Quote
McLEAN, Virginia (AP) — Federal prosecutors have shut down one of the world's largest file-sharing sites, Megaupload.com, and charged its founder and others with violating piracy laws.The indictment accuses the company of costing copyright holders more than $500 million in lost revenue from pirated films and other content. The indictment was unsealed Thursday, one day after websites shut down in protest of two congressional proposals intended to thwart the online piracy of copyrighted movies and TV programs.Megaupload.com has claimed it is diligent in responding to complaints about pirated material.The indictment says at one point, Megaupload was the 13th most popular website in the world.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0HiB0PrdprLqIHlwUdYtB05l2sA?docId=c93737704b504930a11fc307d67b674d
Fuck the American government. Fuck SOPA and PIPA. Looks like all of Roph's hardwork uploading movies was in vain. MegaUpload definitely wasn't the best file-hosting service out there, but it was definitely the most popular. Gonna be
A LOT of broken links.
Anonymous is mad:
QuoteAnonymous has sure been quiet lately, but today's federal bust of Megaupload riled 'em up good: a retaliatory strike against DoJ.gov has left it completely dead.
DownForEveryoneOrJustMe.com is reporting the department's site as universally nuked, and an Anonymous-affiliated Twitter account is boasting success. This is almost certainly the result of a quickly-assembled DDoS attack—and easily the widest in scope we've seen in some time. If you had any doubts Anonymous is still a hacker wrecking ball, doubt no more.
Update: Anonymous says they've also knocked off the RIAA's site—looks down for us at the moment as well.
Update 2: Universal Music Group has also fallen off an e-cliff.
Update 3: Goodbye for now, MPAA.org.
Update 4: Affected sites are bouncing in and out of life, and are at the very least super slow to load. Anon agents are currently trying to coordinate their DDoS attacks in the same direction via IRC.
Update 5: The US Copyright Office joins the list.
http://gizmodo.com/5877679/anonymous-kills-department-of-justice-site-in-megaupload-revenge-strike
I'm speechless
Edit
I lolzd when I read what anonymous did
The internet is srs bsnz.
I must be dreaming... I can't believe they took down mega upload.
Quote from: IAMFORTE on January 19, 2012, 11:37:36 PM
I lolzd when I read what anonymous did
Same here
Update 12: Anonymous has released a statement about today's hacks.
http://pastebin.com/WEydcBVV (http://pastebin.com/WEydcBVV)
If I had any useful programming skills, I'd be fighting the war with them. Not that DDoS requires that, but... whatever.
Yeah, because downing the websites of government and businesses that generate next to no revenue from their web content is super effective. "Hey, let's take down a bunch of web pages that have no purpose except to provide information to the public! That'll cause the IP Department that they already pay minutes of panic!"
They might as well vandalize signs for a call centre. I think your government should really just abandon SOPA and PIPA and introduce laws where they can arrest people for being stupid.
I know that downing websites won't do much in the long run, but it definitely raises awareness.
I'd be in favour of the anti-stupidity laws, but I don't want to be fined every other day.
It does not raise awareness. No one goes to a site that they want to visit, see that it's down and thinks: "Oh! Wow! This must be a protest of x, y, or z. How wonderful!"
They either have no idea it was the result of an attack, or they think "Oh! Some dickheads prevented me from accessing information that I want or need." It inspires support about as much as taking down megaupload inspires your support for anti-piracy efforts.
It's nothing more sophisticated than a child's temper tantrum. Annoying? Yes. Effective? No.
Going to the website that's been taken down wouldn't raise support, no, but hearing and reading about it would make some people think, "Wow, what a ballsy move. Why did they do this? *Googles* Oh, this is more serious than I thought!", albeit not many people would do that. You are right in that the majority of people would dismiss it as just a nuisance though. But the small amount of people who learn more about the issue can still make a difference.
Besides, who doesn't know about SOPA at this point? If someone was up to date with the news, they wouldn't go on to the RIAA website and be surprised when they found out it was down. They would figure that some people got pissed and decided to be a nuisance.
Which is basically what Anonymous is all about. Being a nuisance.
I don't want to argue with you though, because you are right. There are much better ways to go about this.
Isn't our government supposed to represent the people? Who the fuck do they think they are?
Ugh, are they really so bold as to take down so popular of a site in the midst of the recent clamoring against the government's interference in internet activities? Man, they've got balls. Also, the sites Anonymous claims to have taken down look to be still kinda up to me. Was it a hasty fix or just an amusing story?
