whether the band is a huge mainstream band or some guy recording and producing tracks in his bedroom.

I've found plenty of bands through youtube myself, so I'm not saying it's not useful but it can also have little to no positive effect for the original publisher. When you can find full albums on youtube it can become outright harmful.

[flint757]

Interestingly enough I agree with both sides on the issue. My biggest gripe has always been the profits lost. Yes they technically lost the profit and yes it is wrong to pirate anything, but I can tell you that in the circle I run with either they eventually pay for it (speaking about PC games) after a test run or never were because they can't afford it, like college students without jobs for instance (ie no money).

[Necris]

Originally Posted by flint757

Interestingly enough I agree with both sides on the issue. My biggest gripe has always been the profits lost. Yes they technically lost the profit and yes it is wrong to pirate anything, but I can tell you that in the circle I run with either they eventually pay for it (speaking about PC games) after a test run or never were because they can't afford it, like college students without jobs for instance (ie no money).

If you can't pay for it you aren't entitled to own it regardless of reason. I can't steal a guitar and then when I have the money to pay for it drop off money at the guitar store, I've still broken the law and paying afterward doesn't absolve me of that fact.

Some people will counter an argument with that by saying "Well you aren't stealing, you're making an exact copy of the product and there is no real world equivalent to doing that." which is admittedly a nice try, but doesn't at all change the fact that you are supposed to pay for the product.

[vampiregenocide]

Originally Posted by Necris

Many people will go through the same process as you, but rather than find a place to buy the album they'll go to a music filesharing blog, or the pirate bay, or soulseek or any number of other places to find that album for free. Moreover if they don't find it immediately because it's only been recently released or just generally not widely distributed they will wait days, weeks, months etc for it to pop up for free just so they don't have to pay. It doesn't matter whether the band is a huge mainstream band or some guy recording and producing tracks in his bedroom.

I've found plenty of bands through youtube myself, so I'm not saying it's not useful but it can also have little to no positive effect for the original publisher. When you can find full albums on youtube it can become outright harmful.

Oh yeah man I completely agree, which is why I was saying it is a potentially valuable tool that is being abused. It has exposed me to new interesting music which I could easily download for free, but I choose to support the musicians because I like the music and it is worth paying for. There are people who would rather torrent whole albums rather than pay for them just because they can't be bothered, and that is wrong and those are the sort of people who should face fines or something. Nothing hefty, just enough to put people off illegally downloading material in significant amounts.

[Spinedriver]

Originally Posted by Necris

If you can't pay for it you aren't entitled to own it regardless of reason. I can't steal a guitar and then when I have the money to pay for it drop off money at the guitar store, I've still broken the law and paying afterward doesn't absolve me of that fact.

Some people will counter an argument with that by saying "Well you aren't stealing, you're making an exact copy of the product and there is no real world equivalent to doing that." which is admittedly a nice try, but doesn't at all change the fact that you are supposed to pay for the product.

I wish more CEOs shared your outlook. Rather than funneling their money into off shore accounts, shell companies and tax shelters, the hundreds of Millions in tax revenue could keep schools all across the country from losing their music programs. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be losing any sleep over it.

Not only that but I remember back when I was in school, friends would always be talking about whatever band and how good they were. I didn't have the money where I could just run out & buy records whenever I wanted to, so I got someone to make a copy. Same went for them, if I happened to get something they were looking for, it was a fair trade. That's why the RIAA had a tax put on blank media, to 'recover' lost income due to copying. It's hard to say what a decent modern day equivalent would be but shutting down websites without due process is no better than those infringing on copyrights.

[Explorer]

Originally Posted by Randy

For that metric to work, it's still not fair to claim every album pirated = the cost of that same CD being stolen.

...The nearest fair assessment I can come up with (read: non-RIAA nonsense) would be, calculate the cost of producing the album... so, $1,000,000 dollars. Then, divide that number by the number of people who've purchased that album or hypothetically would purchase the album, so, 1 million people (to keep things square). By pirating the album, I stole... not "stole" but stole $1 from them. And that's being generous.

To calculate the value you "stole" based on what they theoretically lost on your download and all the people that've download from you is absurd and only a product of a rigged system.

Actually, I believe that even manufacturers of physical goods can sue based on the market value or wholesale value of goods stolen or destroyed. This isn't some metric just recently invented.

