• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Megaupload file-sharing site shut down, founders charged

lolcat.jpg



WCW forever.
I was there for that match. :mrgreen:
 
A different article with a few more details on this: Justice and FBI Crack Down on Megaupload.com - ABC News

The indictment returned by a grand jury in Virginia alleges, "In exchange for payment, the Mega Conspiracy provides the fast reproduction and distribution of infringing copies of copyrighted works from its computer servers located around the world. Premium users of the site... are able to download and upload files with few, if any, limitations."


Describing the operation of the site and relations with users the indictment noted, "For much of its operation, the Mega Conspiracy has offered an 'Uploader Rewards' Program, which promised premium subscribers transfers of cash and other financial incentives to upload popular works, including copyrighted works, to computer servers under the Mega Conspiracy's direct control and for the Conspiracy's ultimate financial benefit."

Also, proving once again that Anonymous are assholes:

An hour after the indictment was announced, the Justice Department's website, www.Justice.gov, came under cyberattack with a denial-of-service attack. Anonymous, the hacktivist computer group, is claiming responsibility.
 
A different article with a few more details on this: Justice and FBI Crack Down on Megaupload.com - ABC News

I dont trust one word coming out of the US justice department on this since they are using near terrorist wording to justify world wide arrests on a US matter.

First off, Megaupload is one of tons of similar services and frankly is rarely used now days for illegal things.. relative to others. Why? Because Megaupload were fast as hell to remove copyrighted content... ironic no? I loved megaupload/video because of their interface, but it was a matter of hours before stuff was removed from the site, so you had to be quick if you wanted to view your stories....

Secondly, all sites have uploader rewards programs of some sort. Rapidshare, fileserve and so on all have a rewards program.. but it is based on the amount of downloads your upload gets, not based on what you upload. I doubt megaupload was any different. Youtube has a similar reward program.

Thirdly, proving that they actually gave incentives to upload copyrighted works will be a bitch to prove unless they actually wrote it in their sales material, which I highly doubt they did.

Fourthly.. people should worry big time. Everything from Youtube to iTunes is under threat from these arrests, not to mention every search engine out there. The internet is under serious threat if you can get arrested for providing services that some use for illegal purposes.. The fact that the US Justice department have to invoke near terrorist threat language to get foreign governments to help them is... frankly shocking.

Also, proving once again that Anonymous are assholes:

Hardly.. I fully support their attacks on the moron rights holders. It is time to change copyright laws to reflect the modern times we live in.

Just as an example on how idiotic these rights holders are... anyone want a DVD copy of Warhorse and other oscar contenders? They are out there on the net because the rights holders have sent DVDs out to the members of the Motion Pictures of America for the Oscar show.. Or maybe the movie Immortals? it is out in R5.. aka Russian DVD, and long before it comes out on DVD elsewhere..

Does it justify stealing? Of course not, but you cant come crying if you leave the freaking door unlocked. Provide the services to people and piracy will go down!
 
So Pete, you applaud criminals and don't trust law enforcement. You make tons of unsubstantiated claims, which apparently we are supposed to trust, because...well, just because, but that damn justice department, can't trust them...
 
This seems to enforce my earlier arguements that SOPA really wouldn't have done anything that couldn't already be done. All it was, was an attempt by D.C. to tell the monied interests that "they care". It wasn't the end to the internet as we know it.

While they should get their day in court I support actions to stop piracy.
 
So Pete, you applaud criminals and don't trust law enforcement. You make tons of unsubstantiated claims, which apparently we are supposed to trust, because...well, just because, but that damn justice department, can't trust them...

Unsubstantiated claims? Like what? That other sites have incentive based plans? Have you used Youtube the last decade?

That movie companies release many DVDs in Russia before elsewhere and are complicit in illegal file sharing? That is a fact! Take the movie Immortals.. Official release date in the US is March 6th 2012. However they already released it in Russia.. aka region 5 around the 12th of January, and even worse, the morons sent out an Oscar preview (guessing special effects) in December, which of course was all over the net shortly after.

I dont trust the Justice Department because they are just doing the bidding of the rights holders industry who refuse to change their ways. The problem is the law, not the actions of people... the laws are out of date and do not reflect the 21st century and need to be changed.

