• 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

Krhazy said:
Sure there is.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, US Constitution
Click to expand...

Yes and that limited time had been set at lifetime + 70 years. Either wait, or quit stealing it.
 
Travelsonic said:
Who REALLY needs it that long?
Click to expand...

I ignored the rest of your nonsense and got to the "meat" of your question. Who needs it that long? Don't know. However that's the time limit that has been set on it. If you don't like it, that's your prerogative. It doesn't give you the right to steal it. The best part is that you're arguing about "Steamboat Willy" as if there is a big market for 80 year old cartoons. It's safe to say that people aren't queuing up torrent lines to steal old **** from people who are no longer alive. The overwhelming majority of artists affected by illegal downloading are alive and well.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, not over my head. I get that. Its kind of like saying we shouldn't take a habitual or former habitual law violator's account for why police are bad or corrupt or other sort of negative things as any kind of legitimate point of discussion. Similarly, when discussing other illegal things that people feel should be legal...lets say pot...we should clearly not take pot smokers and other drug users accounts for legalization as any kind of legitimate point of discussion. More than that, anyone who argues for legalization we should automatically assume that they must be non-stop pot smokers and not necessarily people who don't even partake but simply have issues with the law and the way the government works.

Sure, those who actually do claim to be people who pirate software and other things should have that fact kept in mind when they give their opinion. That said, the merit of their argument isn't negated necessarily simply because of their other actions. Additionally, there are undoubtedly people who are produces of intellectual property who feel there are issues with the laws dealing with them on the internet and even some who may support or engage in piracy. I don't see how whether or not individual posters engage in professions creating their own intellectual property necessarily significantly pertains to the discussion.

Yes, if your argument is "I Want it free so we shouldn't have piracy laws" is a ridiculous and stupid argument...but who on this thread is even making that argument?
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, if your argument is "I Want it free so we shouldn't have piracy laws" is a ridiculous and stupid argument...but who on this thread is even making that argument?
Click to expand...

Generally the arguement goes that if the movie or music was cheaper, they would pay for it. I doubt it. It's easy to say.
 
1Perry said:
Generally the arguement goes that if the movie or music was cheaper, they would pay for it. I doubt it. It's easy to say.
Click to expand...

Stating that is not the same as stating that they should be free and if not we should steal it. Simply because someone may disagree with that notion doesn't mean that its okay to just declare without basis that the person is stating something entirely different than what they actually said.

And yes, its easy to say. Its also easy to look at examples where various people or groups have actually attempted to put that to the test and have came out successfully...Louis CK recently with a comedy album and Radio Head with an album both come to mind off the top of my head. How much it'd effect things over all, hard to say.

Personally I've witnessed that happening first hand in a sector of technology that I've been a strong enthusiast of for over a decade now, and that's handheld devices. PDA's were a niche item that early on had software that was relatively expensive despite being very basic typically or limited in capabilities. As prices went down and the early days of smart phones came on and PDA's and other handheld devices went into more hands, the prices didn't go down and piracy was RAMPANT. The general rationalization was that paying desktop software prices for software that was used for a fraction of the amount of time that the PC versions would be, and which do a fraction of what the PC version can do, was absolutely ridiculous. However, Apple and its app store largely turned that notion upside down. Suddenly mobile software was provided for a low and some would say "Reasonable" price and the need or desire for piracy decreased.

I don't think its necessarily just reducing price however. A la carte options would likely help in some sectors. In others sectors it could be just reviewing your business model entirely with regards to the modern world in terms of distribution and conception channels.

Stating that Companies likely have avenues they can go down that would prove more effective and efficient in fighting piracy while not having as many potential civil liberty issues is not the same as suggesting "its okay to pirate things".
 
I am a photographer. I DO support copyright laws, but I feel they are vague, nebulous, and almost certainly intentionally confusing.