It was a couple hours ago. I checked some of them, they were down.
https://www.facebook.com/SenChrisDodd (https://www.facebook.com/SenChrisDodd)
Tell this man that the time for old men playing at things they don't understand is over.
whoa did not think this would happen any time soon. But wasn't the actual tipping-point a result of that music video they hosted, and not SOPA? Complete bullshit that was.
Quote from: modern algebra on January 20, 2012, 03:11:03 AM
Yeah, because downing the websites of government and businesses that generate next to no revenue from their web content is super effective. "Hey, let's take down a bunch of web pages that have no purpose except to provide information to the public! That'll cause the IP Department that they already pay minutes of panic!"
They might as well vandalize signs for a call centre. I think your government should really just abandon SOPA and PIPA and introduce laws where they can arrest people for being stupid.
Also, yes, finally. I can't stand Anonymous' sense entitlement and chivalry. More often than not their bold denunciations and threats are whiny, fruitless, and fueled by sophistry, and they often seem to target the wrong person or group. It's not that I disagree with their opinions, but most of the time they're so fucking sensational it's hard to take them seriously. But of course they're such a anarchist force to be reckoned with!!
It's like Doctor Oz for socially oppressed young adults with computers.
So. If protesting SOPA didn't stop things like this from happening, and Anonymous' attacks are pointless, then how, exactly, should we go about fighting the government on this? What else is left besides protests and Anonymous' hacking?
Quote from: Animefan on January 23, 2012, 08:55:13 PM
So. If protesting SOPA didn't stop things like this from happening, and Anonymous' attacks are pointless, then how, exactly, should we go about fighting the government on this? What else is left besides protests and Anonymous' hacking?
Getting more involved in politics, voting people out, boycotting specific things that actually hurt where it counts. Imagine something that would actually effect a partially/completely corrupted/ignorant politician.
Quote from: Animefan on January 23, 2012, 08:55:13 PM
So. If protesting SOPA didn't stop things like this from happening, and Anonymous' attacks are pointless, then how, exactly, should we go about fighting the government on this? What else is left besides protests and Anonymous' hacking?
Megaupload was still found guilty of hosting illegal content regardless if SOPA was passed or not. It's not like there's internet immunity just because it was shelved.
Quote from: Doctor Sword on January 23, 2012, 09:03:35 PM
Quote from: Animefan on January 23, 2012, 08:55:13 PM
So. If protesting SOPA didn't stop things like this from happening, and Anonymous' attacks are pointless, then how, exactly, should we go about fighting the government on this? What else is left besides protests and Anonymous' hacking?
Megaupload was still found guilty of hosting illegal content regardless if SOPA was passed or not. It's not like there's internet immunity just because it was shelved.
No, but I believe the FBI went after Megaupload because SOPA didn't succeed. Not because the two are related, but because they're determined to curtail piracy one way or another.
Okay champ
Whatever you say.
Quote from: Animefan on January 23, 2012, 09:12:07 PM
Quote from: Doctor Sword on January 23, 2012, 09:03:35 PM
Quote from: Animefan on January 23, 2012, 08:55:13 PM
So. If protesting SOPA didn't stop things like this from happening, and Anonymous' attacks are pointless, then how, exactly, should we go about fighting the government on this? What else is left besides protests and Anonymous' hacking?
Megaupload was still found guilty of hosting illegal content regardless if SOPA was passed or not. It's not like there's internet immunity just because it was shelved.
No, but I believe the FBI went after Megaupload because SOPA didn't succeed.
:rlol:
Actually, that raises a legitimate question: How long DID it take them to go through the legal process to take down such a major website and confiscate such a enormous amount of money? Earliest date I can ever find in any news sources is just the original take down of the site on the 19th, followed by the arrests the next day. It's obvious that even the FBI has a number of hoops to go through before they could pull something of this size off, but their timing is so horrible that it makes me wonder when they started all this.
This article (http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6288082/Kiwis-arrested-in-internet-piracy-bust) states that the FBI contacted New Zealand police in early 2011.
Here's the indictment, (http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment) if you're curious.
www.megaupload.com - Closed by the FBI
www.filesonic.com - Filesharing disabled/FBI investigation
www.fileserve.com - Files are being removed/FBI investigation
www.uploaded.to - Blocked in US
www.rapidshare.com - Fate unknown
www.mediafire.com - Fate unknown/rumor of FBI hearing in 90 days
QuoteIn the wake of the U.S. government's shutdown of the file-sharing site Megaupload, another file-sharing and storage service has decided to make the "sharing" part of its service a thing of the past.FileSonic — a cloud locker that grants users 10 GB of free storage for 30 days — didn't mention Megaupload in a statement on its Web site that announced the changes over the weekend. But it was clear that the company is worried about its users sharing things they shouldn't.