If people had access to the rights holders products legally through the channels of distribution they want, then piracy would fall dramatically. If I had access to The Big Bang Theory hours after it airing in the US legally, then yes I would use that avenue, but I dont. I either have to wait weeks or months for it to come on local tv, or even longer on DVD, or download it illegally of the net. So I ask you this.. what is better, that I pay a buck to watch the newest episode of the Big Bang Theory online legally, or I steal the episode? Why cant the rights holders understand that we dont live in the 1980s any more? Why are they constantly blocking companies that want to provide the services people want? Spotify is a great example.. blocked for years in the US, but legal in most of Europe.. and it is the SAME rights holders!
 
I dont trust one word coming out of the US justice department on this since they are using near terrorist wording to justify world wide arrests on a US matter.

First off, Megaupload is one of tons of similar services and frankly is rarely used now days for illegal things.. relative to others. Why? Because Megaupload were fast as hell to remove copyrighted content... ironic no? I loved megaupload/video because of their interface, but it was a matter of hours before stuff was removed from the site, so you had to be quick if you wanted to view your stories....

Secondly, all sites have uploader rewards programs of some sort. Rapidshare, fileserve and so on all have a rewards program.. but it is based on the amount of downloads your upload gets, not based on what you upload. I doubt megaupload was any different. Youtube has a similar reward program.

Thirdly, proving that they actually gave incentives to upload copyrighted works will be a bitch to prove unless they actually wrote it in their sales material, which I highly doubt they did.

Fourthly.. people should worry big time. Everything from Youtube to iTunes is under threat from these arrests, not to mention every search engine out there. The internet is under serious threat if you can get arrested for providing services that some use for illegal purposes.. The fact that the US Justice department have to invoke near terrorist threat language to get foreign governments to help them is... frankly shocking.



Hardly.. I fully support their attacks on the moron rights holders. It is time to change copyright laws to reflect the modern times we live in.

Just as an example on how idiotic these rights holders are... anyone want a DVD copy of Warhorse and other oscar contenders? They are out there on the net because the rights holders have sent DVDs out to the members of the Motion Pictures of America for the Oscar show.. Or maybe the movie Immortals? it is out in R5.. aka Russian DVD, and long before it comes out on DVD elsewhere..

Does it justify stealing? Of course not, but you cant come crying if you leave the freaking door unlocked. Provide the services to people and piracy will go down!

You've hit the nail on the head in regards to Mega...and the implications for the rest of the Net. But I disagree with you in regard to Anonymous. Their actions were uncalled for, destructive, illegal and they should be hunted down and prosecuted.
 
A different article with a few more details on this: Justice and FBI Crack Down on Megaupload.com - ABC News

That quote actually changes my mind on the subject. This again makes it seem like they weren't specifically searching or working to pay people to put copy righted material up but rather that they simply paid people who uploaded a lot of things to their site that generated a lot of traffic.
 
But I disagree with you in regard to Anonymous. Their actions were uncalled for, destructive, illegal and they should be hunted down and prosecuted.

Only if the politicians bought off by the media industry joins them in jail. And of course certain media executives like Rupert Murdoch. They are just as destructive if not much more than Anonymous ever can hope in being.
 
I always find it funny that people who don't really commercially produce anything of any artistic merit are the biggest supporters of illegal downloading and copyright infringement. How many people here on this website work in the movie industry? Maybe any web designers? No? Photographers? Paid musicians? Anybody here so much as make necklaces and market them under his/her name? No? I didn't think so.
 
I am mostly unfamiliar with megaupload and its readiness to remove content submitted as copyrighted. However, those grieving will find another several more avenues.
 
I always find it funny that people who don't really commercially produce anything of any artistic merit are the biggest supporters of illegal downloading and copyright infringement.

Or how those purporting that area of expertise come up with ridiculous strawmen against people - to the point of putting words in their mouthes.

How many people here on this website work in the movie industry? Maybe any web designers? No? Photographers? Paid musicians? Anybody here so much as make necklaces and market them under his/her name? No? I didn't think so.

Most annoying "debating" technique ever.

Making question after question, and answering them like that, and using that as if it "proves" your point when in actuality made a bunch of rehetorical remarks, and presumed FOR people - without letting them answer first - that your reaction is correct is NOT intelligent - it is petty, childish, and really makes you look like you'd rather shut the door in the face of real debate rather than even try.

