# Megaupload Prosecuted and Shutdown



## habicore_5150 (Jan 19, 2012)

APNewsBreak: US prosecutors shut down one of worlds largest file-sharing sites, Megaupload - The Washington Post

some odd reason, the page is acting kinda depish, so ill copypaste the article on here


*McLEAN, Va. &#8212; One of the world&#8217;s largest file-sharing sites was shut down Thursday, and its founder and several company executives were charged with violating piracy laws, federal prosecutors said.*
*An indictment accuses Megaupload.com of costing copyright holders more than $500 million in lost revenue from pirated films and other content. The indictment was unsealed one day after websites including Wikipedia and Craigslist shut down in protest of two congressional proposals intended to thwart online piracy.*


*The Justice Department said in a statement said that Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and three others were arrested Thursday in New Zealand at the request of U.S. officials. Two other defendants are at large.*
*Megaupload was unique not only because of its massive size and the volume of downloaded content, but also because it had high-profile support from celebrities, musicians and other content producers who are most often the victims of copyright infringement and piracy. Before the website was taken down, it contained endorsements from Kim Kardashian, Alicia Keys and Kanye West, among others.*
*The Hong Kong-based company listed Swizz Beatz, a musician who married Keys in 2010, as its CEO.*
*Before the site was taken down, it posted a statement saying allegations that it facilitated massive breaches of copyright laws were &#8220;grotesquely overblown.&#8221;*
* &#8220;The fact is that the vast majority of Mega&#8217;s Internet traffic is legitimate, and we are here to stay. If the content industry would like to take advantage of our popularity, we are happy to enter into a dialogue. We have some good ideas. Please get in touch,&#8221; the statement said.*
*A lawyer who represented the company in a lawsuit last year declined comment Thursday.*

*Megaupload is considered a &#8220;cyberlocker,&#8221; in which users can upload and transfer files that are too large to send by email. Such sites can have perfectly legitimate uses. But the Motion Picture Association of America, which has campaigned for a crackdown on piracy, estimated that the vast majority of content being shared on Megaupload was in violation of copyright laws.*

*The website allowed users to download films, TV shows, games, music and other content for free, but made money by charging subscriptions to people who wanted access to faster download speeds or extra content. The website also sold advertising.*

*The indictment was returned in the Eastern District of Virginia, which claimed jurisdiction in part because some of the alleged pirated materials were hosted on leased servers in Ashburn, Va.*

*Dotcom, a resident of both Hong Kong and New Zealand, and a dual citizen of Finland and Germany, made more than $42 million from the conspiracy in 2010 alone, according to the indictment.*
*Dotcom is founder, former CEO and current chief innovation officer of Megaupload.
*
gotta love that two of the related articles to this one talk about sopa/pipa


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 19, 2012)

It looks like existing laws DO work.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Jan 19, 2012)

I dont see how they can be responsible for what users upload to their site. Under this logic, youtube should have been shut down years ago.

&#8220;Clearly we have due process concerns. This was done without a hearing.&#8221;


----------



## Nevertaken (Jan 19, 2012)

I hope they aren't planning to take out MediaFire anytime soon. I use that site for legitimate purposes and as far as I know it's the only free site with no wait times.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 19, 2012)

leftyguitarjoe said:


> I dont see how they can be responsible for what users upload to their site. Under this logic, youtube should have been shut down years ago.
> 
> Clearly we have due process concerns. This was done without a hearing.



I'm thinking that because they charge people for use of the site and some of those people upload/download 'copyrighted material that they do not own', the Gov't sees that as "illegal profiting". 

Youtube doesn't charge it's users so perhaps that makes a difference.


----------



## Rick (Jan 19, 2012)

So for those of us who actually use this site legally, what are we supposed to do? I use it to send video files of interviews to Ross and if I can't send them to him online, I'm fucked.


----------



## Sephiroth952 (Jan 19, 2012)

Anon responds.

Anonymous downs government, music industry sites in largest attack ever &mdash; RT


----------



## Tree (Jan 19, 2012)

Rick said:


> So for those of us who actually use this site legally, what are we supposed to do? I use it to send video files of interviews to Ross and if I can't send them to him online, I'm fucked.



Mediafire?


----------



## Hallic (Jan 20, 2012)

it will be up in a week or two


aslo, there is illigal content on megaupload?
Im not a big user of the site but did something download text/music etc from because other people shared it. All of these were 100% legal.


----------



## ShadowFactoryX (Jan 20, 2012)

Spinedriver said:


> It looks like existing laws DO work.




the laws can work, but there's a lot of gray area.



leftyguitarjoe said:


> I dont see how they can be responsible for what users upload to their site. Under this logic, youtube should have been shut down years ago.
> 
> &#8220;Clearly we have due process concerns. This was done without a hearing.&#8221;



more gray area, you cant shut down a beer store for someone that gives it to an underage person

and due process concerns?! no kidding.



Spinedriver said:


> I'm thinking that because they charge people for use of the site and some of those people upload/download 'copyrighted material that they do not own', the Gov't sees that as "illegal profiting".
> 
> Youtube doesn't charge it's users so perhaps that makes a difference.



but that charge is optional, and you pay for a service on the site: no wait time, direct linking
which by no means is illegal



Rick said:


> So for those of us who actually use this site legally, what are we supposed to do? I use it to send video files of interviews to Ross and if I can't send them to him online, I'm fucked.



Thats where this is going to be a big problem.
There is going to be serious repercussions by the government's hasty actions.
This could lead to a lawsuit for loss of intellectual property, and could have possibly shot themselves in the foot for their own cause



Sephiroth952 said:


> Anon responds.
> 
> Anonymous downs government, music industry sites in largest attack ever &mdash; RT



a government's strength is only as strong as its people's tollerence



Hallic said:


> it will be up in a week or two



for sure
its not in the same scope as this
but its kinda the same thing as the whole deal with borntrade

to me it seems like this dude that owned the company was indeed a shady character
but i cant see this being the end of file sharing, or other sites


----------



## Mexi (Jan 20, 2012)

I remember last year or so, the people at ThePirateBay.com were charged with a much of the same crimes and the site is still up and working fine, though I know that it's harder to deal with torrents than actual file hosting sites. that said, I wonder why the American government picked megaupload for their case, when theres tons like it that do the same shit (mediafire,hotfile,etc) It'll be interesting to see how people that have used megaupload for legitimate means fight back.


----------



## Alberto7 (Jan 20, 2012)

EDIT: Nevermind. False alarm, it seems.

EDIT 2: Nope, no false alarm. It seems it IS back, but it's based in another country, and has no domain name as of yet. I still can't access it, however. Here's a couple links: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/megaupload-back-high-tech-whack-mole/story?id=15405292#.Txnd-6Wm8WE and http://mashable.com/2012/01/20/megaupload-is-back/


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jan 20, 2012)

Alberto7 said:


> EDIT: Nevermind. False alarm, it seems.
> 
> EDIT 2: Nope, no false alarm. It seems it IS back, but it's based in another country, and has no domain name as of yet. I still can't access it, however. Here's a couple links: Megaupload is Back in High Tech Whack-a-Mole - ABC News and Is Megaupload Back? [UPDATED]



Isn't working for me.


----------



## Alberto7 (Jan 20, 2012)

Yeah, me neither. Nor any of my friends that I've asked. I'm guessing they took it down again as soon as the word spread.


----------



## ilyti (Jan 20, 2012)

Even if Megaupload goes under, there are always other "file locker" websites coming up - Wupload, Fileserve, Filesonic, Bitshare, Sharebee, Filejungle, and of course, good old Mediafire and Rapidshare. The internet is international, and sites based in countries that don't care so much about piracy will end up becoming the most-used, as this shitstorm unfolds.

So, don't worry, I can still get my episodes of The Mentalist and Quantum Leap from other places.


----------



## habicore_5150 (Jan 20, 2012)

i know some of you may not give a fuck less about the guy but...


----------



## Explorer (Jan 20, 2012)

For those who say that a criminal enterprise might be shut down even if there are some legitimate customers... wut?

If a court finds reasonable evidence to issue a warrant and to have someone arrested for a crime, it doesn't matter if that person is also head of a commission which finds homes for orphans. That's how the rule of law works, you can't use a "Get out of Jail Free!" card because of your nice stuff. 

Similarly, if consumers like a particular car dealer, and that car dealer also knowingly sells stolen cars along with non-stolen cars, they don't consider the non-crimes when issuing warrants and stopping the enterprise, only the crimes.

----



ShadowFactoryX said:


> ](Regarding businesses who upload to websites for distribution)
> 
> Thats where this is going to be a big problem. There is going to be serious repercussions by the government's hasty actions. This could lead to a lawsuit for loss of intellectual property, and could have possibly shot themselves in the foot for their own cause
> 
> ...



Most sites where one posts for free say that no claims can be made if the content becomes unavailable. Even sites to which one subscribes (a hosting site, for example) usually indemnify themselves if things go wrong. 

So, no lawsuit for loss of intellectual property. However, keeping in mind that they were shut down for distribution of stolen property, which is illegal, it seems there will be repercussion for the criminals, not the government. 

----

I don't like thugs. The government's strength has managed to withstand others who hated the rule of law, including the Ku Klux Klan. I trust it will also withstand other groups who attack laws passed in a democracy.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jan 20, 2012)

I could never really wrap my head around the whole "half a billion dollars in revenue lost" argument. Most of those people wouldn't buy a DVD even if buying it was the only method of consumption.

This is why a lot of artists would rather you illegally download it than not listen to it at all. Take for example System of a Down's "Steal This Album". All they cared about was that the message was heard. They viewed music as art and that it was for interpretation, not consumption.

But I guess this isn't really about the artists, it's about the record companies and Warner Bros, etc.

Oh and Lil Wayne...


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 20, 2012)

This was not a hasty action by the government. Kim Dotcom and the other guys have been under investigation for 2 years and had numerous emails between them showing that they were knowingly promoting the copyright violations and intended to profit from it. That's what the case is. It's not about whether other people used the site for nefarious reasons.