However... I'm sure that if most citizens in a particular area were to band together and to demand smaller damages for victims of theft or vandalism across all of society, I'm sure such legislation would pass in the same way efforts to reduce penalties for drunk driving have succeeded.

There seems to be this continued assumption that producers like Keith Merrow/drgamble have deep pockets, and that it's unfair to penalize those who steal from him.

It surprises me that there are so many defenses be offered for stealing. "These laws against stealing (or whatever crime) will never stop people from committing it, so we shouldn't protect people from this crime, or reduce the penalty so the perpetrators won't be penalized, only the victims." What's up with that?

I used to wonder about those who saw no problem with selling hard drugs, or of putting a cap in someone's ass. It's interesting to see so many okay with crime.

[flint757]

Originally Posted by Necris

If you can't pay for it you aren't entitled to own it regardless of reason. I can't steal a guitar and then when I have the money to pay for it drop off money at the guitar store, I've still broken the law and paying afterward doesn't absolve me of that fact.

Some people will counter an argument with that by saying "Well you aren't stealing, you're making an exact copy of the product and there is no real world equivalent to doing that." which is admittedly a nice try, but doesn't at all change the fact that you are supposed to pay for the product.

My point in saying that was not based on morals it was the profit BS spewed by labels since I clearly said it was wrong. Read my comment better next time don't just tear it down until it fits what you want to say.

The point I was making is that either they do in fact buy it later or never were because they have no money. (Out of the people I know obviously can't speak for everyone) Thus the millions and billions they always claim are completely blown out of proportions. I do believe people suffer mostly the little guys, but the numbers spewed by the record/movie industry are always bloated.

[Necris]

Originally Posted by flint757

My point in saying that was not based on morals it was the profit BS spewed by labels since I clearly said it was wrong. Read my comment better next time don't just tear it down until it fits what you want to say.

The point I was making is that either they do in fact buy it later or never were because they have no money. (Out of the people I know obviously can't speak for everyone) Thus the millions and billions they always claim are completely blown out of proportions. I do believe people suffer mostly the little guys, but the numbers spewed by the record/movie industry are always bloated.

Sorry but if a video game/cd/dvd is uploaded to a filesharing site for download shortly after it's released a good amount of the revenue from those potential sales is irreversibly lost even if the person who pirates the product goes out and buys a copy later.
If thousands of people are downloading millions can be lost.

[flint757]

Originally Posted by Necris

Sorry but if a video game/cd/dvd is uploaded to a filesharing site for download shortly after it's released a good amount of the revenue from those potential sales is irreversibly lost even if the person who pirates the product goes out and buys a copy later.
If thousands of people are downloading millions can be lost.

I guess we will never know since only one course of action can be taken, until time travel is invented that is, we can't know to what extent anything is effected.

EDIT

In other words speculation is not necessarily fact

[Necris]

Fair enough.

[synrgy]

Semi-relevant opinion article, in regards to willingness to purchase vs availability:

Please, let me pay for that movie

Again, I don't see lack of availability as a legitimate excuse to break the law, but what's being highlighted again here is the industry's unwillingness to change with the times.

I have similar problems with a lot of the music I play as a DJ. In electronic music, a considerable portion of the good stuff is still coming from the UK, or at least UK based labels are distributing it. This sometimes means that, depending on the label in question, certain tunes may be completely unavailable to me to legally purchase as a US citizen. "Area Restricted", or some variation of that term, is what I see when I try to add said tunes to my virtual shopping cart.

It's an issue in other ways, as well. I got my lady (who lives in Canada, currently) a Kindle Fire for Christmas. Amazon hasn't officially distributed the Fire to Canada yet. In order for my lady to be able to get decent use from the thing, she has to attach it to my US-based Amazon account, and even then she still can't purchase movies for her Fire from the Amazon market place because she's of course under a Canadian IP address, despite the fact that she's using my US account linked to my US address and my US credit card.

The whole thing is pretty absurd, really.

[Grand Moff Tim]

Originally Posted by synrgy

and even then she still can't purchase movies for her Fire from the Amazon market place because she's of course under a Canadian IP address, despite the fact that she's using my US account linked to my US address and my US credit card.

Has she tried using a VPN?

[The Reverend]

In the case of Megaupload, I have to agree with the shutdown. They were thugs, pure and simple.

