Breaking News: Feds shut down file-sharing website Megaupload

[Gracie]

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.

[IAMFORTE]

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

[tSwitch]

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.

[Gracie]

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.

[Zylos]

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.

[TDS]

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.

[SirJackRex]

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.

[modern algebra]

This 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.

[tSwitch]

This 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.

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.

[Malson]

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.

[modern algebra]

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.

[tSwitch]

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.

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.

[SirJackRex]

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.

[Malson]

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.

[SirJackRex]

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

[Holkeye]

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.

[tSwitch]

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).

[Gracie]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=citzRjwk-sQ[/yt]

[SirJackRex]

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.

[Acolyte]

[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/