What Are the Implications of Megaupload Being Taken Down?

[genericusrnme]

Yep, megaupload has been taken down..
Who do you guys suppose is next?
Do you think that megaupload should have been taken down?

What's everyone's opinions on this matter?

 

[fluidistic]

Yep, megaupload has been taken down..
Who do you guys suppose is next?
Do you think that megaupload should have been taken down?

What's everyone's opinions on this matter?

Since almost everything starts with google... Google down might do some damages.
Well that's sad about megaupload. What do I think? Another website will born to replace megaupload.

 

[Curious3141]

Since almost everything starts with google... Google down might do some damages.
Well that's sad about megaupload. What do I think? Another website will born to replace megaupload.

There are already many alternatives.

What will happen to the subscribers who paid money for faster access (I'm not one of them)?

 

[genericusrnme]

Nothing happens to the subscribers with paid accounts I'm affraid, if they payed for one recently it's pretty much just wasted money

There are already many alternitives but what's to stop them going down?
I personally have used megaupload to send music (that I myself wrote and recorded with free software and hardware that I owned), upload notes so I could download them somewhere else if I didn't have a usb stick handy
I get that megaupload can be used for piracy but attacking the site over it doesn't seem like the correct thing to do since it does have plenty of legit uses..
It's a shame those legit uses can just be handwaved away as secondary to piracy.

 

[StevieTNZ]

One of the founders was arrested in Auckland, New Zealand today.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/248445/anonymous_retaliates_for_megaupload_shutdown_attacks_doj_others.html

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/12665254/who-is-kim-dotcom/

 

[Evo]

Nothing happens to the subscribers with paid accounts I'm affraid, if they payed for one recently it's pretty much just wasted money

There are already many alternitives but what's to stop them going down?
I personally have used megaupload to send music (that I myself wrote and recorded with free software and hardware that I owned), upload notes so I could download them somewhere else if I didn't have a usb stick handy
I get that megaupload can be used for piracy but attacking the site over it doesn't seem like the correct thing to do since it does have plenty of legit uses..
It's a shame those legit uses can just be handwaved away as secondary to piracy.

If they are allowing illegal activities, of course they will be shut down. You can't be "half" legal.

 

[encorp]

Megaupload was involved in some very serious money laundering schemes and should have been shut down.

 

[wukunlin]

omg, i have lots of photo backups on MU

 

[ThomasT]

Megaupload was involved in some very serious money laundering schemes and should have been shut down.

Were they shut down for money laundering or facilitating the pirating of movies and music?

 

[ThomasT]

Do you think that megaupload should have been taken down?

Depends. If it was for facilitating the pirating of movies and music, then no. I don't consider that a serious enough problem that the DOJ should be spending public resources on it. On the other hand, the people arrested (who control megaupload) might have been involved in more sinister stuff.

 

[KingNothing]

Good riddance that they are gone, I do think they crossed some boundaries. I am a bit concerned that there was some foul play between UMG and the authorities, considering UMG's history with MegaUpload.

IMO it's *way* too easy to pirate things. I think this comes from: a lack of sensible laws regarding e-crime, and a refusal by the major media companies to provide more modern services. The biggest blow to video game piracy to this day has been Steam, and the biggest blow to movie piracy Netflix. It's simply so much more convenient to pirate something than to actually pay for it.

 

[Char. Limit]

Good riddance that they are gone, I do think they crossed some boundaries. I am a bit concerned that there was some foul play between UMG and the authorities, considering UMG's history with MegaUpload.

IMO it's *way* too easy to pirate things. I think this comes from: a lack of sensible laws regarding e-crime, and a refusal by the major media companies to provide more modern services. The biggest blow to video game piracy to this day has been Steam, and the biggest blow to movie piracy Netflix. It's simply so much more convenient to pirate something than to actually pay for it.

This. The best way to end piracy is to make it more convenient to buy the product. Let's say you buy a game today. You're very likely to deal with ridiculous DRM or perhaps get to have fun with rootkits getting installed on your computer. It's as you said, Steam is just so easy that people tend to use it. Why risk going to jail when you can spend a few bucks and get the game instantly, downloaded to your computer, and you can use it at any time? Hell, some games are put online, that is, the entire data is online, so that you can access them from any computer. Now that's genius.

As for Megaupload, well, it's one site down. Pirates will find another one, and paying customers are shafted. But hey, I can't say that what they're doing is legal. Arresting them was the right thing to do... assuming that WAS the intent.

 

[OmCheeto]

Never heard of megaupload before today.

Interesting.

Justice Department Charges Leaders of Megaupload with Widespread Online Copyright Infringement
WASHINGTON—Seven individuals and two corporations have been charged in the United States with running an international organized criminal enterprise allegedly responsible for massive worldwide online piracy of numerous types of copyrighted works through Megaupload.com and other related sites, generating more than $175 million in criminal proceeds and causing more than half a billion dollars in harm to copyright owners, the U.S. Justice Department and FBI announced today.

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.

Personally, I'd have used some of the profits to get a face transplant...

Kim Schmitz, founder of megaupload & u-know-who​

Sorry. I hate Rush Limbaugh. And if you look like him, I will kill you. (the http://www.hulu.com/watch/317024/saturday-night-live-chantix is STILL wearing off.)

 

[Adyssa]

This. The best way to end piracy is to make it more convenient to buy the product.

Yep. The internet makes it so easy, I can't for the life of me understand why more companies aren't making it more convenient to purchase the legitimate product. Downloading pirated stuff is still a bit of a chore, and there's no guarantee of quality.

Also, I am sick to death of watching my DVDs and having to sit through 5 minutes of YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR, YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A PURSE, DOWNLOADING IS STEALING. Hello? I'm watching the DVD, if I downloaded it, I wouldn't have to see this, it's the first thing the pirates remove! Stop harassing paying customers, or pretty soon, I'm just going to stop buying this crap and start downloading a better product!

Make it super easy, make it super cheap, move units in high volume, it's not rocket surgery. Sell a collectors edition hard copy with added value (extras, commentary, t-shirt, whatever).

Why is it so hard to realize that the current business model for media is mired in the past? >.<

Also, you know what I download? Documentaries and really old movies that I can't find on DVD, or I can, but they are region coded or NTSC format and there's only so many hoops I can be bothered jumping through. There's a market for this stuff, realize this, and sell products to me!

 

[Monique]

Why is it so hard to realize that the current business model for media is mired in the past? >.<

I couldn't agree more, those companies have been resisting the revolution of downloading products. By not supplying a demand they've damaged their own products. What if all the "lost money" had been spent in making an infrastructure for legal downloads?

 

[ParticleGrl]

The long term issue with piracy is that it damages returns to the various entertainment industries (movies, music games). That means too much IP theft eventually leads to not-enough entertainment being produced.

We don't seem to be suffering any kind of lack of entertainment, so it seems unlikely to me that piracy is a tremendous problem. The resources it would take to effectively police information would be astronomical, and almost certainly not worth it.

I'm more concerned that we've gone the other way- our IP/copyright laws are far too restrictive. Pretty much nothing new has entered the public domain in my lifetime, and some things have even been removed.

 

[Pengwuino]

I always find it odd that people think that it's okay to steal something just because they don't like the costs and ways something are sold.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's entertainment, not water and bread.

 

[GregJ]

Why is it so hard to realize that the current business model for media is mired in the past? >.<

This hits it right on the nail. I have said this to myself 100 times over. Companies need to learn to adapt to the changing world and not fight against it.

 

[russ_watters]

This hits it right on the nail. I have said this to myself 100 times over. Companies need to learn to adapt to the changing world and not fight against it.

I don't like the car buying process, so I think I'll just steal my next car off the lot. Their fault, not mine.