Lots of artists, programmers, etc here - not that you'd let anybody point that out.

In response to another post you made on the subject - forgot which thread - you did not, nor ever REALLY have beaten "copyright infringers" in debate here, you just accuse people of supporting it when their ideals don't match, create ridiculously stupid strawmen like the above quoted, misconstrue arguments and flat out refuse to hear anything other TO THE POINT where people just give up.

Face it, you may have very valid points, but until you actually convey it without attacking people, putting their words in their mouthes, and in a manner where ideas can be exchanged without people throwing their hands up and giving up, or banging their head against a ****ing wall, you won't win the intellectual side of a debate on the issue for your life.
 
Only if the politicians bought off by the media industry joins them in jail. And of course certain media executives like Rupert Murdoch. They are just as destructive if not much more than Anonymous ever can hope in being.

LOL!!!

Okay. When it's illegal to buy off politicians, I might agree with you...but then again, I might not.
 
I always find it funny that people who don't really commercially produce anything of any artistic merit are the biggest supporters of illegal downloading and copyright infringement. How many people here on this website work in the movie industry? Maybe any web designers? No? Photographers? Paid musicians? Anybody here so much as make necklaces and market them under his/her name? No? I didn't think so.

I wouldn't know about all of those things, but I think we have some paid musicians. Honestly, I'm not terribly upset about this site specifically since I have no real involvement with it, but more in the precedent that has been set for the government to engage in draconian tactics to police the net. What gets me upset is when YouTube removes the OP video for an animé (containing at most half of the actual song and none of the actual show) on the basis of copyright infringement. You would have to be pretty dense or insanely dickish to think that is a logical approach to copyright laws. Would a site that refused to remove such videos be subject to similar measures? Most likely.
 
I always find it funny that people who don't really commercially produce anything of any artistic merit are the biggest supporters of illegal downloading and copyright infringement. How many people here on this website work in the movie industry? Maybe any web designers? No? Photographers? Paid musicians? Anybody here so much as make necklaces and market them under his/her name? No? I didn't think so.

I'ts good to know we should degrade and ignore your input on any matters of law enforcement or the military since I dont believe you've worked in either field ever.

Also, which people in here have stated in thread they're in favor of illegal downloading?
 
I'ts good to know we should degrade and ignore your input on any matters of law enforcement or the military since I dont believe you've worked in either field ever.

Also, which people in here have stated in thread they're in favor of illegal downloading?

Read the SOPA thread. The defense of illegal downloading is in there.
 
Or how those purporting that area of expertise come up with ridiculous strawmen against people - to the point of putting words in their mouthes.

Nonsense. You are on of the most ardent defenders of illegal downloading. I could pull up the dozens of pages where I've completely obliterated your ridiculous contempt of people who want to get paid for their work.

Most annoying "debating" technique ever.

Making question after question, and answering them like that, and using that as if it "proves" your point when in actuality made a bunch of rehetorical remarks, and presumed FOR people - without letting them answer first - that your reaction is correct is NOT intelligent - it is petty, childish, and really makes you look like you'd rather shut the door in the face of real debate rather than even try.

Lots of artists, programmers, etc here - not that you'd let anybody point that out.

In response to another post you made on the subject - forgot which thread - you did not, nor ever REALLY have beaten "copyright infringers" in debate here, you just accuse people of supporting it when their ideals don't match, create ridiculously stupid strawmen like the above quoted, misconstrue arguments and flat out refuse to hear anything other TO THE POINT where people just give up.

Face it, you may have very valid points, but until you actually convey it without attacking people, putting their words in their mouthes, and in a manner where ideas can be exchanged without people throwing their hands up and giving up, or banging their head against a ****ing wall, you won't win the intellectual side of a debate on the issue for your life.

I don't really give two much of a **** what supporters of illegal downloading thinks of my debating or even how much bitching they can do because people in entertainment don't support their theft.
 
I'ts good to know we should degrade and ignore your input on any matters of law enforcement or the military since I dont believe you've worked in either field ever.

Also, which people in here have stated in thread they're in favor of illegal downloading?

The point went WAY over your head. It's not that a person's input isn't valid because they don't work in media production. It's invalid if they support it because they want it for free. It's like saying you should take a thief's account of why he should forcefully rob people as a legitimate point of discussion.
 
