• 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

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.

Sorry, you've lost me. I think you are saying that they once didn't allow you to share what you purchased with your other items. I have no idea how it first worked but if you dislike how something works, I fully support a boycott.

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 would think it would have been addressed with iTunes by now.

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!

enjoy. :D
 
The court case doesn't matter. Now that megaupload is offline, it's never coming back.

They should have done the smart thing and moved their servers out of the U.S. Now they are screwed.
 
Just in case anyone is wondering why megaupload is not working.


BBC News - Megaupload file-sharing site shut down
Megaupload, one of the internet's largest file-sharing sites, has been shut down by officials in the US.
The site's founders have been charged with violating piracy laws.
Federal prosecutors have accused it of costing copyright holders more than $500m (£320m) in lost revenue. The firm says it was diligent in responding to complaints about pirated material.
Investigators denied a link to recent protests against proposed piracy laws, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The US Justice Department said that Megaupload's two co-founders Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and Mathias Ortmann were arrested in Auckland, New Zealand along with two other employees of the business at the request of US officials. It added that three other defendants were still at large.
"This action is among the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States and directly targets the misuse of a public content storage and distribution site to commit and facilitate intellectual property crime," said a statement posted on its website.

All the money they made, they could afford to live anywhere and set up shop in any country.

Seems like they wanted to get caught.
 
All the money they made, they could afford to live anywhere and set up shop in any country.

Seems like they wanted to get caught.


Are you suggesting that in order to be more free to do their select business, they should have left America, land of the free, home of the brave?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, you've lost me. I think you are saying that they once didn't allow you to share what you purchased with your other items. I have no idea how it first worked but if you dislike how something works, I fully support a boycott.



I would think it would have been addressed with iTunes by now.



enjoy. :D

Basically, they had imbedded software in the files that would prevent you from making copies. Once this got out, there was such backlash that it was scrapped almost before it even began. Think...worse reaction that what Netflix suffered. So, in this case, public outcry, mostly from customers, nipped it in the bud. And no, the legal issues surrounding the making copies of your music files is NOT addressed yet. It's why they enact insane fines on folks they DO manage to catch...they don't just fine you for the download, but for any copies you made, too. The issue in this instance, then, is the law, not the business model. I think Itunes has a great business model. But copyright laws are, in my opinion, in their infancy, and we are simply going through the growing pains. But those pains are being excacerbated by a legislative system that is by the lobbyists, for the lobbyists, which is another way of saying, pro corporate interests, more so than "the people". And the music industry is run by a bunch of codgy old men who still remember the good times they had ripping off the beach boys and the beatles, and the killing they made when tapes replaced records, and so on. What they are FAILING to understand, is that the times have now radically changed, and that there are a LOT of artists who no longer need them, thanks in NO SMALL PART to FTP sites, and places like youtube. And what they are doing, is killing that outside lane, so to speak, because of the POTENTIAL for net losses. Music is still hugely profitable. Music executives still live quite large, as do the artists themselves.

Ever notice the indy explosion, and how it coincides with ftp and youtube?

So, yes, I DO support having some copyright protection. I have no right to get up on stage, and sing "Beyond the Sea", and try to claim it as my own, and make money off of it. It's not mine, that's fraud. But the sort we are getting is NOT BEING WRITTEN by our lawmakers...it's being spoon fed to them by the industry it would prop up. I have a problem with this. The internet is the last frontier of freedom left to this planet. It's the last place where I can scream "BOOOOOMB" and not get arrest, it's the last place I can post anything I want, and not be arrested, or detained, or bring down the domain wherein I posted. So, I will never support things like SOPA, or some of the many other forms or restrictions proposed in recent years, to try to "reign" in the internet.
 
Basically, they had imbedded software in the files that would prevent you from making copies. Once this got out, there was such backlash that it was scrapped almost before it even began. Think...worse reaction that what Netflix suffered. So, in this case, public outcry, mostly from customers, nipped it in the bud. And no, the legal issues surrounding the making copies of your music files is NOT addressed yet. It's why they enact insane fines on folks they DO manage to catch...they don't just fine you for the download, but for any copies you made, too. The issue in this instance, then, is the law, not the business model. I think Itunes has a great business model. But copyright laws are, in my opinion, in their infancy, and we are simply going through the growing pains. But those pains are being excacerbated by a legislative system that is by the lobbyists, for the lobbyists, which is another way of saying, pro corporate interests, more so than "the people". And the music industry is run by a bunch of codgy old men who still remember the good times they had ripping off the beach boys and the beatles, and the killing they made when tapes replaced records, and so on. What they are FAILING to understand, is that the times have now radically changed, and that there are a LOT of artists who no longer need them, thanks in NO SMALL PART to FTP sites, and places like youtube. And what they are doing, is killing that outside lane, so to speak, because of the POTENTIAL for net losses. Music is still hugely profitable. Music executives still live quite large, as do the artists themselves.