What is unfortunate is Anonymous attacking right after. I'm totally against SOPA, but I'm totally for shutting down Megaupload. So there is concern that Anonymous' attack is going to hurt the movement against SOPA.


----------



## chevymeister (Jan 23, 2012)

Mexi said:


> I remember last year or so, the people at ThePirateBay.com were charged with a much of the same crimes and the site is still up and working fine, though I know that it's harder to deal with torrents than actual file hosting sites. that said, I wonder why the American government picked megaupload for their case, when theres tons like it that do the same shit (mediafire,hotfile,etc) It'll be interesting to see how people that have used megaupload for legitimate means fight back.


 This is true but sites like that work with the authorities. My friend who had Assassin's Creed 2 for xbox torrented it for PC (just built him a rig). The Canadian equivalent of the RIAA (can't remember the name) sent him a letter through our ISP demanding a cease and desist and a letter of apology from my friend. I was laughing my ass off when I read it.

Anyone who really wants to pirate copyrighted material will find an underground method of doing so. Everyone uses Piratebay as a public tracker and it's going to be monitored the most. Just because it's up doesn't mean it's safe or running like it used to.


----------



## Xaios (Jan 23, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> I could never really wrap my head around the whole "half a billion dollars in revenue lost" argument. Most of those people wouldn't buy a DVD even if buying it was the only method of consumption.
> 
> This is why a lot of artists would rather you illegally download it than not listen to it at all. Take for example System of a Down's "Steal This Album". All they cared about was that the message was heard. They viewed music as art and that it was for interpretation, not consumption.
> 
> ...



You know, that's fine and good, but that's SOAD's prerogative. If I record an album because I want to sell it, I shouldn't have to deal with people pirating it. Just look at Keith Merrow's last album. 

In fact, read about it in this thread.

Within 3 days of him releasing his last album, there were literally thousands of illegal download links for it on the internet. Heck, some illegal sites had the guile to even SELL it. Keith himself posted that, because he didn't make enough money to cover the up front cost to even release it as a digital download, he wouldn't be able to produce any physical copies of the album.

Substitute Lil' Wayne with a picture of Keith, and suddenly that picture is a pretty honest retrospective of what piracy does to legitimate artists who don't have deals with major record labels. I can say this, Keith handled the situation with a lot more grace than I would have.


----------



## habicore_5150 (Jan 23, 2012)

on the subject about megaupload
apparently Anonymous is gonna be hosting an alternative to megaupload/megavideo

Anonymous Creates MegaUpload Replacement | WebProNews

Anonymous Is Launching a MegaUpload Alternative?


----------



## Explorer (Jan 23, 2012)

Hopefully this won't be out of place here, but Keith's words outweigh those who keep insisting that people don't care if their stuff is pirated without their permission.



DIOBOLIC5150 said:


> I expected it to happen, but not at the rate that it has.
> 
> It's being pirated at hundreds of websites now. I was told there are even a few that are SELLING it. There really is nothing I can do about it. It's never been about money for me, anyway. I was just hoping on getting back some of my own money that I spent while making the album. It was selling like hotcakes the first couple days, and today... just a handful
> 
> ...



A group which would be okay with doing something like this to Keith just doesn't seem like a group of folk heroes to me. Stealing from the poor and giving to those who aren't in need strikes me as douchebaggery of the highest order.


----------



## drgamble (Jan 23, 2012)

This kinda thing happens everyday. Websites pay people to upload in demand content so that they can distribute it and make billions of dollars. They can take said dollars and lobby the government, and pay for a mass paranoia marketing campaign that tells people that punishing people for breaking the law is censorship. Read up on old Kim Dotcom and all his porches, maseratis, and Bentleys read how he has been accused up paying people to upload pirated material and read how much money he made off of it. Go ahead and protect those that make billions off of people that work their whole lives to create the things that we all most cherish just so everyone else can get it free. SOPA looked to address this problem on a global scale. The megaupload thing is just an example of laws that have existed from early on in the country, if you actually break the law in this country. This didn't happen overnight and there is a lot of evidence as to his intentions.


----------



## maliciousteve (Jan 24, 2012)

I'm not sure if this is 100% legit. But if it is, those who shut down megaupload should probably brace themselves for a shafting.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq


----------



## Necris (Jan 24, 2012)

Many other filesharing sites have blocked US IPs since megaupload went down.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jan 24, 2012)

Xaios said:


> You know, that's fine and good, but that's SOAD's prerogative. If I record an album because I want to sell it, I shouldn't have to deal with people pirating it. Just look at Keith Merrow's last album.
> 
> In fact, read about it in this thread.
> 
> ...



I agree it hurts a huge portion of artists, and maybe it's no longer just the huge label artists like it used to be. All I'm saying is that until MY band get's signed, I'd rather pay for the recording/printing myself and hand that shit out like candy than sign a sketchy bullshit contract into musical purgatory.

IN OTHER NEWS...

Here's what you see if you type NOTICE into the address bar.






Scary stuff.

Edit: THEY'RE EVEN CHANGING THE LINK NAME. 

Big brother big brother...


----------



## Explorer (Jan 24, 2012)

So, law enforcement should brace themselves for retribution for enforcing the law? I don't get it. That sounds like mob tactics. 

Did I misunderstand? Or is the implication that federal judges are corrupt, and the Megaupload didn't do anything criminal? 

Given that SS.org members have mentioned in this thread that they now have to go elsewhere to find pirated materials indicates that pirated materials were to be had at Megaupload, so I doubt those members just posted to aid the conspiracy against Megaupload.

Sorry if I'm a little slow at understanding at times.


----------



## avenger (Jan 24, 2012)

Explorer said:


> So, law enforcement should brace themselves for retribution for enforcing the law? I don't get it. That sounds like mob tactics.
> 
> Did I misunderstand? Or is the implication that federal judges are corrupt, and the Megaupload didn't do anything criminal?
> 
> ...


Oh holy explorer, guide us along your path of pretentiousness and conservatism! Let us suck upon your teet of wisdom as you play us lullaby's upon your technically advanced dulcimer!


----------



## Necris (Jan 25, 2012)

avenger said:


> Oh holy explorer, guide us along your path of pretentiousness and conservatism! Let us suck upon your teet of wisdom as you play us lullaby's upon your technically advanced dulcimer!


Nice to see some members aren't above personal attacks when someone says something they disagree with.
Megaupload is/was one of the most successful and high profile of these "file-locker" sites so it makes sense the government would target it first. I don't see what is so "conservative" about expecting a company to be subordinate to the law. The vast majority of sites like megaupload, if not literally all of them contain some form of illegally uploaded material, yes they all have people using them for legitimate means as well but the illegal uploads are still there.



Explorer said:


> ... SS.org members have mentioned in this thread that they now have to go elsewhere to find pirated materials....


I've re-read the thread twice now and haven't read anything to that effect.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 25, 2012)

Explorer said:


> *Given that SS.org members have mentioned in this thread that they now have to go elsewhere to find pirated materials* indicates that pirated materials were to be had at Megaupload, so I doubt those members just posted to aid the conspiracy against Megaupload.





Necris said:


> *I've re-read the thread twice now and haven't read anything to that effect.*





ilyti said:


> Even if Megaupload goes under, there are always other "file locker" websites coming up - Wupload, Fileserve, Filesonic, Bitshare, Sharebee, Filejungle, and of course, good old Mediafire and Rapidshare. The internet is international, and sites based in countries that don't care so much about piracy will end up becoming the most-used, as this shitstorm unfolds.
> 
> *So, don't worry, I can still get my episodes of The Mentalist and Quantum Leap from other places.*



I have my doubt that MCA/Universal, owners of "Quantum Leap," or CBS, owner of "The Mentalist," have chosen to distribute their content for free, especially since they sell DVDs of that content. Therefore, ilyti is talking about getting pirated materials from elsewhere now that Megaupload has been shut down.

It's interesting to read his comment, though, and to think about all the hubbub regarding removing certain ISP listings for violating copyrights. The whole SOPA thread had numerous references to how terrible it was to have that option, and here we have the logic behind such a strategy revealed by a casual user of such places. It really undermines the ability to take seriously the noble sentiments of those fighting for "liberty" and against "censorship," don't you think?

However, Necris, you mentioned earlier something I hadn't really thought of as a consequence of going after pirating sites: In order to avoid criminal prosecution under US law, those sites would block access from the US. Who would have thought?


----------



## Necris (Jan 25, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I have my doubt that MCA/Universal, owners of "Quantum Leap," or CBS, owner of "The Mentalist," have chosen to distribute their content for free, especially since they sell DVDs of that content. Therefore, ilyti is talking about getting pirated materials from elsewhere now that Megaupload has been shut down.


I'm going to have to admit to having managed completely missed that section of his post twice. Kind of makes me wonder what other things I've missed. 

A friend of mine told me that mediafire had deleted everything earlier tonight. I checked my personal account on it which I use to back up tabs, fx chains etc. that I've made and everything still seems to be there so obviously that's not the case , unless of course they haven't finished yet. But that's why I back up my stuff in multiple ways. 

MediaFire CEO: Unlike Megaupload, our business model isn&#8217;t built on piracy | VentureBeat I found a few stories like this one and the comments section are all the same 95% of the comments are people whining about not being able to download movies/music/games. 
I have a feeling quite a few more of these sites will be shut down. 




habicore_5150 said:


> i know some of you may not give a fuck less about the guy but...




I intensely dislike this man. In addition to repeating himself time and time again for nearly 15 minutes what he fails to mention about the mother who was fined $1.5 million was that she refused the RIAAs offer to settle for $25,000 which was BY FAR the lowest settlement offer she was given at just over $1,000 per song. 

In her first trial she was found to owe $222,000, in her second trial the fine was upped to her owing $1.92 million which was later reduced to $54,000, and _then_ the RIAA themselves offered to settle for $25,000 she refused and on her 3rd trial in as many years she was found to owe $1.5 million. She brought that massive fine on herself.