"All sharing functionality on FileSonic is now disabled. Our service can only be used to upload and retrieve files that you have uploaded personally," says a red banner on the site's main page.Web services that allow customers to share and upload files should be spooked, Eric Goldman, a professor of intellectual property law at Santa Clara University told The Washington Post's Cecilia Kang on Friday. "They will wonder if they have done anything different from Megaupload, and does that mean the Feds will come through their door," he said.For it's part, FileSonic has changed the slogans and description of its service on its main page, though clicking through for more information on its premium plan does pull up a logo with the tag*line, "Upload. Store. Download. Share. We don't believe in limits."FileSonic did not immediately reply to a request for comment.On Monday, the Associated Press reportedthat Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom (who officially changed his last name from Schmitz) said that he is innocent and is not a flight risk at a hearing in New Zealand. A judge is expected to rule this week on whether Dotcom will be granted bail, the report said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/filesonic-cuts-file-sharing-after-megaupload-case/2012/01/23/gIQAvVS3KQ_story.html
it begins.
Fuck SOPA, we should be worrying about ACTA, its like SOPA but effects fucking everyone. SOPA was a distraction, ACTA has almost passed with smooth sailing.
If mediafire goes down, whats left to host from? I wonder if there will be a large boost in torrenting after all of this is said and done
The Megaupload shakedown is legitimate. There's emails from their servers showing that they were paying via the rewards program to people who they -knew- were uploading copyrighted content, and they themselves were mirroring it with dummy accounts. Not only that, but apparently money laundering is one of their offenses, that's pretty shady.
They're being given due process of the law, so this is perfectly fine with me. This is further proof that existing laws are more than enough to deal with legitimate piracy concerns.
Regardless of how big a deal you want to make out of this, paying people for uploading what you -know- is copyright protected content, as well as keeping it uploaded with dummy account, should be arrested and held a trial for.
Quote from: IAMFORTE on January 24, 2012, 03:35:07 PM
If mediafire goes down, whats left to host from? I wonder if there will be a large boost in torrenting after all of this is said and done
That would be beautifully ironic.
Quote from: Queen Gracie on January 24, 2012, 07:21:23 PM
Quote from: IAMFORTE on January 24, 2012, 03:35:07 PM
If mediafire goes down, whats left to host from? I wonder if there will be a large boost in torrenting after all of this is said and done
That would be beautifully ironic.
Yet wholly truthful too. If the government tries to regulate the internet to this extremity, then they are obviously only serving to invite fiercer anti-regulation efforts. Tech people are going to be working harder on safer anonymity and P2P sharing and such.
I imagine every single hosting service is scared witless right now, whether they've actually knowingly done anything wrong or not.
I wonder if the FBI has the power to start busting down doors because of any list of IP's they might have acquired in their seizures of those companies servers.
Although I think piracy affects the sales of products more than people would like to admit, I think that most anti piracy laws at this point would not help most companies very much, most people have gotten so used to getting free stuff that if that's taken away and they are met with some draconian DRM on their games it could put them off all together of buying stuff legally.
I don't know, but I doubt they will. Isn't too inconvenient, maybe even impossible, to try to tie every IP listed to a specific guilty party?
They already went after their select few, the owners, to prove their point. I think their goal was to stop what was effectively a group profiting from mass copyright infringement, not to get a hundred million teens and college students to pay millions in damages for downloading a free movie here and there.
Quote from: NAMKCOR on January 24, 2012, 04:58:25 PMThis is further proof that existing laws are more than enough to deal with legitimate piracy concerns.
Given how easy it is for me to find and download almost any copyrighted content I could ever want, with or without megaupload, I find that to be a dubious statement. In fact, taking down megaupload is one of the only examples I can think of where existing US piracy laws did anything at all to hinder piracy.
Quote from: modern algebra on January 24, 2012, 11:29:05 PM
Quote from: NAMKCOR on January 24, 2012, 04:58:25 PMThis is further proof that existing laws are more than enough to deal with legitimate piracy concerns.
Given how easy it is for me to find and download almost any copyrighted content I could ever want, with or without megaupload, I find that to be a dubious statement. In fact, taking down megaupload is one of the only examples I can think of where existing US piracy laws did anything at all to hinder piracy.
But the laws that exist are enough to deal with -serious- problems. Do you think it'd be a grand idea to arrest and/or fine every 15 year old that used "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor" in their youtube video?