I was offered to freely and with permission D/L I think it was around 10 new songs by Tom Waits awhile back. I was able to D/L a song off his new album just before the album came out. (Which I purchased on iTunes).

Nobody stopped him from doing this. I've watched quite a few YouTubes from performers that have placed their works there. Nobody has stopped them.

Ever notice the indy explosion, and how it coincides with ftp and youtube?

And?

So, yes, I DO support having some copyright protection. I have no right to get up on stage, and sing "Beyond the Sea", and try to claim it as my own, and make money off of it. It's not mine, that's fraud. But the sort we are getting is NOT BEING WRITTEN by our lawmakers...it's being spoon fed to them by the industry it would prop up. I have a problem with this. The internet is the last frontier of freedom left to this planet. It's the last place where I can scream "BOOOOOMB" and not get arrest, it's the last place I can post anything I want, and not be arrested, or detained, or bring down the domain wherein I posted. So, I will never support things like SOPA, or some of the many other forms or restrictions proposed in recent years, to try to "reign" in the internet.

I've only seen actions to reign in piracy. Now I understand the arguement of give them an inch and they will take a mile......I do. We see that concerning getting onto an airplane today. I've simply seen nothing they have done that would reign in the internet outside of piracy which I believe should be stopped. (as much as possible). On the other hand, many who want the government not to take these sorts of actions are the reasons they are.
 
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.



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!

iTunes wasn't really boycotted, it just was grumbled at by advocates of more consumer purchase rights. Many people still used it. Massive boycotts were not the norm, unless we are talking about folks who outright "boycotted" (or rather, grumbled en mass) about certain video games with more restrictive usage rights for Windows.

To backtrack, iTunes started off with a DRM scheme called Fairplay. Now, in comparison with the Microsoft Janus DRM scheme, Fairplay was quite liberal. With the proper context iTunes was mostly transparent. I say mostly, because there were two things going against it. First, for those who purchased other DAPs other than the iPod (which as of 2003-2005 was not the biggest concern, as Apple was already taking the market), they were out of luck without relying on 1) DRM stripping tools 2) Burn CD/grab rip of large WAV/AIFF files 3) Burn CD-->Rip CD and transcode at desired format and bitrate which caused sacrifice of fidelity. Unfortunately because of that, many people were unable to separate the AAC codec from the DRM scheme, and blamed it on the codec. Second, after 7 or so burns of a given playlist (including one of the album itself), one had to reorganize the track order.

That was largely transparent for the users, who happened to own an iPod or other Apple device (again, even in the mid-2000's this was quite high for market penetration). For those without, there were the comparable-ish services with the Janus DRM and Real's back and forth business models.

However, I would say, if you wish to really really complain about DRM schemes, especially those employed by Apple, taking a look at how the Fairplay DRM was used in the TV/Movie store would be your best bet. To this day, I believe, there are no usage rights that allow users to burn to disc whatsoever. You are very much tied to using an Apple device or iTunes/Quicktime software for playback. Or, if you wish to point to their set-top box market, you would have to buy a product (Apple TV) that over the past two years was still being referred to as a "hobby" instead of a serious product being backed by Apple.

To me, that is more outrageous.
 
Here's the moral of the story. . .

If you want to enjoy a large, lavish, multi-million dollar lifestyle funded in part by illegal and/or ethically questionable activities, you must share a portion of your wealth with members of the US Congress.
 
Fortunately, Mr. dotcom can afford a decent legal defense team, which means that the law is relevant.

The US govt. is only allowed to kidnap, detain, or kill someone illegally if that person can't afford a decent lawyer.
 
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...

There's no meaningful difference between criminals and law enforcement.
 
There is one fact that all people should realize. Because much of the Internet relies on metallic cables and wires, it is a limited resource with limited bandwidth. So when people are streaming copyrighted movies all over the place, it slows it down for the rest of us.

Also, we don't need Hollywood, etc. for movies anymore. Entertainment can all be home made.
 