This seems to enforce my earlier arguements that SOPA really wouldn't have done anything that couldn't already be done. All it was, was an attempt by D.C. to tell the monied interests that "they care". It wasn't the end to the internet as we know it.

While they should get their day in court I support actions to stop piracy.
I don't. There seems to be a constantly expanding idea of Intellectual Property which enters far into the area of monopolistic privileges to me. I think they have long been too expansive, but they really took off after the Uruguay GATT agreement. There are all sorts of ridiculous Intellectual Property rights to do with biological issues for example. Until this mess is sorted out I have a hard time sympathising with those bemoaning piracy, though I have little time for corporate-capitalism anyway.

But I do agree with those who think anonymous sucks.
 
Last edited:
I think that companies should suck it up and go after individual users. This attempt to attack the problem without alienating the base isn't really fair and could end up hampering the progression of legal internet technology.

At the same time, I think copyright law needs to be seriously edited. There is no justification, for example, for a term of life of the author plus 70 years.
 
Last edited:
I don't. There seems to be a constantly expanding idea of Intellectual Property which enters far into the area of monopolistic privileges to me. I think they have long been too expansive, but they really took off after the Uruguay GATT agreement. There are all sorts of ridiculous Intellectual Property rights to do with biological issues for example. Until this mess is sorted out I have a hard time sympathising with those bemoaning piracy, though I have little time for corporate-capitalism anyway.

But I do agree with those who think anonymous sucks.

Even Lady Gaga should have the right to be paid for what they create when you decide you want it.
 
I think that companies should suck it up and go after individual users. This attempt to attack the problem without alienating the base isn't really fair and could end up hampering the progression of legal internet technology.

At the same time, I think copyright law needs to be seriously edited. There is no justification, for example, for a term of life of the author plus 70 years.

But this really isn't about people illegally downloading Glenn Miller.
 
I think that companies should suck it up and go after individual users. This attempt to attack the problem without alienating the base isn't really fair and could end up hampering the progression of legal internet technology.

At the same time, I think copyright law needs to be seriously edited. There is no justification, for example, for a term of life of the author plus 70 years.

Why isn't there? Doesn't property get passed down from one generation to another long after the original holder of the property rights dies? If I want to pass down my intellectual property to my kids, there is absolutely no legal argument of any kind one can make for why I shouldn't.
 
Why isn't there? Doesn't property get passed down from one generation to another long after the original holder of the property rights dies?

Yes, but copyrights work differently [hence the problem people have with the term "intellectual property"] - as by design they are meant to be limited, finite, a tradeoff - you make a work, have exclusive rights to it over X period of time, then it goes to the public domain to be reused, recycled, remixed, et cetera.

"life + 70 yrs" [and watch as Steamboat Willy chugs closer to public domain as I bet Disney will lobby to have it extended yet again] may be finite, but not limited in the sense that people can in their lifetimes be able to freely access the work after a period of time.

What Disney did, since I mentioned it, should have been done differently - lbby for a means of extending the rights to a work, that way works could still reasonably fall into fair use in time, but for those who want a little more time there would be a means of extending it without making it as crazy as it is now.

I mean, theoretically if a prodigy makes a brilliant work, copyrights it age 15, lives to be 100, that work would be under copyright for 155 years total. [100-15 = 85 + 70 = 155].

Who REALLY needs it that long? And furthermore, why, if copyright > 20 yrs was needed, couldn't it have been lobbied to make a per-work mechanism for extension instead of making everything remain under copyright for that much longer?
 
Why isn't there? Doesn't property get passed down from one generation to another long after the original holder of the property rights dies? If I want to pass down my intellectual property to my kids, there is absolutely no legal argument of any kind one can make for why I shouldn't.
Sure there is.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, US Constitution

The purpose of copyright is to incentivize the creation of intellectual works for the benefit of society. We accomplish this by giving creators a limited monopoly over the use of their creations. The scheme is completely different from the concept of personal property ownership. But even with personal property, you should be aware that nothing in the Constitution guarantees individuals a right to pass on property to whom they choose. That is considered a civil rather than a natural right.

Personal and real property law does give individuals the power to bequest their property to others upon death. The law does not, however, give them the right to prohibit others from copying, adapting, etc. the property. That's another major difference.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom