Megaupload closed by US officials

[Alan Fry]

Megaupload will not be the last "victim" of the crackdown agaist Piracy!

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Can you give me an example, with the associated rationale, of a studio doing this?

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/201...h-spotify.html
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/200...c-service.html
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/200...ce-limits.html
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/201...ent-music.html

Virgin originally planned to launch an "Unlimited", DRM-free and P2P (File Sharing) based music download and streaming service, with the help of Universal Music, back in 2009 (possible names: Music Fish or Music Unlimited). Sadly several major record labels including EMI, Sony Music and Warner Music have persistently scuttled their ambitions (here, here and here); usually due to concerns over price and functionality (Virgin has always sought to offer 'unlimited' downloads, which is a tough sell for Rights Holders).

Dinosaurs not willing to move with the times.

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:29 ----------

Originally Posted by thenry

Anonymous - Don't Mess With Us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2WqU-HvyUI

Good on them i say. Its about time

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Tell me this, if your car / tv / cooker / or any other physical product breaks outside of a warranty or guarantee do you just go and take another citing the same "justifications" that you've already paid for one so you see no reason why you should pay for a replacement?

Not the best example is it really ,your example consists of replacing a broken item i.e tv with a different item.The intelectual property that a person pays for in the original cd cannot be broken only the medium it is played on .
We have had this discussion before a couple of weeks ago which got quite heated and we all understand your point that is is illegal .What you are struggling with ,imo is that it is virtually unenforceable ,and yes ,you are correct again that that is not a reason in itself to break the law but there have been many partitions /demonstrations for a change in the law and governments and companies are not listening to what people want and at the end of the day it is people that make the law not governments and companies.
All the proof that both companies and governments need for a big change in copyright law is out there ,if the companies don't or can't adapt to the wishes of their customers then more fool them .
As for closing down Megaupload ...meh ....plenty more out there ,the yanks are chasing their tales on this

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Sirius

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/201...h-spotify.html
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/200...c-service.html
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/200...ce-limits.html
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/201...ent-music.html



Dinosaurs not willing to move with the times.

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:29 ----------



Good on them i say. Its about time

Cheers. I refer you to the rationale - from your own quote. "usually due to concerns over price and functionality (Virgin has always sought to offer 'unlimited' downloads, which is a tough sell for Rights Holders). "

They are not "anti - technology" they are pro "fair rate".

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

Not the best example is it really ,your example consists of replacing a broken item i.e tv with a different item.The intelectual property that a person pays for in the original cd cannot be broken only the medium it is played on .

He is right though, Mr Angry. it's a stupid example

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

Not the best example is it really ,your example consists of replacing a broken item i.e tv with a different item.The intelectual property that a person pays for in the original cd cannot be broken only the medium it is played on .
We have had this discussion before a couple of weeks ago which got quite heated and we all understand your point that is is illegal .What you are struggling with ,imo is that it is virtually unenforceable ,and yes ,you are correct again that that is not a reason in itself to break the law but there have been many partitions /demonstrations for a change in the law and governments and companies are not listening to what people want and at the end of the day it is people that make the law not governments and companies.
All the proof that both companies and governments need for a big change in copyright law is out there ,if the companies don't or can't adapt to the wishes of their customers then more fool them .
As for closing down Megaupload ...meh ....plenty more out there ,the yanks are chasing their tales on this

Marty,

The intellectual property cannot be replaced under the terms of the original licence. I'd invite you to read my earlier reference in this thread in relation to wrongfully perceived entitlement.

I'm not struggling with the fact that it's unenforceable - again I'd invite you to read my comments in this thread - specifically the link supplied to Daniel.

It is you who is struggling with the concept of "unenforced" vs "unenforcable", there is a difference.

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Marty, I'd invite you to read my earlier reference in this thread in relation to wrongfully perceived entitlement.

I'm not struggling with the fact that it's unenforceable - again I'd invite you to read my comments in this thread - specifically the link supplied to Daniel.

It is you who is struggling with the concept of "unenforced" vs "unenforcable", there is a difference.