----------



## drgamble (Jan 25, 2012)

I had read a news article that the other cyber locker sites were allowing users access to files they upload, but aren't allowing sharing of files. MegaUpload is facing some very serious allegations and I think of blocking the website as the equivalent to seizing computers, photos, money, etc in any other type of criminal investigation. I'm pretty sure that if Kim Dotcom is cleared of all charges, the website will be restored.


----------



## nickgray (Jan 25, 2012)

Necris said:


> She brought that massive fine on herself.



Are you joking? RIAA engages in pretty much textbook racketeering that was effectively made legal via massive lobbying (aka bribes). The whole practice is _beyond_ despicable.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 25, 2012)

I found this interesting:

Digital Music News - MegaUpload Is Now Launching a Music Service Called MegaBox...

Seems this fight is far from over.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 25, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Are you joking? RIAA engages in pretty much textbook racketeering that was effectively made legal via massive lobbying (aka bribes). The whole practice is _beyond_ despicable.



She was dumb enough to turn down a settlement, that is how she brought it upon herself, pretty straightforward. She was so confident in her right to what she stole that she believed she could not lose, and got burned. Pretty much some very high stakes gambling. How is that not her fault?


----------



## Mindcrime1204 (Jan 25, 2012)

All it takes is 1 person with 50,000 songs and 10,000 videos to start an uploading site, and then invite some of their other friends with shit loads of vids and songs and BAM. Whole new pirating site within a few days.

Or is it MUCH harder than it seems?


----------



## Randy (Jan 25, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> She was dumb enough to turn down a settlement, that is how she brought it upon herself, pretty straightforward. She was so confident in her right to what she stole that she believed she could not lose, and got burned. Pretty much some very high stakes gambling. How is that not her fault?



Doesn't speak to the larger point he was making. Both the fine and the settlement may have been excessive, so it was a no win. The point is that the RIAA and the "industry" have incalculable immoral/illegal doings and they're capable of lobbying to turn them to law or to keeping law enforcement off of them. Likewise, they're capable of lobbying to make laws that leverage EXCESSIVE penalties for petty crimes.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 25, 2012)

Randy said:


> Doesn't speak to the larger point he was making. Both the fine and the settlement may have been excessive, so it was a no win. The point is that the RIAA and the "industry" have incalculable immoral/illegal doings and they're capable of lobbying to turn them to law or to keeping law enforcement off of them. Likewise, they're capable of lobbying to make laws that leverage EXCESSIVE penalties for petty crimes.



I highly doubt the number of songs she was billed for is reflective of the number she had actually stolen over time so the settlement was likely quite reasonable. As for the actual amount owed after the lawsuit, you play with fire you get burned. Examples need to be made.


----------



## Randy (Jan 25, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> As for the actual amount owed after the lawsuit, you play with fire you get burned. Examples need to be made.



On a level playing field, sure. The law's the law.

However, you and I and everyone else who's used the internet over the last 15 years know that illegal filesharing, whether one song, or one album, or catalog, etc. is soooo incredibly common (even after that lawsuit) that excessive penalization is disproportionate to the crime and has stopped nothing. Dropping the hammer like they did implies, unless you're the patron saint of legal computing practices, live in fear. That'd be all fine and well if the industry, and more specifically, the entity pursuing these cases wasn't so ripe with immoral practice.


----------



## nickgray (Jan 25, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> How is that not her fault?



Um... so you think that RIAA actually is morally right (unfortunately, this organization already has the legal right) do demand a mind boggling, ludicrous, astonishing sum of money for, well, for downloading some compressed music files? What kind of planet are you from? I mean jeez, seems to me you're the kind of guy that would willingly and happily put a sci-fi mind control chip in your brain. Honestly, don't you think the big business and the financial sector have gone way, way, waaaaaaaaay too far with their abuse of power and with their infiltration of governments all around the world?

Bottom line is, RIAA has exactly zero moral high ground to stand on and quite frankly, so do virtually all of "big" media corporations. These guys are the scribes who are in denial about the printing press. The cat has been out of the bag for a long, long time and they are simply unwilling to adapt to the technological changes, preferring to settle things by bribing the officials and creating all sorts of laws to try to keep them in business.

Piracy is a service problem, most of all. It's not just that the stuff is free, it's much more convenient to get, it's usually of higher quality and the tech support is often amazing. I mean you can download a whole discography of a band, including all of their obscure and out of print releases in a lossless format, properly ripped (using an app called EAC), properly tagged, with high resolution scans of the booklet. With just one mouse click. What about movies? Again, no more of that obligatory piracy warning crap, no more obligatory trailers, just download and watch. Games? One word: DRM. Either pay the money and be treated like a criminal scum of some sorts, or get it for free, get the version without all that "online only" or "5 installs only" nonsense for frickin' _free_. And if you have some sort of trouble with it all, there are loads of users who will help you, unlike a worthless tech support guy who'd rather eat his shoes before admitting there's something wrong with the product itself and it's not my PCs fault.

You cannot compete against something that's not just free, but actually better in virtually every way and form. Now, there's a rather good example of a service that recognizes that - Steam. And it attracts more and more customers each year, hell, I mean there's a private tracker that actually has a sticky "Steam deals" thread on the forum. That's how you combat piracy. Not by racketeering, not by scare tactics, but by providing a better service.



> to what she stole


Now that alone tells me you have no idea what you're talking about. Piracy is not theft, it's copyright infringement. There's a massive difference between the two. It truly saddens me to see just how influential the anti-piracy propaganda by the big media actually is.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 25, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Piracy is a service problem, most of all. It's not just that the stuff is free, it's much more convenient to get, it's usually of higher quality and the tech support is often amazing. I mean you can download a whole discography of a band, including all of their obscure and out of print releases in a lossless format, properly ripped (using an app called EAC), properly tagged, with high resolution scans of the booklet. With just one mouse click. What about movies? Again, no more of that obligatory piracy warning crap, no more obligatory trailers, just download and watch. Games? One word: DRM. Either pay the money and be treated like a criminal scum of some sorts, or get it for free, get the version without all that "online only" or "5 installs only" nonsense for frickin' _free_. And if you have some sort of trouble with it all, there are loads of users who will help you, unlike a worthless tech support guy who'd rather eat his shoes before admitting there's something wrong with the product itself and it's not my PCs fault.



You just earned yourself some pos. Rep for that paragraph, Sir. 

I feel compelled to share that, since legitimizing all my music software in roughly 2008, I've had far greater and far more frequent headaches in regards to licensing and keeping my software working properly than I ever had in my years prior to purchasing everything. My biggest pet-peeve is that the install/registry system (at least on PC; dunno about Mac..) doesn't identify the *computer*, it identifies the *OS install*. In other words, every time I re-install my OS for any myriad of reasons, all my purchased music software thinks I'm trying to install to a new computer. 

It drives me crazy. Within my first year, I maxed out all my licenses for all my Toontrack software, and it took me *months* to get anyone from Toontrack to even respond to my inquiries, let alone provide assistance. It's not just my music software, either. I have the same issue with Rosetta Stone for Japanese. Shit, sometimes it doesn't even take an OS install. Toontrack's stuff in particular just seems to go haywire every 6 months or so, suddenly deciding it needs to re-register even though I've done nothing to my OS, registry, or Toontrack files. Drives me absolutely bonkers, to the point where out of pure spite and frustration, I've pretty much stopped using my Toontrack plugins altogether, despite having paid for them all.

Oh, I used to use Cubase a lot as well (also paid for), and don't even get me started on the fucking USB dongle they require to authenticate their software.  Headaches related to that really helped me fall in deeper in love with Ableton, who's install/registry process is a BREEZE, and don't seem to care how many times I install/authenticate.

Granted, none of the above makes me run out and pirate software. Quite the contrary: On the 1 in eleventy bajillion chance that I might ever "make it" with my musical endeavors, I don't want anyone to be able to find illegal shit on my machines, and that's enough motivation for me to stay legitimate. Still, it pisses me off to no end that I get such a runaround, just to make services I've paid for work the way they're supposed to work. 

Couldn't agree with you more about the movies, either. I hate that the FBI screens and previews pop up on every movie I purchase for home viewing (DVD or BluRay), and I _really_ hate that I can't just skip straight to the menu when they DO pop up. "Function not available", my ass. 

I'd love to see this discussion (in the greater nationwide context; not specific to this thread) focus more on consumer advocacy, and less on maintaining profits.


----------



## ShadowFactoryX (Jan 25, 2012)

nickgray, and synergy have made probably the strongest points.

most of the "dont pirate music, because you'll get infinite fines" scare tactics have been around since you could start burning cds, and napster stepped into the light

but the fines that were handed out then were just as ridiculous, and there's been no controll over that.
(now granted, there's a national debt crisis in the US, and everyone else seems to be worried about every other miniscule problem...)
there needs to be a reasonable balance to be able to look legit about handling these things

and can someone honestly provide me some info on the RIAA going out of their way to help small artists?
i have yet to hear anything along those lines

i honestly thought that the Zune service was awesome. $15 a month and unlimited downloads? excellent, but it wouldnt work with other programs and there was definitely other limitations.
besides most people spend how much on their phone service per month?

people would be willing to switch to efficient (both cost and downloading) methods to have music if there was a good reasonable incentive.

There's been a lot of gray area in this whole thing, but the industry has to meet the demands of customers. thats just how it is. it happens in any kind of business field.

i manage a body shop, and there's lots of crap that i have to do that i hate. i have to take pictures of every car thats in our shop thats for a certain (who will go unnamed) insurance company, with a picture of their ID form, and take that picture every time the status changes.
there's an infinite number of things i could be doing that would be more productive.
but if i didnt, i'd be non-compliant, and lose business

it sucks, but you have to adapt

EDIT:

after reading the article(s) on MegaBox, it seems there's a serious underlying issue involving that. i'd say that definitely had some part in this megaupload mess


----------



## Necris (Jan 25, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Are you joking? RIAA engages in pretty much textbook racketeering that was effectively made legal via massive lobbying (aka bribes). The whole practice is _beyond_ despicable.



I'm not saying their methods and tactics aren't despicable and that the fines aren't in the realm of the absurd. I have no more love for the RIAA than you or anyone else who is aware of what they do.