 

[russ_watters]

Depends. If it was for facilitating the pirating of movies and music, then no. I don't consider that a serious enough problem that the DOJ should be spending public resources on it.

What is your criteria for deciding if it serious enough for the DOJ to get into?

 

[xxChrisxx]

Legality reflects culture. Culture is changing regarding copyright and IP in general.
We are merely in a transition period.

How long the transition will last - ?
What the IP world will look like after - ?The main reason music companies (biggest group on the offensive) are playing this up is that they have seen the writing on the wall. They are basically the middle man, who's role of production marketing and distribution is becoming obsolete in the long term.Adapt or Die.

 

[GregJ]

I don't like the car buying process, so I think I'll just steal my next car off the lot. Their fault, not mine.

Say you own a car dealership and most of your cars gets stolen no matter how high and secure you build the walls around your property (nothing you build/add helps in any way). You're constantly losing money.

Do you not think it is time to adapt a new sales method that may reduce the amount of theft (as clearly the current method is not working)?Edit: Don't get me wrong. I am not supporting piracy.

 

[JesseC]

Megaupload is just one of a whole load of file-hosting sites (Rapidshare, filefactory, mediafire etc etc... the list is very long) that clearly make most of their money off subscribers who pay to download pirated content. This is striking to me, it shows that people are willing to pay for content. Just not at the prices of iTunes and other legitimate sources.

I imagine that if megaupload had been more proactive in deleting illegal files and hadn't been so noisy about their shady dealings they would never have been arrested. The execs of all the file-hosting sites must know where all their content and money is coming from and that they are providing a service to piracy. However, by simply doing the very minimum required by the law, they get away with it and still make a bomb. Seems to me like megaupload simply weren't very smart.

 

[Monique]

I always find it odd that people think that it's okay to steal something just because they don't like the costs and ways something are sold.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's entertainment, not water and bread.

I don't like the car buying process, so I think I'll just steal my next car off the lot. Their fault, not mine.

No, it's not like that.

You two both do point out the core: if you don't like it, don't buy it. That's exactly what's happening. The companies are not adapting to a changing world and as a result people are not buying their products anymore. Some people who don't like to buy still use the product, but that doesn't change the fact that no money comes into the drawer.

I don't like the car-buying process, so I don't have a car. I still commute from A to B and sit in cars. I see absolutely no need to steal a car, because I can get around fine without one. It's the car company's loss, because their business model is faulty.

I feel the entertainment industry needs to scratch behind their ears and wonder why people are not buying and how they could turn around that process. Alternative solutions are coming on the market, but it is still very sparse (at least in my area).

 

[Evo]

According to the news.

Other material found uploaded included child pornography and terrorism propaganda videos, according to the indictment. The U.S. government's investigation began in March 2010.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-shutters-megaupload-com-hackers-retaliate-011423326.html

 

[nonequilibrium]

People, stop calling piracy stealing, it's not the same morally, it's note the same legally.

As it relates to movies and such, I don't know, but when it comes to music, piracy is a part of the future and it actually makes sense in the time we live in. Ask musicians you know, the majority actually doesn't mind it because they realize it's an excellent way to get your music across (a person like Nick Drake died unappreciated 30 years back, but if he had started nowadays he would have gotten the fame he deserved). Musicians now make their money through other venues, and personally I can say that I would buy the CD if I really liked the music, irrelevant to having it on my computer from someone else or not.

Disclaimer: but anyway I don't know the reasons for the shutting down of megaupload, I'm just talking about the piracy part.

 

[Monique]

If someone rents a car from a rental company and uses it to make drug deals, should the rental company be shut down? I think the person who makes the drug deals should be held responsible. Surely it is in the regulations that it can't be used for illegal activities (isn't it somewhere in the iTunes guidelines that you can't use the software for terrorist activities and such?).

 

[Char. Limit]

I don't like the car buying process, so I think I'll just steal my next car off the lot. Their fault, not mine.