Not at all ,it is unenforced (in most cases) simply because it is "unenforcable"(in most cases).If it was easy to prosecute then we would see many more prosecutions of invuduals .There are many defences for a individual to use if he/she should find themselves in court some are better than others but they are still defences and that is why i think this country will never make copyright infringment a criminal offence ,it's too hard to prove

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

Not at all ,it is unenforced (in most cases) simply because it is "unenforcable"(in most cases).If it was easy to prosecute then we would see many more prosecutions of invuduals .There are many defences for a individual to use if he/she should find themselves in court some are better than others but they are still defences and that is why i think this country will never make copyright infringment a criminal offence ,it's too hard to prove

We are drifting off topic I'm afraid.

On the matter of music which you own - within the UK it is acceptable to copy it to another format and previously stringent laws are unenforced because the UK music industry elect not to enforce it - again my earlier link clearly explains that.

Downloading something without the rights holders permission is illegal, whether you paid for a previous copy of it or not.

Irrespective of its standing in law (whether criminal or civil) or any defence offered it is still illegal. Even you have acknowledged that fact. Nothing you can say or do makes it legal. That is a fact.

[Damien]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

The intellectual property cannot be replaced under the terms of the original licence. I'd invite you to read my earlier reference in this thread in relation to wrongfully perceived entitlement.

I think there is a big moral difference between redownloading IP which you already have purchased a licence for and replacing a physical product. The first difference being to do with the cost of duplication where a taking a physical product deprives the manufacturer of the production cost whilst there is no loss of income from a copied file (presuming it isn't shared with someone who hasn't purchased the product previously). The other is to do with how the business works. A washing machine, a tv, isn't designed to last forever and the value is in the physical item itself. However with, say, a video the DVD is simply a method of distribution for the real product you are purchasing, the digital file.

Yes, it's still illegal but the difference here is moral. Right and Wrong is not always decided by what the law says.

---------- Post added at 16:12 ---------- Previous post was at 16:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Irrespective of its standing in law (whether criminal or civil) or any defence offered it is still illegal. Even you have acknowledged that fact. Nothing you can say or do makes it legal. That is a fact.

You seem to want to limit the debate to solely what is technically legal and what isn't. When discussing piracy we should also be asking if the laws make sense and are correct. You can't shut down that debate simply by insisting all the matters is what is legal or not.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think there is a big moral difference between redownloading IP which you already have purchased a licence for and replacing a physical product.

I appreciate where you are coming from Damien however moral issues are, for the greater part, irrelevant when it comes to the law.

Originally Posted by Damien

The first difference being to do with the cost of duplication where a taking a physical product deprives the manufacturer of the production cost whilst there is no loss of income from a copied file (presuming it isn't shared with someone who hasn't purchased the product previously).

The taking of a physical product argument is a rather convenient smokescreen to help people ease their consciences / moral barometer about the fact that they have illegally acquired something and someone, somewhere, is being deprived of legitimate income because of their having done so.

Originally Posted by Damien

The other is to do with how the business works. A washing machine, a tv, isn't designed to last forever and the value is in the physical item itself. However with, say, a video the DVD is simply a method of distribution for the real product you are purchasing, the digital file.

DVDs are not designed to last forever either.

Given the percentage of tracks which are purchased from digital sources which end up being infringed the argument of a download not necessarily representing a lost physical sale is fast becoming a moot point.

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes, it's still illegal but the difference here is moral.

See above re: moral issues.

Originally Posted by Damien

Right and Wrong is not always decided by what the law says.

On matters of law I think you'll find it is.

We could go on for years debating this issue - indeed we have done - but the fact is that downloading something which is subject to copyright and which you do not have the rights holders permission to download is currently illegal.

People will continue to delude / convince themselves that this is a victimless crime to try and ease their conscience but the fact is that it's not. Many of the people who lose out as a result of illegal downloads see it as theft / deprivation of their earnings / revenue. They see the tangible effect of wanton disregard and disrespect for their right / endeavours to make an income from their work.

It's unfortunate - but regrettably that's how it is. If people choose to consciously and effectively deprive these people of revenue then so be it. It would be better though if they just admitted that they were doing so rather than positing ridiculous arguments in an attempt to try and justify their actions.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Damien

You seem to want to limit the debate to solely what is technically legal and what isn't. When discussing piracy we should also be asking if the laws make sense and are correct. You can't shut down that debate simply by insisting all the matters is what is legal or not.