It doesn't change the fact that in her particular case she had been found to owe massive sums of money in both trials prior to her final trial and upon being offered what was easily the lowest settlement she chose to take a gamble and turn down the offer. 
She herself claimed that the first trial alone cost her $100,000 in legal fees, fees which she was unable to pay for, assuming that is true the fact that she would turn down the $25,000 settlement in her second trial (which potentially cost her as much) and instead have a third trial seems to me to be a massive case of bad judgement. She could have ended that trial potentially owing ~$200,000 in legal fees in addition to her $25,000. 
$225,000 total is $3,000 less than the original amount she was found to owe to the companies she downloaded from in her first trial ($222,000). With legal fees the first trial and fine would have cost her $322,000.
The settlement for $25,000 even taking the legal fees in to account was_ her best deal_ no matter how you look at.



SirMyghin said:


> I highly doubt the number of songs she was billed for is reflective of the number she had actually stolen over time so the settlement was likely quite reasonable. As for the actual amount owed after the lawsuit, you play with fire you get burned. Examples need to be made.



The RIAA claimed to have had found 1700+ songs downloaded onto her computer which were also being shared by her through Kazaa.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 25, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Now that alone tells me you have no idea what you're talking about. Piracy is not theft, it's copyright infringement. There's a massive difference between the two. It truly saddens me to see just how influential the anti-piracy propaganda by the big media actually is.



I disagree, stealing intellectual property is equivalent to stealing physical property. On those bounds piracy is theft as you are stealing intellectual property. Just because it is not physically tangible, does not prevent the possibility for theft. Taking something that is not yours, will always be theft.  

As far as how to combat piracy, no reason you can't do both. Steam is a pretty wonderful beast indeed, but companies are not required to cater to customers who choose to get something 'the easier' or 'the better' way if it is skirting existing legalities.

I don't think companies should be demonized for enforcing their rights, regardless of size, regardless of how many choose to step on them and illegally appropriate their property. I know it is hip nowadays for those who are 'down on their luck' to 'stick it to the man', but people will always find an excuse to take without warant, you can count that. The RIAA is not necessarily a good thing, I frankly have little opinion on the matter, but I do firmly believe in the defense of what is mine. By proxy that leaves everyone to defend theirs to the utmost.


----------



## Randy (Jan 25, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> I disagree, stealing intellectual property is equivalent to stealing physical property. On those bounds piracy is theft as you are stealing intellectual property.



By the boundaries you've set? Okay, sure.

For that metric to work, it's still not fair to claim every album pirated = the cost of that same CD being stolen. For example, if I steal a car, the person who I stole the car from is out the money they spent on the car. I can't steal the same car from the same person more than once and they can't be out the $20,000 value more than once. 

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.


----------



## drgamble (Jan 25, 2012)

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.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 25, 2012)

Talking purely about Megaupload, I think that they definitely needed dealing with, as they were allowing material to be illegally distributed and getting paid for it. They're making money from someone else's product. While the site may not have been intended to work in that way, they are responsible for how it was used and have to deal with the consequences. That said, I think the actions taken against them have been extreme as is often the case with the music industry. It's understandable why so many people are for illegal filesharing when the companies that are arguing that they are the victims will happily sue individuals for ridiculous sums of money and act in a generally greedy manner. How can you stick up for that sort of industry? While I feel illegal downloading has definitely had negative effects and should be regulated more, I also feel there needs to be some reform at the other end of the scale.


----------



## nickgray (Jan 25, 2012)

Necris said:


> I'm not saying their methods and tactics aren't despicable and that the fines aren't in the realm of the absurd.



Oh, so you meant her decision was stupid on a personal level.



> She could have ended that trial potentially owing ~$200,000 in legal fees in addition to her $25,000


 
There's your answer. I don't think she particularly cared whether she owed these scumbags $1+ million or $250,000. I'm not sure how exactly one is supposed to pay these kind of debts, but what I am sure of is that she wouldn't have paid these debts off anytime soon. By anytime I mean 'til she dies. It's like sentencing someone to 12 consecutive life sentences - impressive, but utterly ridiculous.



SirMyghin said:


> I disagree, stealing intellectual property is equivalent to stealing physical property



It's not. We can debate the morality of it, certainly, but not the technical part. Piracy is copying and copying does not result in a loss of copied material, you simply create an identical copy. Stealing, on the other hand, does result in an actual loss, you deprive the owner of the object. There is a difference. A big one.



> Taking something that is not yours



And again, you're not _taking_, you're _copying_. The morality is debatable, the technical difference between the two is most certainly not. Copyright infrigment is F5, stealing is F6. Props if you get the reference.



> I frankly have little opinion on the matter, but I do firmly believe in the defense of what is mine



Well, unfortunately, the waters are considerably more murky than they might seem. It's nowhere near being a monochromatic "good and bad" issue the publishers (the big media, the entertainment sector, whatever you want to call them) present it to be. There's all sorts of scumbaggery involved including the aforementioned RIAA racket scheme. Imagine if the printing press was invented, say, yesterday, and up until this point in time books were written by hand. How do you think the modern book publishers are going to react? They'd criminalize the damn thing faster than you could say "copyright". Granted, it's an exaggerated, unrealistic and simplified example, but I think it does make the point.

You see, these guys not only want to have their cake and eat it, they also don't want to get fat. They also want the torte, the pie, the brownies, you name it, they want it. Publishers are effectively these enormous parasites who leech off people who do the actually work and if you're successful enough, maybe they'll throw you a bone or two as a token of appreciation. In the grand scheme of things, it's the publishers with dinosaur business models who have the most to lose from piracy.

In short, the issue is _far_ more complex than what anti-piracy propaganda leads us to believe.


----------



## drgamble (Jan 25, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> Talking purely about Megaupload, I think that they definitely needed dealing with, as they were allowing material to be illegally distributed and getting paid for it. They're making money from someone else's product. While the site may not have been intended to work in that way, they are responsible for how it was used and have to deal with the consequences. That said, I think the actions taken against them have been extreme as is often the case with the music industry. It's understandable why so many people are for illegal filesharing when the companies that are arguing that they are the victims will happily sue individuals for ridiculous sums of money and act in a generally greedy manner. How can you stick up for that sort of industry? While I feel illegal downloading has definitely had negative effects and should be regulated more, I also feel there needs to be some reform at the other end of the scale.



They are also accused of paying users to upload in demand content to be pirated. That is pretty much thumbing your nose at federal laws. I don't think they are being treated any different than anybody else running a criminal enterprise. If you deal drugs out of your house, the government will seize all of your bank accounts, house, cars, etc. The main thing everyone is upset about is that the government seized the website and servers, but all of that is considered evidence. It is no different than any other criminal. Now, if this goes through courts and they are found not guilty of all charges than it will be returned to them.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 25, 2012)

Oooooops.... 

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitio...gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=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 (Jan 25, 2012)

drgamble said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2012)

drgamble said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2012)

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 (Jan 25, 2012)

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 (Jan 25, 2012)

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 fucked 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 (Jan 25, 2012)

nickgray said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2012)

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 (Jan 25, 2012)

flint757 said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2012)

Necris said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2012)

Necris said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2012)

Randy said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2012)

Necris said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2012)

flint757 said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2012)

Necris said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2012)

Fair enough.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 26, 2012)

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 (Jan 26, 2012)

synrgy said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2012)

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 (Jan 26, 2012)

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 (Jan 26, 2012)

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 (Jan 26, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> . 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 (Jan 26, 2012)

drgamble said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2012)

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.


----------



## drgamble (Jan 26, 2012)

Spinedriver said:


> 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 ?



It's apples and oranges at this point. Imagine having a car. You can sell someone your used car. You no longer have use of the car. Now imagine that you had a magic machine that could make a reproduction of the car and you could give the car away. You still have the car, but now so does your buddy. It the same thing with music. It's not like there are "special" laws for intellectual property. It just so happens that we have a magic machine that can reproduce music, movies, games, software, etc.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 26, 2012)

drgamble said:


> It's apples and oranges at this point. Imagine having a car. You can sell someone your used car. You no longer have use of the car. Now imagine that you had a magic machine that could make a reproduction of the car and you could give the car away. You still have the car, but now so does your buddy. It the same thing with music. It's not like there are "special" laws for intellectual property. It just so happens that we have a magic machine that can reproduce music, movies, games, software, etc.



That's the thing, when SOPA was being pushed, it was because the music/movie/game industry were claiming that they were losing hundreds of Millions of dollars due to downloading. For years they had claimed the same thing about used media but there wasn't anything they could do about it. I'm just thinking that this could be the perfect gateway to 'close that loophole'. In their eyes, anyone who wants a copy of whatever they're selling should have to buy an original copy.... period. No used/2nd hand whatsoever.

I understand completely what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing. I'm just trying to make a point that a lot of people are trying to make the whole thing out as a black & white issue when in reality, there are quite a number of grey areas. It's common knowledge that downloading is 'ripping off the artist' but even though used games/music/etc.. are perfectly within Copyright law, it's still 'ripping off the artist' because they don't see a penny from it. (ie:rather than buy a new copy that they DO get profit from, people buy the used because it's cheaper but the artist gets nothing).