Nice strawman. Highly irrelevant, as no one's suggesting piracy is okay, but very nice strawman you have there.

 

[Pengwuino]

Nice strawman. Highly irrelevant, as no one's suggesting piracy is okay, but very nice strawman you have there.

Might want to go back and read a couple posts ;)

 

[Char. Limit]

Might want to go back and read a couple posts ;)

I don't see the person he's quoting talking about how piracy is okay. He just says that businesses need to change their business model if they want to fight a comprehensive effort against piracy. I guess that's forbidden speech now?

 

[turbo]

The resources it would take to effectively police information would be astronomical, and almost certainly not worth it.

The entertainment industry is trying to foist all those costs onto the US taxpayers. They want us (our government) to root out the pirates AND to pay the costs of litigating against them at no cost to themselves, and at the risk of stifling free communication across the Internet. Nobody in the mainstream media can be bothered to report on this.

 

[AlephZero]

Ask musicians you know, the majority actually doesn't mind it because they realize it's an excellent way to get your music across (a person like Nick Drake died unappreciated 30 years back, but if he had started nowadays he would have gotten the fame he deserved). Musicians now make their money through other venues, and personally I can say that I would buy the CD if I really liked the music, irrelevant to having it on my computer from someone else or not.

Of the musicians I know, the ones who "don't mind it" are mostly those who wouldn't make any serious money out of any delivery system, simply because they aren't good enough. The ones who are good enough to make money want to keep on making it.

The irony is that the clock is actually getting turned backwards about 50 years, to the days when you got known by playing live gigs, not uploading mashups of other people's music onto websites. Get 50 people in a room somewhere, and don't let them out till they pay you $10 each for a some merchandising, and you make some real $$, not a few virtual friends on the web. Of course having the real $$ in your pocket might then change your attitide to the geek on the back row who recorded the gig on a cellphone and posted it on YouTube...

 

[Hepth]

With the same intent of law in mind should gmail/Google be shut down if people use it for planning illegal activities? Or do they hold a responsibility to monitor and report illegal activity on their servers?

 

[Pengwuino]

Of the musicians I know, the ones who "don't mind it" are mostly those who wouldn't make any serious money out of any delivery system, simply because they aren't good enough. The ones who are good enough to make money want to keep on making it.

Exactly. There are a few people who are already multi-multi-millionaires who have come out in support of piracy. However, I have yet to see someone who makes simply a decent living come out in support of piracy.

And let's get real with the "the entertainment industry just needs to get with the program" garbage. If I started printing counterfeit US currency, no one would argue that the US treasury just "needs to get with the program". The argument is even better with counterfeiting currency. The same arguments that are pro-piracy apply except the person selling to you actually gets money (excluding large transactions where the currency would be checked) as well!

At the very least, I don't hear people yapping about "Well, it's better that we don't pay because that's how lesser known musicians become known" anymore, as if it's up to the customers to decide whether or not the person gets paid.

With the same intent of law in mind should gmail/Google be shut down if people use it for planning illegal activities? Or do they hold a responsibility to monitor and report illegal activity on their servers?

I think most will agree the ideas behind SOPA are going too far, but sites do have some responsibility to monitor for illegal activities. Remember, all these sites make money off hosting these kinds of things through ad revenue and subscriptions. If a car dealership had illegal boxing matches happening behind its building and was taking a cut, possibly even indirectly, they would absolutely be held accountable. That's how western law works, even people who are not directly responsible for something can be held partially liable for something. I also am quite serious when I say some responsibility. If google/isps/services took "reasonable" steps to look for pirated content, I think no one could blame them just like the car dealership, if it took reasonable steps to prevent these fights, wouldn't be blamed.

 

[JesseC]

Where is the evidence piracy actually results in a loss of sales? Where is the evidence that if pirates were forced to stop, they'd actually go out and buy stuff instead? I am actually very interested if anyone has done proper research on the topic.