So, why isn't Megaupload protected by the ruling in Viacom v. Youtube? Youtube was held not to be responsible for policing the content uploaded by its users. Unless they can demonstrate that Megaupload was primarily intending to host copyrighted material (which is, of course, not true), it should be subject to the exact same standard as Youtube.
 
So, why isn't Megaupload protected by the ruling in Viacom v. Youtube? Youtube was held not to be responsible for policing the content uploaded by its users. Unless they can demonstrate that Megaupload was primarily intending to host copyrighted material (which is, of course, not true), it should be subject to the exact same standard as Youtube.

From what little I am getting, it seems as though the reward program is what is most contestable. Related to that, I do not see it outrageous that they hit megaupload. We had numerous other services that were similar to Kazaa, but there was not this blitzkrieg on P2P programs occurring at the same time.
 
So, why isn't Megaupload protected by the ruling in Viacom v. Youtube? Youtube was held not to be responsible for policing the content uploaded by its users. Unless they can demonstrate that Megaupload was primarily intending to host copyrighted material (which is, of course, not true), it should be subject to the exact same standard as Youtube.

From what I understand......You aren't held responsible IF you are pro-active in stopping illegal activity and not ignoring it. The governments case (which is just their case which they will have to defend in court) is that megaupload was only taking token efforts to stop piracy. They would take down a couple links but leave other while not taking the pirated material off their servers.

They said that megaupload was working diligently to combat child porn on their sites but was doing little to stop piracy.

That's the arguement.
 
Has anyone mentioned the music program that MegaUpload was going to unveil which would put the profit in the hands of artists and make the big music corporations obsolete yet? Because this is very clearly state intervention on the part of large corporations with stagnant business models to prevent competition by an innovative competitor.

The kicker was Megabox would cater to unsigned artists and allow anyone to sell their creations while allowing the artist to retain 90% of the earnings. Or, artists could even giveaway their songs and would be paid through a service called Megakey. “Yes that’s right, we will pay artists even for free downloads. The Megakey business model has been tested with over a million users and it works,” Kim Dotcom told TorrentFreak in December. Megabox was planning on bypassing the labels, RIAA, and the entire music establishment.

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

Those arguing against MU as some kind of defense of property rights might consider switching sides.
 
Last edited:
^ Very good to know.

Artists making 90% of the profits would end the music industry. Can't have that!

I am so tired of government being the dogs of industry that get sicked on innovators in order to retain stagnant business models. These dinosaurs just need to roll over and die already.
 
From what I understand......You aren't held responsible IF you are pro-active in stopping illegal activity and not ignoring it. The governments case (which is just their case which they will have to defend in court) is that megaupload was only taking token efforts to stop piracy. They would take down a couple links but leave other while not taking the pirated material off their servers.

They said that megaupload was working diligently to combat child porn on their sites but was doing little to stop piracy.

That's the arguement.

So... the main argument is that they were too busy stopping child pornography to worry about copyright infringement? These people are facing jail time because they listened when someone said "Think of the children!"

If these are our priorities, then we have a much deeper problem to worry about.
 
megaupload should never have been shut down until it was proven that they had done something illegal.

Mega Upload should never have been shut down by US authorities because it is not hosted in the US. This is a case of the US literally trying foreign nationals for violations of US law in foreign countries. It pretty much makes absolutely zero sense.
 
So... the main argument is that they were too busy stopping child pornography to worry about copyright infringement? These people are facing jail time because they listened when someone said "Think of the children!"

If these are our priorities, then we have a much deeper problem to worry about.

They are innocent until proven guilty. They will get the chance to make their case.

But no, if they are accessories to one crime, it does not absolve them because they weren't in another. That's sort of the arguement used in The Godfather to make the family a little more likeable.
 
Mega Upload should never have been shut down by US authorities because it is not hosted in the US. This is a case of the US literally trying foreign nationals for violations of US law in foreign countries. It pretty much makes absolutely zero sense.

Obviously it had to have been done with the assistance of these other governments. That is not something new.
 
1Perry said:
Obviously it had to have been done with the assistance of these other governments. That is not something new.

Well, sure, the precedent is that all people on earth are subject to, and must obey, US law. Which is absurd.
 
Well, sure, the precedent is that all people on earth are subject to, and must obey, US law. Which is absurd.

Governments have worked together for centuries. We do the same in return for them.
 
1Perry said:
Governments have worked together for centuries. We do the same in return for them.

So what you're saying is that if the US government agreed I could be deported to Saudi Arabia for violating Saudi law. And you agree with this?
 
Back
Top Bottom