Thing is, the creator is their own best protector from piracy. For instance, I have my photos on a website. I should be afraid that they will be "stolen", printed out, on sold by others. Right? I mean, how many people here have been to NYC, in the summertime, on broadway, or some other off streets...and seen the folks, immigrants, mostly, sitting out there selling artwork? I know I have. And I would say that 100% of it is stuff downloaded off the net and printed...and that's exactly what it looks like. See, my customers, people who would buy my prints, are not going to settle for low quality, low res images, like what you can get off the net. Remember, everything is 72dpi, online. Useless. To my would be customers, anyway. If I'm honest, the far far FAR greater threat to me are all the artists that sell their work, and along with it, the copyright, to stock photo companies, who buy them cheap, then sell them cheaper, in bulk...to other companies, like Ikea, who then print them up in bulk, saving millions of dollars as compared to how much it costs ME per print, or canvas, to create...and they sell those prints, which are, largely, beautiful, for 40 bucks a pop. I simply can't compete with that. Technology has made this possible. Now, you don't see ME writing my senator demanding a law to inhibit Ikea's, or even Bed Bath and Beyond's ability to do this, do you? Nope. I simply move on to other ways of making money.

The days of multi millionaire artists are slowly coming to a close. There are a LOT of talented people out there. The market is being flooded. Images, painted, drawn, photographed....doesn't matter. You can go onto flickr and see a LOT of truly wonderful work, on display, more or less for free. Sure, you could buy some of that work...and some, no, MANY, will. For now. But trust me when I tell you, this, too, shall end. It will soon become less and less profitable to try to sell it, and there will be more and more people that continue to make work, even though it's not profitable...which makes it cheaper and cheaper and cheaper, literally to the point that it's free. I see the same idea happening in music. It's BEEN happening, slowly, ever since the record was invented. Look on youtube. Plenty of musicians have their music there, to listen to, for free. Not famous ones, mind...but still wonderful talents, none the less. And they do that because they love it, not because they think they are going to make some money at it. Hell, I play the horn pretty darn good myself, and I do it for FREE, in a little 5 guy band, on saturday nights, to an audience. Why? Because I love it. And no one is incredulous about that, are they? No. Well, here's the flash...mainstream music is slowly gonna become like this, too, in the very distant future.

In the meantime, does any of this mean I support piracy? No, of course not. If it's not yours, and the owner doesn't want you to have it, don't take it. It's pretty simple, really. Not your stuff. But to be making this sort of deal out of it, to be spending more on the lobbying than you are actually losing to piracy...well, that's just bananas. It's the death rattle of a choking, desperate, empire. And make no mistake, big music is an empire that spans the globe. This isn't about the artists, nor was it ever, when it pertains to music, as it most often does. It's about the record labels. Always has been. We just have better tape recorders now.
 
Zyphlin said:
Stating that is not the same as stating that they should be free and if not we should steal it. Simply because someone may disagree with that notion doesn't mean that its okay to just declare without basis that the person is stating something entirely different than what they actually said.
Click to expand...

Basically, IMO that's what it boils down to. If iTunes started charging .50 cents as opposed to .99 cents IMO few would quit simply stealing it.

Stating that Companies likely have avenues they can go down that would prove more effective and efficient in fighting piracy while not having as many potential civil liberty issues is not the same as suggesting "its okay to pirate things".
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you said that you understood why people pirated things and that the pirating brought about welcomed changes.
 
1Perry said:
Basically, IMO that's what it boils down to. If iTunes started charging .50 cents as opposed to .99 cents IMO few would quit simply stealing it.



It seems to me that you said that you understood why people pirated things and that the pirating brought about welcomed changes.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I disagree with your first point. I USED to download music LIKE CRAZY. Actually, I still DO download a wee bit of music, but I'll explain that later...

I downloaded music because, quite frankly, I didn't want to shell out 20 bucks for an entire album, of which, I was really only interested in one song. You don't go out and buy an entire book of poems just to get the one poem you want...you go to the store, find the book, and copy the poem with pen and paper. Itunes changed EVERYTHING for me, personally. I now have an avenue to purchase EXACTLY what I want. .99 cents, or .50 cents, makes no real difference for me, honestly, because I'm not buying this stuff in bulk...I'm selective, which is exactly why I LIKE itunes. NOW my issue is, the recording industry wants to tell me what I can do with that product once I buy it. And that's a problem, to be honest. If I want to copy it over to another computer, I ought to be able to. If I want to make one copy of it for every device I own, I ought to be allowed to do so, without breaking any laws. I ought to be able to burn it onto as many CDs as I want. None of these things are violating copyright. It's the giving away, or selling, that is the problem, but to the industry, and to some extent law enforcement, this makes it "too hard". Far better, then to simply limit anyone's ability to make copies, and to limit what anyone can do with said copies, etc, rather than simply try to catch the actual criminal act. It's kinda like how we argue that making drugs legal would increase crime. Maybe so, but that doesn't mean drugs are the criminal act, then...it just means it COULD be a prelude to such. And last time I checked, a PRELUDE to an act is in no way equal to the act itself.