Its very easy to pirate thousands of pounds worth of material off the web. If piracy suddenly became impossible, there is no way people would go out and spend thousands of pounds legally instead. So if corporations simply add up the total retail cost of all pirated items and call that "lost revenue", then that figure is complete nonsense.

You'd think we would be bombarded by stories of poor musicians who can no longer make a living because of piracy? Why do I never hear stories like that?

 

[Monique]

And let's get real with the "the entertainment industry just needs to get with the program" garbage. If I started printing counterfeit US currency, no one would argue that the US treasury just "needs to get with the program". The argument is even better with counterfeiting currency.

Again, bad comparison. If I scan a dollar bill and print a million of them to fill my bath, where is the harm? I wouldn't actually go to the bank and withdraw a million real dollars.

JesseC supports my point of view:

Where is the evidence piracy actually results in a loss of sales? Where is the evidence that if pirates were forced to stop, they'd actually go out and buy stuff instead? [..]
Its very easy to pirate thousands of pounds worth of material off the web. If piracy suddenly became impossible, there is no way people would go out and spend thousands of pounds legally instead. So if corporations simply add up the total retail cost of all pirated items and call that "lost revenue", then that figure is complete nonsense.

(for clarity: I'm for paid downloads, against the stiff attitude that movies can only be bought on a DVD in a store)

 

[nitsuj]

Exactly. There are a few people who are already multi-multi-millionaires who have come out in support of piracy. However, I have yet to see someone who makes simply a decent living come out in support of piracy.

And let's get real with the "the entertainment industry just needs to get with the program" garbage. If I started printing counterfeit US currency, no one would argue that the US treasury just "needs to get with the program". The argument is even better with counterfeiting currency. The same arguments that are pro-piracy apply except the person selling to you actually gets money (excluding large transactions where the currency would be checked) as well!

Of course no one would, the annalogy is terrible. There is zero value in the vast majority of entertainment. Only the latest and greatest has value, and it depreciates FAST in most cases.

Fundamentaly, copyrights have nothing to do with capitalism. Patents do for sure, but copyrights nope not at all. The "entertainment" industry has to the best of their abilities muddied the waters in this area because of the need to protect investment gone into creating the art.

 

[nonequilibrium]

The irony is that the clock is actually getting turned backwards about 50 years, to the days when you got known by playing live gigs

Well that's easy to say, but what backs up your statement?

not uploading mashups of other people's music onto websites.

It sounds like you're talking about people on, say, youtube singing songs of other people. What does this have to do with spreading the music of the musician himself across the internet? You realize they are two diferent things? (only related by both being copyright infringements--in most cases, anyway)

Get 50 people in a room somewhere, and don't let them out till they pay you $10 each for a some merchandising, and you make some real $$, not a few virtual friends on the web. Of course having the real $$ in your pocket might then change your attitide to the geek on the back row who recorded the gig on a cellphone and posted it on YouTube...

It's not clear to me what you're trying to say here. Are you saying concerts don't let people out of the building until they pay money? And again, the statement "not a few virtual friends" seems to be unrelated to any part of the previous discussion.

 

[Deveno]

I have deeply mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, I strongly feel that originators of intellectual property deserve compensation for their work. I don't have a problem paying for a copy of music, or film, or a book that I want to have forever in durable form.

On the other, a great deal of entertainment today is of the "disposable" variety: watch it once, listen to it once, read it once. The idea of public libraries, extended on a large world-wide internet scale, is a concept that seems to have fallen in disfavor, and I can't help but wonder why? We have confused "use" with "ownership" (leasing with purchasing), and have created stiff penalties for doing the former to encourage the latter. I find this disgusting. Netflix is good, DRM management on hard-copies of media is BAD.

If I were to (hypothetically) use a site like megaupload to cheat Sony Pictures out of some of their box-office, that's ethically questionable. If I use it to watch some ABC show freely available on their site, or some movie in perpetual re-runs on commercial broadcast television, the harm done seems less clear-cut.

But, be that as it may, if the charges against megaupload stand under current law, then that's the breaks. What concerns me is this:

Current legislation (SOPA and PIPA) pending seeks to up the ante considerably. Search providers face steep fines and/or possible jail time for just LINKING to a site that may be conducive to pirarcy, and ISP's would be required by law to block access to any site that violates any law (including, but not limited to, piracy and other copyright infringements).

Yes, this means YOUR ISP will censor the net for you, whether you like it or not. Sites like Google, and Youtube will NO LONGER EXIST. Wikipedia...to the slammer with them, too. Even these forums could come under scrutiny and censorship (possible blocked access) for linking to copyrighted material without author consent. These measures are truly draconian, and the risk for abuse, and the damage to First Amendment rights cannot be understated.

And, have no illusion about it, this is not being contemplated to protect the rights of the authors, song-writers and performers out there (who deserve your support...so if you steal their stuff, shame on you). No, this is at the behest of the large media corporations who see their profits dwindling in an increasingly digital world. Now, I don't know about you, but I feel that granting "corporations" the same inherent rights as actual people, is the pinnacle of stupidity. They don't even actually exist, they are purely abstract entities. Laws that do not benefit PEOPLE, are worse than just ignorant folly, they are evil.

I think these bills won't pass this time around. They might next time. Megaupload may deserve what is coming to them, but there are larger issues at stake. We need to seriously re-examine what consitutes "fair use".

EDIT: oh, and Steam totally rocks.

 

[genericusrnme]

Another problem I have is with the way these things are punished (especially over in the US)
It's something on the order of magnitude of £100,000 per infringment
Which is ridiculous and about 10^4 times the worth of the infringment
I also would dismiss claims that it's costing the music industory billions as completely made up
Why, you might ask?
Because people that pirate stuff would not have bought it in the first place, that's why.
The only thing their piracy has done is spread the word about whatever it is.
There have been plenty of examples of artists thanking people for 'sharing' their work because how else can they get the word out there?
Similarly, it hasn't cost '2 million' americans jobs like it has been claimed
(see the image at the bottom of the link)
Edit:Inappropriate link deleted.
EditV2.0
(I have no idea why the link was inappropriate but for anyone interested it was maddox's website)

I won't say that piracy is a good thing (although in some cases it can be - namely publicity) but it certainly isn't as bad as the media companies that claim to be dying from it make it out to be, no where near as bad.

I still firmly believe that megaupload should not have been taken down.
If there's an acre of storage garages and some people store ilegal stuff in a few of them, is it correct to raise the whole lot to the ground?
I think notanother little point, slightly off topic but it seems it's kinda drifted over here
it seems that most of the companies that oppose SOPA are smaller companies that would actually be hurt by piracy, the ones that support it are the ones who in all actuallity are probably barely effected by it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_that_support_the_Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

 

[rollcast]

They'll never stamp out piracy completely just like they'll never completely eradicate other forms of low-level crime, unless we turn in an Orwellian 1984 Big Brother society.

The major problems will come if megaupload ends with a successful conviction for piracy then we're getting into egg shell territory where they will start cracking down more and more.

I'm a Brit but to me this looks like option 2 if the americans don't get SOPA passed - if we can't block then we'll drag you here with an extradition notice and charge you with online piracy.

 

[nitsuj]

Of the musicians I know, the ones who "don't mind it" are mostly those who wouldn't make any serious money out of any delivery system, simply because they aren't good enough. The ones who are good enough to make money want to keep on making it.

The irony is that the clock is actually getting turned backwards about 50 years, to the days when you got known by playing live gigs, not uploading mashups of other people's music onto websites. Get 50 people in a room somewhere, and don't let them out till they pay you $10 each for a some merchandising, and you make some real $$, not a few virtual friends on the web. Of course having the real $$ in your pocket might then change your attitide to the geek on the back row who recorded the gig on a cellphone and posted it on YouTube...