It's not really a matter of what's "technically" anything.

I'm not opposed to a review of copyright laws as they currently exist - I'm actually an advocate of copyright reform. The fact is we, as a social group, are bound by laws - coincidentally I'm an advocate for the discussion of laws (any of my posts re HR reflect this).

What I do take exception to however is people trying to justify their actions when they know they are illegal by putting forward inane, asinine arguments.

[alferret]

Mehhh!

I wondered why the T'interweb was quicker today what with 4% less traffic!

Bang out of order the US of friggin A. Telling people what they can & cant do & in countries that they (USA) have NO jurisdiction over.
I dont condone copyright infringement (much) but not only are they targeting site's which may offer copyrighted material they are targeting the free world.
The US does not own the internet, we the people of this planet own it, we pay to use it therefore have a vested interest in seeing it protected for us, not some conglomerate that have vast amounts of money that allows them to lobby governments and individuals who have the ability to make & pass laws.
Our fees keep it moving in the right direction > where as SOPA & PIPA want us to use it only according to their guideline's which in turn will slow down the development of the infrastructure. (well I think so anyway)
If companies wernt so greedy in the first place by charging extortionate amounts more people would be willing to part with their cash in a more legitimate way (although there will always be some who would refuse to buy anything) and they the rights holders & shareholders of companies would still be bloody rich, probably richer.
I love the ethos of Aldi, Lidl & the like. Stack em high, sell em cheap! It works so why cant all those companies like Sony, CBS, Time Warner, Disney do the same. I know why, GREED, those 5 little letters that spell out a word that has caused wars & destruction on a huge scale.
Where will it all end? Who knows, maybe each country will end up with its own isolated intranet where the laws of the land are adhered to and you\we are not subjected to law makers from other countries. Segregation?

[Gary L]

If I had my way all music would be only available as MP3 format. I'd make it law that it can be shared. the record companies have the option of making the music from the artist if they want, and they can take money from whoever's willing to pay for that music on MP3.

they can make their fortunes from the artists appearances/concerts and such.

after all. who needs millions if not billions of pounds anyway? it's just greed.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

What I do take exception to however is people trying to justify their actions when they know they are illegal by putting forward inane, asinine arguments.

But peoples justifications in the past have probably been the reason why certain laws have been changed.

it's a bit like the law with bins. people have 'justified' why the law is an ass, and it's been changed.

we could carry on saying the law is the law and that's it. but that would mean it never being looked at how stupid and out of date it may actually be.

[Damien]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

The taking of a physical product argument is a rather convenient smokescreen to help people ease their consciences / moral barometer about the fact that they have illegally acquired something and someone, somewhere, is being deprived of legitimate income becase of their having done so.

You can things that are against the law with a clean conscience easily. Something that is against the law is not automatically immoral. The physical product argument is not a smokescreen but a real difference that addresses the loss of earnings. The business model of entertainment companies is not based on the idea that you will repurchase the same work over time, instead they want to sell you new, different, works every so often. Whereas someone selling a physical product will depend on those items needing to be replaced. Big difference.

This is why we are seeing the industry allow you to re download a digital file or providing a digital file with a physical product. It is why the law is increasingly being seen as a nonsense and why software has mostly worked like this since the concept of software licencing was popularised. The industry does not expect you to buy the same work multiple times. The DVD is simply a distribution method. The laws on copyright were not intended to add an artificial shelf-life on your copy of a work, there were added to stop you distributing the file to others for free or for profit.

It's unfortunate - but regrettably that's how it is. If people choose to effectively steal revenue from these people then so be it but it would be better if they just admitted that they were doing so rather than positing ridiculous arguments in an attempt to try and justify their actions.

I rip my DVDs so I can put them on my Boxee box to watch them in a format I enjoy. I honestly do not care if you try to guilty me into stealing revenue because I know I am not. To suggest I should feel guilty is absurd.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Damien

I rip my DVDs so I can put them on my Boxee box to watch them in a format I enjoy. I honestly do not care if you try to guilty me into stealing revenue because I know I am not. To suggest I should feel guilty is absurd.

What he said!