I feel that punishments should be relatively equal to the crime committed, and if piracy was seriously impacting these peoples' lives the way they're claiming it is, wouldn't they already be broke and completely out of business? Or why don't they go the Valve route and make their service more attractive and convenient instead of treating all of their customers like felons because they put an mp3 (that they very well might have bought) and played it over a video stream? It's already been shown to work. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115085-Steam-Sales-Double-Again-in-2011)
I understand that piracy is illegal, but there have to be serious limitations and considerations before you start taking down websites and putting people in jail. I'm not trying to glorify or justify piracy here, just saying that there's more to be considered than just "he downloaded an mp3" before moving forward with legislation to make it even easier to arrest people for it.
Just saying.
Steam, Spotify, Netflix. Those guys are doing it right. It's easier for me to get my music, movies, and games now than if I were to scour the internet for a copy of it, and that's why I use all three of those services. In a lot of cases, it's a matter of convenience and not necessarily a need to curtail the costs of these products. Of course, that's not the case for everything, and there are plenty of people pirating programs like Photoshop because they don't want to shell out hundreds of dollars for it, but that's a different matter entirely and as far as I know Adobe has done next to nothing to stop it anyway.
Do I think the Megaupload takedown was justified? Sure, as long as the site owner(s) broke the law. But I'm not of the opinion that this is the start of some full-blown war against piracy in general, or that we should all be quaking in our seats if we've ever used the site for less-than-legal reasons. If a man were arrested for selling burned copies of DVDs on a city street, the cops wouldn't search every house nearby looking for the people who bought them.
Quote from: NAMKCOR on January 25, 2012, 05:42:55 PM
I understand that piracy is illegal, but there have to be serious limitations and considerations before you start taking down websites and putting people in jail. I'm not trying to glorify or justify piracy here, just saying that there's more to be considered than just "he downloaded an mp3" before moving forward with legislation to make it even easier to arrest people for it.
Sure, but I never suggested that and that's not really my point. My point is that if piracy laws were actually effective, then (a) there wouldn't be hundreds of webistes devoted to piracy and making tons of money off it; and (b) I wouldn't be able to download for free any piece of intellectual property I wanted, or at least I would need to put slightly more effort into it.
If piracy laws were effective they would prevent piracy. Piracy laws do not prevent piracy. Therefore, piracy laws are ineffective.
Quote from: Malson on January 25, 2012, 06:28:35 PM
Do I think the Megaupload takedown was justified? Sure, as long as the site owner(s) broke the law. But I'm not of the opinion that this is the start of some full-blown war against piracy in general, or that we should all be quaking in our seats if we've ever used the site for less-than-legal reasons. If a man were arrested for selling burned copies of DVDs on a city street, the cops wouldn't search every house nearby looking for the people who bought them.
Spot on, they're going after the source, SOPA and PIPA would have gone after the average person instead, giving people sentences like 5 years in prison for streaming 10 videos or songs in 6 months (if you own them, isn't it fair use?). Those sorts of disconnects between the severity of a crime and the severity of the punishment are unacceptable to me.
Quote from: modern algebra on January 25, 2012, 09:33:19 PM
Sure, but I never suggested that and that's not really my point. My point is that if piracy laws were actually effective, then (a) there wouldn't be hundreds of webistes devoted to piracy and making tons of money off it; and (b) I wouldn't be able to download for free any piece of intellectual property I wanted, or at least I would need to put slightly more effort into it.
If piracy laws were effective they would prevent piracy. Piracy laws do not prevent piracy. Therefore, piracy laws are ineffective.
Well while I can see that, laws don't ever prevent anything from happening, they just punish you when you do. Laws against theft and murder don't prevent either, they just punish people for breaking them.
It's impossible for a law to prevent things from happening just by existing, it's the threat of punishment that is supposed to do that, but there are always plenty of people that are willing to break it anyway, so it's difficult to judge an 'effective' law by that standard, in my opinion.
modern algebra's underlying crux is more or less dam the river, water won't flow, not imprison the people so they can no longer drink from it. Each individual route is ultimately futile, yes? To curb piracy they'd have to stop both, which seems impossible. Too many people actively participate in sharing files and multimedia to the point where it's become a global cultural movement. edit: what I'm saying is the line between the sources and the consumers has blurred, nor is it actual creation and consumption in a physical goods sense.
The prohibition was pretty much useless, and alcohol is effectively finite. I don't see data being prohibited in any way any time soon.