Point one is terrible, what do you know of music if you call some musicians "not good enough" to make serious money.

Can't be so blind as to believe it is more a talent thing then a distribution and marketing thing. That's laughable.

The only good thing I could say of entertainment-capitalism is at least it isn't milking resources, just the artists & consumers. (of course there are all sorts of different examples, such as the band U2 / Radiohead on the other end)

Capitalism picked up copyright protection and ran with it all the way to the bank. And boo hoo when people don't feel morally obligated to purchase something of little to no value. As has been pointed out here previously, it's not like it's bread & water.

Despite the lack of sustenance in entertainment, you could potentially have your rights & freedoms stripped for being in violation of someones copyright protection. That's quite a leap, bridged by pre$$ure from the "entertainment" industry.

And yea I think I get your last comment, greed is perpetual isn't it? I think that may be simply a generation+culture thing. Consumerism on this scale is still relatively new. It will be interesting to see how the "East" handles entertainment-capitalism & copyright protection. I would almost go as far as to say it is a western phenomena. I like to think entertainment is more a product of the people (society) then a product (talking pop movies & music only) of the entertainment industry.

Maybe this analogy sucks, but what if Einstein realized that he wasn't gunna get filthy rich for his historical work (done with his mind), and decided to keep it to himself. Sticking with the comparison, it's interesting to consider the relatedness of art & science even in this sense. The "creators" of successful scientific theories are comparatively poorly rewarded by society for their efforts, and that's fine, but "cheat" music/movie distribution companies of a fraction of their revenues and here comes the ground breaking legislation.

I think at the heart of copyright protection it's about recognition (and in turn ownership), not cash. Entertainment-capitalism literately flipped that around.

 

[nitsuj]

And, have no illusion about it, this [SOPA] is not being contemplated to protect the rights of the authors, song-writers and performers out there (who deserve your support...so if you steal their stuff, shame on you). No, this is at the behest of the large media corporations who see their profits dwindling in an increasingly digital world. Now, I don't know about you, but I feel that granting "corporations" the same inherent rights as actual people, is the pinnacle of stupidity. EDIT: oh, and Steam totally rocks.

I agree completely, that's well said. You make the line I was trying to illustrate in my post much more clear. However I would say "...granting "corporations" the same inherent rights [copyright protection] as actual people, is the pinnacle of capitalism."

Perhaps people would not pirate music and videos if the distribution companies were treated like charitable organizations; having to file audited tax returns that show distribution of profits back to the community (appropriately to the "artistic community") and it being available for review by the public. Maybe in that sense the "entertainment industry" needs to get with the times. Too much of a moral disconnect between the copyright culprit and the artists with the music/movie distribution companies in between; combined with anonymity of piracy. Trying to solve that disconnect with that kinda legislation in this day and age will of course get significant backlash (to the point politicians feel the pressure).

That moral disconnect between copyright culprit and artist with the corporation in between has similarities to the disconnect between stock holders (owners) and artist with the corporation in between.

Maybe a company that does this not for profit model could use a "Fair-Trade" logo on the packaging. lol how fitting.

 

[rootX]

No, it's not like that.

You two both do point out the core: if you don't like it, don't buy it. That's exactly what's happening. The companies are not adapting to a changing world and as a result people are not buying their products anymore. Some people who don't like to buy still use the product, but that doesn't change the fact that no money comes into the drawer.

I don't like the car-buying process, so I don't have a car. I still commute from A to B and sit in cars. I see absolutely no need to steal a car, because I can get around fine without one. It's the car company's loss, because their business model is faulty.

I feel the entertainment industry needs to scratch behind their ears and wonder why people are not buying and how they could turn around that process. Alternative solutions are coming on the market, but it is still very sparse (at least in my area).

IMO some services are so complex (or obsolete) to use that it is much easier to go for alternatives. I pay for services like rdio/pandora because they easy to use and simple . There is no way I would pay to buy for example a CD, it just doesn't work, I only bought one or two cds but never used them more than once.