To me, they are both one in the same even though one is legal and the other isn't.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 26, 2012)

Spinedriver said:


> That's the thing, when SOPA was being pushed, it was because the music/movie/game industry were claiming that they were losing hundreds of Millions of dollars due to downloading. For years they had claimed the same thing about used media but there wasn't anything they could do about it. I'm just thinking that this could be the perfect gateway to 'close that loophole'. In their eyes, anyone who wants a copy of whatever they're selling should have to buy an original copy.... period. No used/2nd hand whatsoever.
> 
> I understand completely what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing. I'm just trying to make a point that a lot of people are trying to make the whole thing out as a black & white issue when in reality, there are quite a number of grey areas. It's common knowledge that downloading is 'ripping off the artist' but even though used games/music/etc.. are perfectly within Copyright law, it's still 'ripping off the artist' because they don't see a penny from it. (ie:rather than buy a new copy that they DO get profit from, people buy the used because it's cheaper but the artist gets nothing).
> 
> To me, they are both one in the same even though one is legal and the other isn't.



didn't ever think of it that way, but your definitely right. A good example is a buy most of the books I read second hand although there may be some medium of payment for that. I prefer to pay for things in general, but I can also agree that dongles and software licensing are a major pain in the ass and I could see the appeal of the no hassle cracking of software ie no dongle and/or licensing hassle. It still isn't worth it for several reasons, but I can see why it is appealing. I think ultimately everyone needs to agree that the "real" reason it's wrong is just that, because it's wrong and leave financial reasoning out of it. it only clouds the conversation with meaningless numbers. (yes they are meaningless any numbers of profit lost is speculation and not provable. Not saying it isn't true, but it isn't provable)

Something someone brought up about the library was interesting because my local library has a ton of CD's and quite a few movies. Isn't going to the library and reading a book or watching/listening to CD's and DVD's stealing profits from publishers, artists, etc.

So to conclude you are right about grey area.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 26, 2012)

Spinedriver said:


> It's common knowledge that downloading is 'ripping off the artist' but even though used games/music/etc.. are perfectly within Copyright law, it's still 'ripping off the artist' because they don't see a penny from it.
> 
> To me, they are both one in the same even though one is legal and the other isn't.



You are mistaken. The number of legitimate physical copies out there (book, CD, DVD) means that if you want to get something legally, you either can buy it used if you can get it, or otherwise will have to buy it new to have it. Supply and demand.

However, if you really want to know where you've gone astray, here's how it works. Buying a physical copy gives the owner the license to utilize the material contained thereon as long as they own the physical copy. If they buy it and rip it to their hard drive, they are theoretically supposed to get rid of the ripped copies when they sell that media, as the license is tied to the physical media. 

And yes, some things don't allow transfer of the license with the physical media. That also is legal, and up to the copyright holder. 



Spinedriver said:


> 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.



Actually, the way these conversations normally go:

Piracy is a form of stealing.

Oh yeah? Well, big corporations are the ones behind anti-stealing, the ones losing out, and they have lots of money!

Actually, smaller artists lose money too. Here's a few examples.

But... evil corporations!

Hey, here's a member here explaining how piracy hurts him, if the illegality of theft isn't enough to make you drop those arguments. 

Well... used copies, although legal, are also theft... even though they're not!

????

Profit!

*laugh*

I know you were among the first to jump on the financial angles bus in the SOPA thread. (I suspect you were actually the driver, but won't go looking right now.) I like how you were okay with the financial aspects before as a valid argument, but now have a problem with it.

----

Throughout these topics, you've made a number of statements seeking to mitigate the impact of piracy. That makes it difficult to take your stance of "used copies are theft" seriously, as well as your arguments that buying a used AxeFX being falling into the same category.

I can't wait to hear what strange arguments come up next.

----

*Short version: There's a difference between piracy and legal use (including buying used media and libraries). Copyright laws aren't about profit, they are about the right to make new copies. 

*I've known people who were convinced that, since they were thieves or strippers, everyone was either stealing or prostituting themselves. That was their particular lens for viewing the world, as they couldn't imagine any other behavior. Everyone else could see it, they couldn't. As I've noted in other topics, it has to do with insight, or a lack thereof.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Jan 26, 2012)

Meanwhile 1 in 2 Americans are living in poverty (according to the official census):
U.S. News - 'Dismal' prospects: 1 in 2 Americans are now poor or low income

Meanwhile sweatshop labour in third world countries still exists, and the working and living conditions are almost as bad as those in England right after the Industrial Revolution way back in the day.

Meanwhile armed conflicts in many African countries leading to many deaths.

Meanwhile widespread hunger and malnutrition and inadequate access to water and medicine in many countries.

Meanwhile Syrians getting killed for revolting against a douchebag.

Meanwhile a trillion other things. And here we are, arguing back and forth on a forum about some songs and software. That's a super cool story if I've ever heard one.


----------



## Necris (Jan 26, 2012)

ArkaneDemon said:


> Meanwhile 1 in 2 Americans are living in poverty (according to the official census):
> U.S. News - 'Dismal' prospects: 1 in 2 Americans are now poor or low income
> 
> Meanwhile sweatshop labour in third world countries still exists, and the working and living conditions are almost as bad as those in England right after the Industrial Revolution way back in the day.
> ...



Then why not start threads specifically for those topics rather than try to end a legitimate discussion?  Or better yet, make a thread only for the single most important of those topics since clearly any of the less important ones being discussed would detract from the focus that the most important one deserves.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Jan 27, 2012)

Good idea, after I'm done school and work tomorrow, I'll come home and start a couple of threads in this subforum and see how that goes


----------



## Xaios (Jan 27, 2012)

^ Pretty much (to what Necris said). While those are all worthy topics of discussion, that doesn't mean this one is any less important. Ultimately the point of all these discussions comes down to two things: liberty and right to life. The only difference here is all those other topics are about helping others who don't have these things gain them, while this discussion is about keeping those of us who do have them from losing them. While I don't agree with the lion's share of the expressed opinions in this thread, it is most definitely a discussion worth having.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 27, 2012)

Explorer said:


> You are mistaken. The number of legitimate physical copies out there (book, CD, DVD) means that if you want to get something legally, you either can buy it used if you can get it, or otherwise will have to buy it new to have it. Supply and demand.
> 
> However, if you really want to know where you've gone astray, here's how it works. Buying a physical copy gives the owner the license to utilize the material contained thereon as long as they own the physical copy. If they buy it and rip it to their hard drive, they are theoretically supposed to get rid of the ripped copies when they sell that media, as the license is tied to the physical media.
> 
> And yes, some things don't allow transfer of the license with the physical media. That also is legal, and up to the copyright holder.



I didn't know this, but it's really interesting to me. 

As far as buying things secondhand, is there not a sort of injustice there, too? I'm not going to go so far as to advocate its abolition, mostly because it'd be impractical and wasteful, but is it fair to someone who spent 40 hours crafting a hand-carved dining table set to receive no money from it being sold? I'd be happier if there were some kind of consignment-shop type deal where a certain percentage of the resold item's price would be given to the originator of it. It's strange to think about in this way, because it's such a given in our society, but at the same time it's an interesting thought experiment. 

At the end of the day, being in possession of something you didn't acquire legally, whether that implies paying for something or being given it constitutes theft. Media is the creation of someone/a group of people, and if it's being enjoyed without their permission, it's theft. I dare anyone who pirates games to go tell a programmer who worked 80+ hours that he didn't steal that dude's creation, he just _copied_ it, without having purchased a disc himself. If that doesn't convey why it's wrong, than you have no idea what rights are and belong to some new breed of communists with a strange sense of entitlement.

EDIT: I'm not impressed with the guilt-trip. If you _really_ cared, you wouldn't be posting on SSO about anything, you'd be in a soup kitchen or raising money to fund aid missions or something. We're all too selfish to care enough to really make a difference, sadly. It sucks that people are like that, and even more that most won't admit that, but it's a biological imperative, I suppose.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 27, 2012)

@The Reverend - I doubt that the way humans deal with physical goods will change at this point in history. It's only been fairly recently that ideas have become items of trade as well. Patents and copyrights likely won't go away either at this point. 

@ArkaneDemon - I don't think I've seen you post in many of the more socially conscious threads. It might just be me, but if you suddenly started those threads because you were trying to make a point about piracy, it would appear to be motivated by attempting to establish your bona fides, as opposed to having already been a long-time concern for you. 

However... treating your scenarios seriously, I was recently talking with a couple of people we interact with who are social workers. One of the questions which arose was, how far can one go to help someone? Those who have invested a lot of time in those issues recognize that one cannot impose change from the outside, or pump money into a situation in the hope that it will change the people involved. 

So, sweatshop labor built the computer you're using, and Americans won't spend the money necessary to buy a machine, or the components for one, which aren't made in China and other places where such practices are widespread... and where the environment is also destroyed in search of profit. We accept their lack of controls to get a lower price.

So, three of my friends escaped from being Lost Boys, children pressed into warfare.

So, when that whole 'Feed the World" campaign sent food to starving countries in Africa, the food rotted on the docks because of the warlords. 

So, in a region where most governments rely on an appeal to authority, people are finally starting to question that... but they are fighting centuries of such thinking. 

So, you finally got concerned enough about all those things to post about them... but only as an aside in a thread about a pirate organization being shut down.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 27, 2012)

Explorer said:


> *Short version: There's a difference between piracy and legal use (including buying used media and libraries). Copyright laws aren't about profit, they are about the right to make new copies. *



Thing is, the ONLY words coming from those sponsoring the law were "We're losing hundreds of Millions of dollars to pirating". So how is it not about profit ?

My main problem is the fact that although illegal downloading is a crime, abuse of power is downright sickening. If an artist is having their work stolen, hire a lawyer and work it out. Having a law passed that could jeopardize the free speech of millions just to make things easier for some to "protect what's theirs" shouldn't be allowed to happen. As the saying goes: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

Want an example? 

http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/14/...ch-news-today-episode-yanked-from-youtube-for

The show was reporting on a story in that Universal was suing Megaupload for violating copyright infringement in a music video that they made. They showed footage of it while telling/commenting on the story. Shortly after it was uploaded, Universal issued a cease & desist order to have the show pulled. After appealing with Youtube, the owner of the video had it reinstated but Universal then invoked DCMA rules to have it taken down a second time. Thing is, it's not even clear if Universal actually owns the rights to the footage shown to begin with. If SOPA were law, Youtube would have been blocked and advertisers pulled completely under false pretenses. It's this sort of thing I want to see prevented but apparently, it's worth it because someone may have lost $50 in sales to 'pirates'.

Also, although it's still just rumor, if it does come to pass, it's just another sign of the times. 

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Wii-U-Xbox-720-Oban-Radeon-Performance,news-13994.html

Apparently, Microsoft wants to try and implement some sort of DRM to prevent people from playing USED games on the new Xbox 720. I hope no one here works at Gamestop because if you do and all next gen. consoles adopt a similar tech. then you're going to be looking for a new job in the next 5 years or so.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 27, 2012)

Spinedriver said:


> Thing is, the ONLY words coming from those sponsoring the law were "We're losing hundreds of Millions of dollars to pirating". So how is it not about profit ?
> 
> My main problem is the fact that although illegal downloading is a crime, abuse of power is downright sickening. If an artist is having their work stolen, hire a lawyer and work it out. Having a law passed that could jeopardize the free speech of millions just to make things easier for some to "protect what's theirs" shouldn't be allowed to happen. As the saying goes: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
> 
> ...



I think playstation, nintendo too, would be smarter than that. Microsoft won't do that because it would push people who typically buy used since they don't have the cash for new to pirate instead (for financial reasons alone). They have there hand in the PC world as well which they can't honestly control so it just seems unlikely. It would backlash and it would be repealed with an update, in theory of course.

And as far as topic on hand while second hand copying is obviously legal and thus the issue is original payment and then transfer of ownership it doesn't change that the original rights holder is technically getting screwed. If it was about physical property and transfers we wouldn't be having this conversation anyways since in that instant they only get money from a single transfer, I doubt they care that the original purchaser is no longer using their product they care that they aren't making the mulla anymore for the 2nd 3rd, etc. By no means am I justifying pirating and in fact I'm lost to the point trying to be made in general by this topic now that I think about it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the truth is to the industry "profit" lost is first concern and morality is a distant second even for the little guys.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 27, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Has she tried using a VPN?



A) she's not savvy enough to set that up (and I'm not inclined to spend whatever precious little time I get during visits with her fussing with it..)

B) she shouldn't have to, damn it.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 27, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I think playstation, nintendo too, would be smarter than that. Microsoft won't do that because it would push people who typically buy used since they don't have the cash for new to pirate instead (for financial reasons alone). They have there hand in the PC world as well which they can't honestly control so it just seems unlikely. It would backlash and it would be repealed with an update, in theory of course.
> 
> And as far as topic on hand while second hand copying is obviously legal and thus the issue is original payment and then transfer of ownership it doesn't change that the original rights holder is technically getting screwed. If it was about physical property and transfers we wouldn't be having this conversation anyways since in that instant they only get money from a single transfer, I doubt they care that the original purchaser is no longer using their product they care that they aren't making the mulla anymore for the 2nd 3rd, etc. By no means am I justifying pirating and in fact I'm lost to the point trying to be made in general by this topic now that I think about it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the truth is to the industry "profit" lost is first concern and morality is a distant second even for the little guys.



There's a thread in the Gaming forum talking about the 720 and apparently EA already has an 'access code' format in place for playing online. Once you activate it, it's done. If you sell the game, whoever buys it has to pay an extra fee to re-activate it. PC games are already doing it with DRMs. Not to mention that several game developers are kind of upset about the number of people buying used games so it doesn't surprise me that rumors are popping up about them thinking about making used games 'unplayable'.

As per the 2nd part of your post, I couldn't agree with you more. Back in the 80's, the music industry was flipping out (just like they are now) when dual cassette recorders first came out. People were taping songs off the radio instead of buying singles and the industry was collapsing (it had NOTHING to do with all of the Disco music they were putting out ) . I wouldn't worry about "losing the point", thing is, every time a new technology hits it's stride (cd, mp3, torrenting, etc...) the movie/music industry gets a bug up it's ass because they can't figure out how they're going to still make money on old tech and clean up on the new tech at the same time. That's what the problem is now, when a dvd comes out in the U.S, generally it doesn't come out overseas for weeks/months later. If Paramount/Fox/etc.. came out with something like Netflix that would release movies worldwide at the same time, I'm almost certain 'pirating' would decrease quite a bit. I tend to think that because the internet is 'worldwide', if a dvd is released in the U.S. and a bunch of people are talking about it but there's no way to purchase it in the U.K., they just get fed up and get it off a torrent site rather than wait for it to show up legally. I'm sure once it arrives, they go and buy a physical copy because it has commentaries, bonus features, etc... but when a bunch of people are talking about a movie, who wants to be the odd one out ? Basically, rather than the media industry evolving with the internet, they want to keep the internet from evolving. I'm not trying to say that the whole pirating/Copyright infringement isn't a problem. I'm just saying that perhaps it isn't as bad as they would lead us to believe.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 27, 2012)

Spinedriver said:


> There's a thread in the Gaming forum talking about the 720 and apparently EA already has an 'access code' format in place for playing online. Once you activate it, it's done. If you sell the game, whoever buys it has to pay an extra fee to re-activate it. PC games are already doing it with DRMs. Not to mention that several game developers are kind of upset about the number of people buying used games so it doesn't surprise me that rumors are popping up about them thinking about making used games 'unplayable'.
> 
> As per the 2nd part of your post, I couldn't agree with you more. Back in the 80's, the music industry was flipping out (just like they are now) when dual cassette recorders first came out. People were taping songs off the radio instead of buying singles and the industry was collapsing (it had NOTHING to do with all of the Disco music they were putting out ) . I wouldn't worry about "losing the point", thing is, every time a new technology hits it's stride (cd, mp3, torrenting, etc...) the movie/music industry gets a bug up it's ass because they can't figure out how they're going to still make money on old tech and clean up on the new tech at the same time. That's what the problem is now, when a dvd comes out in the U.S, generally it doesn't come out overseas for weeks/months later. If Paramount/Fox/etc.. came out with something like Netflix that would release movies worldwide at the same time, I'm almost certain 'pirating' would decrease quite a bit. I tend to think that because the internet is 'worldwide', if a dvd is released in the U.S. and a bunch of people are talking about it but there's no way to purchase it in the U.K., they just get fed up and get it off a torrent site rather than wait for it to show up legally. I'm sure once it arrives, they go and buy a physical copy because it has commentaries, bonus features, etc... but when a bunch of people are talking about a movie, who wants to be the odd one out ? Basically, rather than the media industry evolving with the internet, they want to keep the internet from evolving. I'm not trying to say that the whole pirating/Copyright infringement isn't a problem. I'm just saying that perhaps it isn't as bad as they would lead us to believe.



I remember a long time ago a friend visited I want to say Greece. Can't remember at the moment. This was when they still sold things regionally, but DVD's weren't literally locked to a US (or other region) device yet like it is now. She had bought movies month before they came out in theaters in US so in some ways even we get screwed. Now the online thing seems more probable I didn't realize that is what you meant i could see them doing that and justifying it since you can technically still play the game despite that fact so that sucks....a lot. I'm a PC and PS3 guy though so my concerns are a little less unless they follow suit.

What you saying is at the heart of the debate because someone like explorer here on the forum and a few others will say that that doesn't give you the right to it's use just because they aren't catering appropriately to their audience and in some ways I agree (from a morally wrong perspective). Where I typically disagree is the fact that when people say that, they aren't trying to justify the action they are simply applying an answer to the cause which is what the doubters don't believe. When itunes started $1 downloads the industry rebounded a bit and there was a reason for it, they got there act together (sort of). I also disagree about the little guy argument (not that they get screwed, but that they deserve pity), the truth is the environment has changed. If you don't want to be screwed make sure you release you content with heavy locking and only have clips at low quality. The artists does not do these things because they know it will have repercussions (otherwise most would). If someone steals you car and you left the door unlocked and the keys in it you have some of the blame (even though it would be nice to trust people). Avid is a good example about fighting piracy. The one thing I hate about them is there defense (which works well), the dongle. Hate it but it works if you don't take defensive measures you are playing the first card into your defeat. Whether this is their responsibility or that they should have to do this isn't even up for argument here because this day and age it is necessary to take precautions. (I am not implying that if you don't you asking for it simply you can't be nearly as sour if you didn't take "some" precaution)

EDIT

my stuff isn't online for a reason


----------



## chevymeister (Feb 1, 2012)

ArkaneDemon said:


> Meanwhile 1 in 2 Americans are living in poverty (according to the official census):
> U.S. News - 'Dismal' prospects: 1 in 2 Americans are now poor or low income
> 
> Meanwhile sweatshop labour in third world countries still exists, and the working and living conditions are almost as bad as those in England right after the Industrial Revolution way back in the day.
> ...



... So many things wrong with this post.

It's great you post many international irrelevant issues to the topic, but it reduces our total amount of rights we'll never get back in order to justify your 'notice' on those issues most people are already aware about. What if someone from one of those countries came here?... They'd have reduced rights from what our standard at this 'current' point in time is.

You know... never mind... let's ignore these acts and let them pass. Let's focus on those issues you post about that are not going to be solved in the short term and ignore the potential shortcomings.

EDIT: Wrong thread... thought I saw this in SOPA thread. What the fuck. Timewarp... Sorry hahahaha.


----------



## Moolaka (Feb 11, 2012)

If you want to fight piracy's effects go to a concert and buy merch from the artist and put money in their pocket. Bands make shit off of albums these days and I'm sick of seeing them get dicked and go under. It is inherently detrimental to the ARTISTS to pirate content, that is a fact, if you're gonna do it at least help em out and support them in effective ways.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 11, 2012)

Moolaka said:


> It is inherently detrimental to the ARTISTS to pirate content, that is a fact, if you're gonna do it at least help em out and support them in effective ways.



I'd argue that if someone has no problems with screwing over an artist by pirating, then they don't care about that artist. 

Stealing from someone, and then buying from them in a different place, is a funny way to be helpful. *laugh*


----------



## Moolaka (Feb 11, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I'd argue that if someone has no problems with screwing over an artist by pirating, then they don't care about that artist.
> 
> Stealing from someone, and then buying from them in a different place, is a funny way to be helpful. *laugh*



I would hazard that the exponential increase in exposure bands receive from pirating does in fact attract more people to live concerts. At the end of the day more heads are listening to your music, what that actually equates to...well, we can laugh disingenuously all day over that, the point is I'm trying to agree with you, mostly. Personally, all I care about is the musicians and their careers. The record companies and bands have historically had rocky relationships, piracy aggravates this. I'm by no means saying it's a good thing, the predicating principle of my argument is simply to encourage people to help by using the aspects of the situation to the advantage of the bands...for what little good it may do.