I agree with MA. Current laws are ineffective. I not complaining, but it's still too easy to download copyrighted material. It's not even that it's epitome of easy, or too pervasive, it's just there for anyone to do. Steam, Spotify, and Netflix are impertinent because the alternative still exists in droves.
I wasn't arguing that those services abolish piracy. I'm just saying that they curb the need to pirate their respective forms of media by offering it in a way that's generally faster, easier and more convenient than their illegal alternatives. I think this is the route that should be taken; rather than attempting (in futility, I might add) to end piracy, just shift the industry into a business model that renders it practically useless. Unfortunately, that might be a pipe dream as well because people will always avoid paying for something if they don't have to, but I think it's a start.
Oh okay, definitely! But I don't think anything like that will go from fruition to dominance, (I personally prefer buying physical music; CDs and vinyl through a good stereo far exceed MP3s, and I actually have both) to digress a little: I don't think the music and movie industry necessarily want to shift in that direction, or at least they're reluctant to permanently alter their business strategies. Backlash from DRM and rampant piracy doesn't encourage incentivizing digital distribution. And I suppose the kicker is actually when you get an immediate download upon ordering a CD, or a DVD and digital copy with Blu-Rays, or Portal 2 on PS3. That's what I want to see more of. I guess that type of service isn't really feasible by all businesses.
For software, which is birthed for and lives exclusively on computers, there is nominal difference between physical and digital distribution. It's always been part of computers, so it's a natural evolution to be able to purchase and download and install it directly with no physical middleman. I don't feel like a digital purchase devalues the game. Same software, no casing (admittedly I like to proudly display my game cases).
My problem with music and video distribution is there's currently not a constant service level from what end you obtain. Therefore you have this awkward three-tiered distribution paradigm. You're not guaranteed the highest quality for price in ether digital or physical purchase. Most of the time there seems to be an okay parity, though. You can get both from piracy. Piracy is free and illegal and you're also voting "no" to the producers by not purchasing it, which potentially means less of that type of product.
It's an interesting topic worthy of discussion, not to derail the thread though. Pretty tired now /night
The problem is that piracy is an international issue.
But really, Gabe Newell said it best when he explained that its no longer about the goods, but the services. Steam keeps everything in one place, backs up my saves, gives me the ability to easily play with friends, gives bonus achievements, lets me trade, has customer support, automatically patches and updates... The list goes on and on. That alone is worth the small amount that they charge for games.
I actually think the biggest problem here is that RIAA and MPAA are afraid of becoming obsolete in an era where an artist can promote and produce themselves via independent channels easier and more effectively than ever before. Piracy is just what they're using as their banner while they try to get abusive file-sharing bans passed, which would also greatly hurt independent artists, and allow them to retain their hold over their industries without having to change their business model to adapt to new technology.
Sure DRM and piracy might deter companies from opening up digital distribution as an additional business model, but that's entirely backwards. As I linked earlier, Steam has been over doubling its profits yearly for a few years running, it's proof that a great service can be insanely successful. If anything, people want a legitimate digital distribution source, and right now the only solid and reliable one that treats you like a customer instead of a felon, is piracy.
What they should do is treat their artists better, and provide a service like Steam or Netflix, which would both increase the number of new people they sign and retain, while boosting sales. This would have a huge effect on piracy as well, much like how Steam is more convenient than piracy is (Generally).
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=citzRjwk-sQ[/yt]
Actually I was excluding software as a whole from my opinion of three-tiered digital distribution. I completely agree with Steam. It's a great service that provides me with support that's better than what I'd find from a physical product.
I don't buy digital albums when I can just buy the CD at a difference of $1-5. In the end, I have a better product because CD quality is better than MP3 and I can rip it to any quality I want. With netflix we've pretty much traded consistent quality for extreme convenience. It's fair, you don't constantly want to pause to buffer. But DVD and CD and vinyl is still better on average, it's not even close to Blu-ray and sometimes vinyl, and piracy can get you anything in between. That was my thought in that middle paragraph. Depending on what you want from music and movies, it seems like there's still no one source for it all except maybe piracy.
edit: also why that can't strongly incentivize because if producers gave unfair pricing to digital distributors, they could lose retail support which comes in the millions. Losing walmart or target is actually a really big deal.
Amazon's digital marketplace seems to be pretty great actually. A lot of music, videos, games. I've never purchased anything from it, though.
Quote from: Queen Gracie on January 26, 2012, 06:17:15 PM
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=citzRjwk-sQ[/yt]
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/or8ag/ive_read_the_final_version_of_acta_heres_what_you/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/or8ag/ive_read_the_final_version_of_acta_heres_what_you/)