Now, why do I STILL download music from various FTP sites? Because I like some pretty obscure stuff....soundtracks, mostly...and Itunes/amazon has a pretty bad selection of that genre of music. It's download, or don't have at all. Am I causing some composer out there to starve, or lose money? No. Because their product isn't being sold anyway. It was never intended to. It was meant to score a movie, or TV commercial.
 
KevinKohler said:
To be honest, I disagree with your first point. I USED to download music LIKE CRAZY. Actually, I still DO download a wee bit of music, but I'll explain that later...

I downloaded music because, quite frankly, I didn't want to shell out 20 bucks for an entire album, of which, I was really only interested in one song. You don't go out and buy an entire book of poems just to get the one poem you want...you go to the store, find the book, and copy the poem with pen and paper. Itunes changed EVERYTHING for me, personally. I now have an avenue to purchase EXACTLY what I want. .99 cents, or .50 cents, makes no real difference for me, honestly, because I'm not buying this stuff in bulk...I'm selective, which is exactly why I LIKE itunes. NOW my issue is, the recording industry wants to tell me what I can do with that product once I buy it. And that's a problem, to be honest. If I want to copy it over to another computer, I ought to be able to.
Click to expand...

I've used iTunes...... I don't understand.....they will allow me to copy what I bought to all of the devices I have that will play them.

Now, why do I STILL download music from various FTP sites? Because I like some pretty obscure stuff....soundtracks, mostly...and Itunes/amazon has a pretty bad selection of that genre of music. It's download, or don't have at all. Am I causing some composer out there to starve, or lose money? No. Because their product isn't being sold anyway. It was never intended to. It was meant to score a movie, or TV commercial.
Click to expand...

I'm doubting that we would be having this discussion if people were d/l obscure tracks that nobody wants anyway.
 
1Perry said:
Even Lady Gaga should have the right to be paid for what they create when you decide you want it.
Click to expand...
This is a controversial topic. I'm not bothered either way, but I can accept a limit amount of Intellectual Property rights. I do not think we have anything like that, we have a very broad regime that keeps seeming to expand.
 
Wessexman said:
This is a controversial topic. I'm not bothered either way, but I can accept a limit amount of Intellectual Property rights. I do not think we have anything like that, we have a very broad regime that keeps seeming to expand.
Click to expand...

IMO the vast majority of this is about stealing recent work. There may be an odd arguement outside of that but those are not why we have a problem.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes and that limited time had been set at lifetime + 70 years. Either wait, or quit stealing it.
Click to expand...
My point was that the law should be changed, not that people should ignore the law. You stated there was no legal argument for why people shouldn't be able to pass down their IP rights to their descendants. I think the Constitution makes a pretty clear legal argument that the right is supposed to be limited, and it is supposed to be afforded to creators, not their children.
 
Krhazy said:
My point was that the law should be changed, not that people should ignore the law. You stated there was no legal argument for why people shouldn't be able to pass down their IP rights to their descendants. I think the Constitution makes a pretty clear legal argument that the right is supposed to be limited, and it is supposed to be afforded to creators, not their children.
Click to expand...

I've been clear on what I think about many of these arguements but I certainly wouldn't be against some changes. Do I think it's a good thing that to hear MLK's I have a dream speech is to pay the family for the rights? No, I don't.
 
1Perry said:
Basically, IMO that's what it boils down to. If iTunes started charging .50 cents as opposed to .99 cents IMO few would quit simply stealing it.
Click to expand...

And I would actually suggest that if you adjusted for the invent of higher speed connections which has simply made it more possible to download then in the past, that you'd likely find that upon the invent of iTunes and the ability to buy individual songs you like rather than having to purchase an entire album for a single song that pirating music actually subsided a bit compared to the days of napster.

It seems to me that you said that you understood why people pirated things and that the pirating brought about welcomed changes.
Click to expand...

Sure, I UNDERSTAND why people pirate things...doesn't make it right. I understand in part why terrorists do what they do...doesn't make it right. I understand at times what someone who got mugged or raped possibly did to put themselves in that situation...doesn't mean I condone them being mugged or raped. I understand completely why some people smoke pot...doesn't mean that I am in favor of them breaking the law.