----------



## drgamble (Feb 11, 2012)

Moolaka said:


> I would hazard that the exponential increase in exposure bands receive from pirating does in fact attract more people to live concerts. At the end of the day more heads are listening to your music, what that actually equates to...well, we can laugh disingenuously all day over that, the point is I'm trying to agree with you, mostly. Personally, all I care about is the musicians and their careers. The record companies and bands have historically had rocky relationships, piracy aggravates this. I'm by no means saying it's a good thing, the predicating principle of my argument is simply to encourage people to help by using the aspects of the situation to the advantage of the bands...for what little good it may do.



I guess that why you see so many metal bands playing arenas. Bands have actually had to raise prices for live shows to compensate for the lack of album sales. In the good old days, a band could afford to lose money on live shows because it would stimulate album sales. Now concert prices have gotten to be ridiculous. Bands even charge big money for club gigs.


----------



## Moolaka (Feb 11, 2012)

drgamble said:


> I guess that why you see so many metal bands playing arenas. Bands have actually had to raise prices for live shows to compensate for the lack of album sales. In the good old days, a band could afford to lose money on live shows because it would stimulate album sales. Now concert prices have gotten to be ridiculous. Bands even charge big money for club gigs.



I see a national "metal" act about once every two or three months, prices have not gotten ridiculous from my personal experience. Merch prices have, if anything, trended lower while the ticket price seems to be in no way even commensurately effected. 

The whole industry, like some here have said, is revolutionizing. More and more leverage is migrating to the artist. If you want to say we've covered all the angles morally, we have. To say that free exposure is COMPLETELY detrimental to the artist is short sighted. 

Furthermore, like it or not, armies of soon-to-be and currently rising musicians fed on a massive influx of inspiration simply because it was available for free, the very fulcrum of this discussion. Today we have more new styles and contributions to the art form than ever. Music as a whole HAS benefited, musician's...not so much.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 11, 2012)

Moolaka said:


> I see a national "metal" act about once every two or three months, prices have not gotten ridiculous from my personal experience. Merch prices have, if anything, trended lower while the ticket price seems to be in no way even commensurately effected.
> 
> The whole industry, like some here have said, is revolutionizing. More and more leverage is migrating to the artist. If you want to say we've covered all the angles morally, we have. To say that free exposure is COMPLETELY detrimental to the artist is short sighted.
> 
> Furthermore, like it or not, armies of soon-to-be and currently rising musicians fed on a massive influx of inspiration simply because it was available for free, the very fulcrum of this discussion. Today we have more new styles and contributions to the art form than ever. Music as a whole HAS benefited, musician's...not so much.



He doesn't mean every year or anything he means back in the 80's or early 90's you could go for like $20 and now it is $40 or more. Nonetheless I don't mind that so much. Big bands at concerts typically charge like $30 for a t-shirt which to me is a lot, but compared to high wear fashion relatively cheap. Your last point I agree with. Music has benefited and Musician's on the whole have suffered more than there share of losses.

Given this new model more bands exist however which could also be the downfall financially (more supply less demand=lowered value) not just pirating.


----------



## thedownside (Feb 11, 2012)

flint757 said:


> He doesn't mean every year or anything he means back in the 80's or early 90's you could go for like $20 and now it is $40 or more.


i beleive that is more due to inflation.


for piracy, while bands may not physically get much money directly from cd sales, those sales directly affect there position on a label. the more they sell, the more support they get, promotion, marketing, and interest from the label, and in the end it affects there next recording deals.


----------



## Moolaka (Feb 11, 2012)

I see where you guys are coming from, and I agree vehemently with the moral consensus in general. I'm just mentioning that there are transitive elements all around the issue that should be considered. Indulge me while I text a wall...

Megaupload got shut down very likely on solid legal grounds, they also happened to be working on a cloud based music suite said to be tailored to help artists retain more rights to their work. It is speculated to evolve the music industry profoundly into hands of the musicians, more so than iTunes or the like. As far as I'm concerned the commercialization of music has crippled it (just listen to the radio for an hour, I dare you) while the transitive of that is there is more incentive (monetary) to contribute to the art form. MU's store takes out the middleman. It takes the constructive elements of piracy (access and affordability) and plays it to the musicians advantage, the people who actually work the hardest and contribute the most. That said, MU would be working counter to what they were trying to accomplish if they maintained a piracy proliferation website after they have launched a legitimate music store. It seems that American politics-as-usual are in play and thus why Anonymous retaliated massively. Had the market been allowed to adjust accordingly to the tech and economic landscape (piracy enabled would-be customers), free of hidden hands, I do not think it is unreasonable to speculate that big record companies would long ago been dead, just as they are dying now because they are becoming largely irrelevant even OUTSIDE the influence of outright piracy.

MU was working on some smart shit, so smart it would have virtually all but made piracy obsolete and scored profits usually taken by record companies in it's absence. SOPA/web legislation is a huge part of this, Mega were not going to be left out in the cold and were motioning, again, to take more adverse aspects and make them work constructively. It's so jujitsu it's not even funny. 

All that considered, if ticket/merch/album prices ARE trending upwards THESE DAYS it's because money is being lost where the RC's take their cut and the rest of the house of cards is struggling to compensate for it's vestigial foundation, not because people are staying home and listening to iTunes, Zune subs, Pandora, Soundcloud or pirated content instead. And from a truely righteous standing, music has absolutely nothing to do with money in and of itself, it's just a form of self expression that people found out they could also sell when original credit and self promotion were no longer enough.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 11, 2012)

thedownside said:


> i beleive that is more due to inflation.
> 
> 
> for piracy, while bands may not physically get much money directly from cd sales, those sales directly affect there position on a label. the more they sell, the more support they get, promotion, marketing, and interest from the label, and in the end it affects there next recording deals.



Probably right about inflation, but I've paid closer to like $80 for a big band most of the time nonetheless.

As for the second you're absolutely right, but labels will hopefully be phased our eventually.

[EDIT]

as for the MU thing that's interesting if it is accurate haven't actually heard anything about that...piracy though would never cease to exist, but could go down if a functional idea were put in place, who knows.


----------



## Hollowway (Feb 11, 2012)

^where are you getting this info? All the stuff I've read contradicts most of what you're saying. Both with regards to what MU was planning and what they had been doing as well as the income percentage that is going to the labels vs the artists. 

My personal feeling here is that piracy is wrong and definitely hurts the artist. You can sugar coat it all you want, but piracy does not lead to increased profits for artists. If artists want to give their music away that's always an option. Don't confuse digital music distribution with piracy. They're two totally different things. Digital distribution can definitely help an artist, but piracy has no place in there. Increased artist sales, income, etc all can occur without piracy.


----------



## Moolaka (Feb 11, 2012)

The monolithic record companies were on their way out regardless, it was only a matter of time before Yeller bit and Anon stepped in...for the lulz, of course.


----------



## Moolaka (Feb 11, 2012)

Hollowway said:


> ^where are you getting this info? All the stuff I've read contradicts most of what you're saying. Both with regards to what MU was planning and what they had been doing as well as the income percentage that is going to the labels vs the artists.
> 
> My personal feeling here is that piracy is wrong and definitely hurts the artist. You can sugar coat it all you want, but piracy does not lead to increased profits for artists. If artists want to give their music away that's always an option. Don't confuse digital music distribution with piracy. They're two totally different things. Digital distribution can definitely help an artist, but piracy has no place in there. Increased artist sales, income, etc all can occur without piracy.



I draw from, in part, previous posts and some simple searching to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass. My information is accurate.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 11, 2012)

Was Megaupload Targeted Because Of Its Upcoming Megabox Digital Jukebox Service? | TechCrunch

This what I found on what he was talking about.


----------



## Bouvre (Feb 12, 2012)

Anyone notice that Rockbox is down too. Can't find any other torrent sites where people share alot of metal music


----------



## Moolaka (Feb 12, 2012)

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2011/111221airvinyl

Megabox. Jujitsu.


----------



## Hollowway (Feb 12, 2012)

Moolaka said:


> I draw from, in part, previous posts and some simple searching to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass. My information is accurate.



Show me where your information is accurate with respect to piracy helping bands gain exposure? And what makes you think that MU was going to make record companies irrelevant? Fact is, they were actively and purposefully engaged in pirating music - there are emails to prove this, and that's why they were taken down. They didn't give a rip about the artists, or they would not have specifically engaged in the piracy of their music and film. If there was some bigger conspiracy because of the digital jukebox thing, that means that loads of other legitimate companies developing the same thing would be taken down as well. 

Plus, you're confusing record companies with stores selling music. You can't say MU was taking out the middle man, because record companies are not the middle man. Most music is developed _with_ the record companies. It's after that it's sold. If you want to cut out the middle man you would cut out iTunes and Walmart. Record companies are the ones with the cash to hire the engineers, song writers, promotion, paying radio stations to play the music, etc. This is done in conjunction with the artist, and to a certain extent is a speculative bet on the artist. Without the label, how do you expect this to be paid for? It has to be funded somehow. I'm not a fan of the record companies making a lot of money off of the artists, either, but in the absence of a 360 deal the labels are making less than many artists these days. 

I'm in total agreement about the commercialization of music, but that's been happening since the '60s. I'm in complete disagreement that MU was anything other than a for-profit by any means necessary that couldn't give a rip about artists and their art. I think you're making a huge, unfounded mistake to hold MU, or any other music pirate, up as a hero.


----------



## Moolaka (Feb 12, 2012)

Hollowway said:


> Show me where your information is accurate with respect to piracy helping bands gain exposure? And what makes you think that MU was going to make record companies irrelevant? Fact is, they were actively and purposefully engaged in pirating music - there are emails to prove this, and that's why they were taken down. They didn't give a rip about the artists, or they would not have specifically engaged in the piracy of their music and film. If there was some bigger conspiracy because of the digital jukebox thing, that means that loads of other legitimate companies developing the same thing would be taken down as well.
> 
> Plus, you're confusing record companies with stores selling music. You can't say MU was taking out the middle man, because record companies are not the middle man. Most music is developed _with_ the record companies. It's after that it's sold. If you want to cut out the middle man you would cut out iTunes and Walmart. Record companies are the ones with the cash to hire the engineers, song writers, promotion, paying radio stations to play the music, etc. This is done in conjunction with the artist, and to a certain extent is a speculative bet on the artist. Without the label, how do you expect this to be paid for? It has to be funded somehow. I'm not a fan of the record companies making a lot of money off of the artists, either, but in the absence of a 360 deal the labels are making less than many artists these days.
> 
> I'm in total agreement about the commercialization of music, but that's been happening since the '60s. I'm in complete disagreement that MU was anything other than a for-profit by any means necessary that couldn't give a rip about artists and their art. I think you're making a huge, unfounded mistake to hold MU, or any other music pirate, up as a hero.



I think that you are taking too much from what I said and we would be arguing semantics if I attempted to clarify a second time, at length. You also touch upon important aspects that, in conjunction with my sentiments on the matter, are largely irrelevant to point out for me; Production and distro are of course different things. They are effect by the same means and I generalized betting on an unbiased, logical understanding of that. If it is one thing that I don't want misconstrued it's that I never even implied that there is room for empathy in a free market economy, especially from MU. And as for piracy (the most prevalent form of free exposure) being somewhat beneficial TO A POINT, it's not mere conjecture. Where that point is, I have agreed is ultimately unquantifiable.

"Any exposure is good exposure as long as they spell your name right."- Cannibal Corpse.


----------



## wlfers (Feb 12, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I'd argue that if someone has no problems with screwing over an artist by pirating, then they don't care about that artist.



I'd disagree with that immensely. As an example I got into Amon Amarth when I was pretty young and the price of cd was out of my budget (a 35$ distortion pedal was a dream away) and downloaded their music. I have since purchased their vinyls and a few shirts, gone to 4 of their shows, paying for a friend to accompany me twice. So somehow after "screwing" them over I still manage to care and enjoy that band very much.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 12, 2012)

But... not enough to not steal from them. Not sure I understand... not sure I want to. *laugh*


----------



## Moolaka (Feb 12, 2012)

Explorer said:


> But... not enough to not steal from them. Not sure I understand... not sure I want to. *laugh*



Respectfully, I find your condescension unaccommodating. If you want to discuss the matter of piracy please realize that it is, in fact only opinions and points of view.

Edit: I'm just trying to keep this from turning into music nazis versus music pirates. We all know it's not that black and white. I advocate personal responsibility on moral grounds, one of which is helping your bands get to the next gig and stay afloat in spite of the effects of piracy in whatever capacity you can contribute. I think we can all agree it's a more viable way to support and enable them than sitting here launching crusades against each other in the grey areas. Do I welcome the changing music industry, personally, yes. Do I advocate piracy, absolutely not.


----------



## wlfers (Feb 15, 2012)

Explorer said:


> But... not enough to not steal from them. Not sure I understand... not sure I want to. *laugh*



You argued that someone who pirates/has pirated music must not care about the artist- and I disagreed. Not very challenging to understand, but it would be pretty aimless to continue in the discussion with someone unsure of their willingness to understand the subjectivity of piracy as a moral issue.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 15, 2012)

Okay. I can see we are using two different definitions of "caring."

Let's imagine three points of view: one person who has a tenner, one person who says they care about the person with the tenner, and a person who doesn't know either of them, but is watching impartially.

If the person who says they care about the person with the tenner then steals the money, and says they care... will the other two agree that the theft demonstrates caring?

At the point where one's sense of entitlement allows one to steal from another person, most will agree that the person didn't demonstrate caring. 

I'm not trying to be condescending, but I sometimes talk over situations with family, friends and coworkers when I'm in doubt. I'm curious... if you presented the above situation to your parents, and asked them if stealing demonstrates the thief caring about the victim, what would your parents say?

And, if your parents said it didn't... would they be guilty of being unwilling to understand the moral ambiguity of stealing when one isn't starving?

*Short version: If your victim feels that you're hurting them, you're not doing "caring" right, no matter how much you try to convince them otherwise, or how inconvenient it is to you to not hurt them.*


----------



## flint757 (Feb 15, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Okay. I can see we are using two different definitions of "caring."
> 
> Let's imagine three points of view: one person who has a tenner, one person who says they care about the person with the tenner, and a person who doesn't know either of them, but is watching impartially.
> 
> ...



I think the point he was making is he could have given them $12 eventually and maybe never spend $30 on T's and money on concert tickets versus not giving then the initial 12 and spending several hundred dollars in the long run they profit from him doing so. From an example like that it takes the approach of a taster sample sort of. There is one flaw with this theory though is that if you bought the CD you would still down the road do all the things you did for the band later more than likely unless you just never got into them because of it.

What I can say is almost every metaphor or simile you bring up on the subject are a very loose interpretation and miss the mark a bit. I'm not advocating one thing or the other, just interpreting something for you since you keep looking at it skin deep instead of a broader sense. Believe it or not most ethical issues in general fall in grey area and hardly anything is black and white.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 16, 2012)

Hmm. Possibly. I normally look at things from the point of view of the person who has been wronged, since I've sat on too many juries where I got to hear why the defendant was justified in doing something to the victim. 

I should definitely be more open to considering the poor perpetrators, no?


----------



## flint757 (Feb 16, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Hmm. Possibly. I normally look at things from the point of view of the person who has been wronged, since I've sat on too many juries where I got to hear why the defendant was justified in doing something to the victim.
> 
> I should definitely be more open to considering the poor perpetrators, no?



I get where your coming from.


----------



## Moolaka (Feb 16, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Okay. I can see we are using two different definitions of "caring."
> 
> Let's imagine three points of view: one person who has a tenner, one person who says they care about the person with the tenner, and a person who doesn't know either of them, but is watching impartially.
> 
> ...




If the person who says they care about the owner of the tenner steals that tenner they do not care about that person. The impartial and original owner would be in consensus about that, or at least they should. It's not a perfect way to explain the entire scope of piracy but it does give me a handle on where we agree. 

I admit Explorer you probably now a lot more about all the relevant aspects than I do. 
I would say that an instead of a tenner I see an intangible element in a scenario similar to this: 

You spend $10k on a truck (gear, album, distro for young rising band) and start making money hauling junk away for people. The car dealer wants his money for the truck, so initially all earnings for all intensive purposes go to that and gas (album, touring overhead, promo). Now let's say you'be been doing this for years and really been making a killing in the market when gradually you are drastically under bid on almost every job, there's people even just up and hauling their own junk away (piracy) because they somehow found a way to not pay overhead like gas or they bought a vehicle to commute to work that also can haul with (tech advances, basically for the sake of this argument they don't have any overhead costs) thus removing you from ever even knowing about the job opportunity in the first place, not out right theft of money in your pocket.

Stealing a tenner and piracy are theft on principle. People made a product, a work of art on an intangible medium, and were SELLING IT. If you didn't buy it or make it or think of it (again, for the sake of argument)...it's not rightfully yours. I think we all agree that is the most altruistic point of view. My metaphor isn't perfect by far, I just mean to touch upon the point that it is not EXACTLY like taking someone's wallet. I think it's just as much like going to a farm that has a "Leave the money in the box" policy, taking a single item without paying for it and repeating this up to thousands of times at different farms all over. If we had to work with a scenario involving a tangible items that cannot be copied like currency. The devil I'm pointing at is really just in the details. I agree with you Explorer, just from a different aspect.


----------



## Hollowway (Feb 16, 2012)

Yeah I think of this piracy thing like wearing a seatbelt. It's proven that wearing seatbelts drastically increases your odd of survival in a car crash, but you will always find someone who was thrown from a car before it burned, etc., who will use this one example to provide an argument against wearing a seatbelt. But it doesn't change the fact that you should.
So with piracy, anyone can point out a situation where a person hasn't been hurt from it, or where a kid is unaware of the fact that he's stealing, etc. But you can't legislate "a little bit of piracy.". So it's either legal or not. And it's not.


----------



## Moolaka (Feb 16, 2012)

Hollowway said:


> Yeah I think of this piracy thing like wearing a seatbelt. It's proven that wearing seatbelts drastically increases your odd of survival in a car crash, but you will always find someone who was thrown from a car before it burned, etc., who will use this one example to provide an argument against wearing a seatbelt. But it doesn't change the fact that you should.
> So with piracy, anyone can point out a situation where a person hasn't been hurt from it, or where a kid is unaware of the fact that he's stealing, etc. But you can't legislate "a little bit of piracy.". So it's either legal or not. And it's not.



That's a better way to describe it. You're also not gonna make every single person wear their seat belts just cause you think it's the right thing to do, especially with loose or no enforcement of the law regarding it. So at the moment it's largely been personal responsibility or ignorance that has kept people from pirating. With the coming changes in the music industry I think a really constructive thing to do for your favorite bands is to go see them live, buy some merch and contribute. Half the time I see dudes from the bands playing that night just hanging out too; I talked with Mansoor about his high-gain amp shoot out (super cool dude), and I shot the shit with Darkest Hour (I used to get high to that shit, it was epic) for half an hour just talking about gear and the industry and musician stuff the same night. It's a great way to contribute even if you just get to tell them how much you appreciate what they're doing.


----------



## habicore_5150 (Jul 2, 2012)

unholy thread resurrection...

MegaUpload Kicks FBI In The Teeth In Major Ruling | UPROXX

guess this means MegaUpload might be coming back, who knows?


----------



## CapinCripes (Jul 2, 2012)

habicore_5150 said:


> guess this means MegaUpload might be coming back, who knows?


god i hope so, its been fucking hell trying to get perfectly legitimate things such as mods for games after it went down and every file sharing service quickly turned into a digital locker service afterwards.


----------



## wlfers (Jul 2, 2012)

this would be awesome news.


----------



## habicore_5150 (Jul 8, 2012)

habicore_5150 said:


> guess this means MegaUpload might be coming back, who knows?



who called it?

Kim Dotcom announces MegaUpload comeback


----------