As far as pirating, the only thing I can see having a semi-logical yet still immoral excuse for is games, and even that only goes so far. This "try-before-you-buy" mentality is really just the product of an over-entitled generation. Buy the game from a place that will give you a refund, and if it blows, take it back. As far as music, bands/artists generally stream them now, or at least a selection from the album. The same is true for TV shows. Movies can be had for a dollar a pop at Redbox; don't tell me you can afford the internet and not pay a dollar a movie, or $10 a month for Netflix.

The bottom line is that it's wrong. You're gaining access to ideas, sounds, or images that were not intended to be distributed freely, no matter how you got your hands on that copy. That is theft. Imagine someone commissioning a blueprint, then a thief with a boner for architecture comes and copies it, later building whatever was on the plans. Is that not theft of an intangible property? I hate this argument from pro-pirating that they're only making copies. If the law were up to me, you'd only be able to make copies from things you've legally purchased, and wouldn't be able to give them to others. Yes, I'm saying you shouldn't be able to make a mixtape for a friend without express permission from whoever owns the rights to it.

[Spinedriver]

One thing that concerns me is that if some sort of bill does get passed, how long until the RIAA starts going after someone who buys a used cd on Ebay ?

The reason being is that the main fact being raised is that because of illegal downloading, 'copyright holders' are losing profits. However, when you buy a used game/cd/movie from Craigslist/Ebay/local music store, the rights holder in question doesn't get any profit from that either. So why is one case completely legal and socially acceptable whereas the other is not ? The means are completely different but in both cases, the person who owns the copyright won't get royalties from either.

To that end, if someone buys a used Axe-FX rather than getting one from Fractal themselves, according to statements being presented here, it could be considered 'stealing'. They would be getting Fractal's patented technology without paying them any money. It's these kinds of grey areas that corporate lawyers could easily exploit to eliminate sources of competition.

[drgamble]

Copyright law allows for the sale of used CDs, DVDs, games etc. In this case you are transferring your license to content. The original owner generally doesn't have the product anymore and is not making a profit off of it, but is merely recouping some of their money. Copyright also allows for someone to make copies for their own use. In either case, it is not infringement and is allowed under copyright law. It is completely different when you make a copy for a friend and you still have a copy, but your friend also has it. This wasn't as big of an issue with analog mediums because you would lose a lot of sound quality and for me personally, rendered the recording unlistenable. CDs brought about lossless copying in which the copy sounded the same as the original.

[Spinedriver]

Originally Posted by The Reverend

. Buy the game from a place that will give you a refund, and if it blows, take it back..

There isn't a single store that I'm aware of that will allow you to return a cd/game/dvd once it's opened unless it's defective. The only other option is if you bought it at a store that takes trade-ins, so you can probably get half of what you paid for it in store credit. Other than that, all you can do is read as many reviews as you possibly can and hope that the game doesn't suck. Thing is, like I said previously, if you buy used, the creators don't see any money from that, so can that be considered 'stealing' ?

[Spinedriver]

Originally Posted by drgamble

Copyright law allows for the sale of used CDs, DVDs, games etc. In this case you are transferring your license to content. The original owner generally doesn't have the product anymore and is not making a profit off of it, but is merely recouping some of their money. Copyright also allows for someone to make copies for their own use. In either case, it is not infringement and is allowed under copyright law. It is completely different when you make a copy for a friend and you still have a copy, but your friend also has it. This wasn't as big of an issue with analog mediums because you would lose a lot of sound quality and for me personally, rendered the recording unlistenable. CDs brought about lossless copying in which the copy sounded the same as the original.

I totally agree that selling a cd/game/etc.. should be fair use but all the arguments against torrents/file uploaders is that the artist is losing revenue. Thing is, they don't get any from used sales either so how long would it be before that 'license transfer' clause gets repealed ?

[Xaios]

While it's correct that simply no video game retailer will offer a full refund on a game simply because "I don't like it," in this day and age there is no excuse to make uninformed purchasing decisions. There are video game reviewers EVERYWHERE on the internet. Simply by reading every review I can find, I have yet to purchase a game that I didn't enjoy. Same with movies, same with music (in which case the artists also tend to release free sample tracks). The only time I've bought an album that I didn't enjoy was when I didn't do any homework on it first and bought it blind based on the recommendation of a friend. I'm dead serious, it's only happened once. The album was "Mirror Palace" by Oceans of Madness.