Its possible to understand WHY someone is doing something, and even to a bit perhaps sympathize with their reasoning, while at the same time being against their action or perceived solution to their issues or views. I agree with Pirates that the model of many entertainment businesses is outmoded and lacking in regards to the modern age, however I break with them in the belief that BECAUSE of that it should be perfectly viable to download their works for free. Simply because I understand their reasoning doesn't mean I agree with their conclusion. Just because I agree with SOME of their conclusions, such as the notion that entertainment companies should reevaluate their supply chains, doesn't mean I agree with ALL of them. If you want to ASSUME that, then your ignorance to what I ACTUALLY think and your ignorance of placing views on me that I don't have is your own problem not mine.
 
Zyphlin said:
And I would actually suggest that if you adjusted for the invent of higher speed connections which has simply made it more possible to download then in the past, that you'd likely find that upon the invent of iTunes and the ability to buy individual songs you like rather than having to purchase an entire album for a single song that pirating music actually subsided a bit compared to the days of napster.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue against the idea that there is a percentage that d/l off of Napster and for various reasons no longer do that. iTunes likely had some impact on that.

Sure, I UNDERSTAND why people pirate things...doesn't make it right. I understand in part why terrorists do what they do...doesn't make it right. I understand at times what someone who got mugged or raped possibly did to put themselves in that situation...doesn't mean I condone them being mugged or raped. I understand completely why some people smoke pot...doesn't mean that I am in favor of them breaking the law.

Its possible to understand WHY someone is doing something, and even to a bit perhaps sympathize with their reasoning, while at the same time being against their action or perceived solution to their issues or views. I agree with Pirates that the model of many entertainment businesses is outmoded and lacking in regards to the modern age, however I break with them in the belief that BECAUSE of that it should be perfectly viable to download their works for free. Simply because I understand their reasoning doesn't mean I agree with their conclusion. Just because I agree with SOME of their conclusions, such as the notion that entertainment companies should reevaluate their supply chains, doesn't mean I agree with ALL of them. If you want to ASSUME that, then your ignorance to what I ACTUALLY think and your ignorance of placing views on me that I don't have is your own problem not mine.
Click to expand...

We are discussing a subject. I mentioned what it seemed to me to be your position. You then did a good job furthering your thoughts on the subject. Seems like how it's supposed to work......

Anyway, we both seem to agree that those who pirate the works of others should be stopped. Do I have that right?
 
1Perry said:
Anyway, we both seem to agree that those who pirate the works of others should be stopped. Do I have that right?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, at the same time I don't believe the issue is to such a point that significant potential violations of civil rights or significant change or damage to the way the internet functions is required or justified.

In this particular case, if Mega Upload was specifically attempting to court people who would put up illegal material onto their site by specifically paying them to do such and to advertise it, then that's a problem. On the flip side, if Megaupload is simply paying people who drive traffic to their site in general or who are extreme repeat users to their site in general then the fact that some who take advantage of that are piraters shouldn't mean the government can simply take down megaupload, especially if megaupload was abiding by rules regarding how they are supposed to react to copywriter material on their website when alerted. There are legitimate and worth while legal uses for a site like mega-upload.

Also, what I will say, is that some of what's considered "pirating" at times I don't believe counts. For example, if I buy a game and download it to my home PC; making a copy to then put the software that I purchased onto my laptop as well, to me, is not "pirating" though some video game manufacturers have tried to fight against such a thing if my memory serves me.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Absolutely, at the same time I don't believe the issue is to such a point that significant potential violations of civil rights or significant change or damage to the way the internet functions is required or justified.
Click to expand...

I understand that point BUT I do not believe SOPA would do that. I understand that it was the winning arguement but as I said, to me it was nothing more than redundancy so that D.C. could say to the big entertainment money that they were doing something.

I do not believe SOPA is needed because as we've seen the government can already shut down rogue websites. My problem was what I see as hyperbole. Not being an expert here, I believe those stealing have thoughts that SOPA might make it a little easier to shut them down. Maybe, maybe not, but from what I've seen any changes would be small at most.

I've asked and asked for the pertinant information in the bill. In return I get video's of what someone else claims the bill would do.