 

[rootX]

And let's get real with the "the entertainment industry just needs to get with the program" garbage.

You are being unrealistic.

In the absence of well established laws for internet and challenges in controlling the information sharing, you cannot get rid of piracy. Neither you can properly compare the internet scenarios with non-internet scenarios. The entertainment industry does need to get with the program, it cannot fix problems with extreme things like SOPA.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Of the musicians I know, the ones who "don't mind it" are mostly those who wouldn't make any serious money out of any delivery system, simply because they aren't good enough. The ones who are good enough to make money want to keep on making it.

Exactly. There are a few people who are already multi-multi-millionaires who have come out in support of piracy. However, I have yet to see someone who makes simply a decent living come out in support of piracy.

This is crap. Most of the musicians I have met that are hardline against piracy are small time artists who are not very good but think that they are great and ought to be making a lot of money except that some bastard somewhere is stealing from them. You realize that the whole punk genre became famous and mainstream and started making money only because of the sheer number of people spreading around bootleg cassettes? You can find multiple artists who have even gone to the trouble of finding the old bootlegs so they can upload them for free download. Green Day allegedly leaked one of their own recent albums before release.

Who are those multi millionaire artists that are hardline against piracy? The ones that own or are invested in record labels.

Unfortunately it is not on a site that is likely to be considered appropriate, and the source is in dutch, but there was a Dutch study that allegedly shows most artists either do not believe piracy hurts them or are not sure that it does (may have only been dutch artists surveyed). Apparently approximately 20% of the interviewed artists admitted to downloading pirated content from the internet themselves.

And let's get real with the "the entertainment industry just needs to get with the program" garbage. If I started printing counterfeit US currency, no one would argue that the US treasury just "needs to get with the program". The argument is even better with counterfeiting currency. The same arguments that are pro-piracy apply except the person selling to you actually gets money (excluding large transactions where the currency would be checked) as well!

If it became so easy to counterfeit currency that any kid with a PC could do it I am fairly certain that the consensus of those with a shred of intelligence would be that it is time to go paperless, that is to say "time for them to get with the program".

 

[Monique]

IMO some services are so complex (or obsolete) to use that it is much easier to go for alternatives. I pay for services like rdio/pandora because they easy to use and simple . There is no way I would pay to buy for example a CD, it just doesn't work, I only bought one or two cds but never used them more than once.

About ten years ago my boyfriend had the idea of streaming music, a website like Pandora, Sony laughed at him and told him it would never happen.

Now then ten years later I go to the Pandora website and get the following message:

We are deeply, deeply sorry to say that due to licensing constraints, we can no longer allow access to Pandora for listeners located outside of the U.S. We will continue to work diligently to realize the vision of a truly global Pandora, but for the time being we are required to restrict its use. We are very sad to have to do this, but there is no other alternative.

Sony is still laughing.

 

[Pythagorean]

In the words of Notch, if I write a bad review about a game/movie and cost them 10,000 in sales, am I a pirate?

 

[genericusrnme]

In the words of Notch, if I write a bad review about a game/movie and cost them 10,000 in sales, am I a pirate?

Resturants have sued bloggers for giving them poor reviews;
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/kuwait-restaurant-sues-blogger-for-bad-review

So maybe one day we could very well see bloggers being sued for having the audacity to claim that Call of Duty™®© isn't the single best gaming franchise ever to exist.

 

[wuliheron]

Forget the litigious nature of modern society, its all about the money these days. The courts have decided corporations are people with constitutional rights, but allowed them to continue repeatedly defrauding people to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars at a pop despite their bringing the entire world economy to its knees. Obama has warned CEOs they could go to jail if they continue to repeatedly hire illegal aliens and commit medicare fraud as if we should warn every bank robber to stop or they'll be arrested. When the law isn't applied equally and money buys you leniency and a get out of jail free card it becomes meaningless ritual and the Mafia starts to look appealing as an alternative.