In this particular case, if Mega Upload was specifically attempting to court people who would put up illegal material onto their site by specifically paying them to do such and to advertise it, then that's a problem. On the flip side, if Megaupload is simply paying people who drive traffic to their site in general or who are extreme repeat users to their site in general then the fact that some who take advantage of that are piraters shouldn't mean the government can simply take down megaupload, especially if megaupload was abiding by rules regarding how they are supposed to react to copywriter material on their website when alerted. There are legitimate and worth while legal uses for a site like mega-upload.
Click to expand...

I have never been to the site. I have no idea what they did. I believe they deserve to have their day in court. I believe that if the government can not prove that the owners of the site knew what was going on and did not stop it, then the site should be able to recover damages with precedent set as to what standards are required.

Also, what I will say, is that some of what's considered "pirating" at times I don't believe counts. For example, if I buy a game and download it to my home PC; making a copy to then put the software that I purchased onto my laptop as well, to me, is not "pirating" though some video game manufacturers have tried to fight against such a thing if my memory serves me.
Click to expand...

I have no idea about your particular case. This same example was used concerning iTunes but I noted that they allow me to put what I purchase on anything I own.
 
1Perry said:
IMO the vast majority of this is about stealing recent work. There may be an odd arguement outside of that but those are not why we have a problem.
Click to expand...
I'm not wild about corporate-capitalism anyway, so it all blends into one for me. Plus most of it is filth, if enough piracy put the likes of Lady Gaga out of business, well I don't think I'd complain. But I can accept a certain, limited right to Intellectual Property rights, and in the end probably support, although I could accept there being no such legal rights.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
I'm not wild about corporate-capitalism anyway, so it all blends into one for me. Plus most of it is filth, if enough piracy put the likes of Lady Gaga out of business, well I don't think I'd complain. But I can accept a certain, limited right to Intellectual Property rights, and in the end probably support, although I could accept there being no such legal rights.
Click to expand...

I'd support getting you to cut my grass for free also.
 
1Perry said:
I'd support getting you to cut my grass for free also.
Click to expand...
Doesn't make sense mate. Even though I lukewarmedly support Intellectual Property rights, you are talking about very different rights. You are talking about what is scarce, which was originally one major reason for property rights. Whereas Intellectual Property rights are about creating an artificial scarcity in order to benefit the owner.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Doesn't make sense mate. Even though I lukewarmedly support Intellectual Property rights, you are talking about very different rights. You are talking about what is scarce, which was originally one major reason for property rights. Whereas Intellectual Property rights are about creating an artificial scarcity in order to benefit the owner.
Click to expand...

If creators of items are not getting paid for their items, they will become scarce also. But in the end it is the same. You aren't too concerned that others get paid for their work but you aren't too willing to work under the same situation.
 
1Perry said:
If creators of items are not getting paid for their items, they will become scarce also. But in the end it is the same. You aren't too concerned that others get paid for their work but you aren't too willing to work under the same situation.
Click to expand...
You are confusing apples and oranges. You are confusing the natural scarcity of other forms of property with whether people would be willing to produce things without Intellectual Property rights. These are obviously very different kinds of scarcity; creative works would still not be scarce in the sense land is. The copy of their work does not prevent their own ownership of it, whereas my ownership of land prevents you owning the same piece of land. It prevents them collecting more income for their work, but that is different and involves a different kind of scarcity and a different kind of property right and of course a different argument over its legitimacy.

They would get paid for their work without Intellectual Property rights also. It would simply be less, unless they could come up with ways to take advantage of that work or discovery better. The more mild the Intellectual Property rights, the more quickly new discoveries can be taken advantage of throughout society, though this has more to do with patents than copyright. There are upsides and downsides socially to Intellectual Property rights and the lack thereof.

I am an historian, or will be soon, presumably what I write will be under copyright. I can support some copyright, but I wouldn't mind too much if there was none, even on my own work.
 
Last edited:
I've used iTunes...... I don't understand.....they will allow me to copy what I bought to all of the devices I have that will play them.
Click to expand...
Only because when they did try it, itunes was boycotted. DRM, however, is real, and I feel we have not heard the last of it.

Digital rights management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further, from what I understand of the wording of some of the laws supporting the music industry these days, copying those files onto your various devices IS technically illegal.

I'm doubting that we would be having this discussion if people were d/l obscure tracks that nobody wants anyway.
Click to expand...

No doubt, there. It's why I feel pretty secure in the few downloads I DO make. I will say, it IS getting better, these days. Soundtracks are becoming more mainstream. Yay me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom