MegaUpload Has Been Taken Offline

Forums › Off topic › MegaUpload Has Been Taken Offline

1 | ... | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ... | 40

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#576681 3-Feb-2012 09:51

tdgeek: This is a bizarre thread. It ultimately is not about Dotcom or MU, its about copyright.

Not really at all. This thread is about the Mega Upload service, but it has become a discussion on copyright.

Mega Upload will argue that they (a) provide a service and they (b) were not the infringing party, and further (c) that they provided the required and legally mandated service to DCMA claimants.

My personal feeling is that it is a shame the Internet after so many years of being an unregulated and practically unstoppable platform is now becoming highly regulated and filtered.

For instance Google is now removing search results based on DCMA notices:

"In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org"

What are the alternatives to rampant DCMA and the like?

The media corporates should step up and meet this market.

You would think a search for "beyonce torrent" would display advertising for any number of copyright compliant services which provide beyonce's music via torrent. You would think any number of copyright compliant services would pop up in the first page. But, no and no. Not one single item.

After so many many years, choice of platform is tiny, with practically no effective competition in the market. It has all the appearance of a highly regulated monopoly.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 68

#576690 3-Feb-2012 10:19

So downloading copyrighted films is wrong, because creators are not fairly paid for the work they produce.

OK, so it's an issue of morality, not so much legality. Personally, I think the argument "but it's illegal" is a bit hollow in a democracy and sounds a bit like "but mum said we aren't allowed".

We see plenty of examples of corporate immorality everyday; for example massive Apple profits on the backs of Foxconn working conditions and so on. The corporate argument is that they are getting the goods for the lowest possible price. They may not breaking the law in the country where they operate, but they may have bought the law there anyway.

The point is we see this as immoral, irrelevant of legality.

So, isn't a person who downloads material just getting the goods at the cheapest possible price? That is bandwidth and the required equipment. It may be illegal, it may not as very few cases have actually gone to court. But how does the moral argument differ?

Why should people pay more than they have too for movies when corporations don't pay more than they have too for labour?

If something is wrong then it's wrong, correct?

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#576691 3-Feb-2012 10:25

GZT

With genuine respect, I feel your post that the internet is is now becoming highly regulated and filtered is a bit emotive and exaggerated.

It is huge to say the least, it is free to use, and you do not need an ID, a fee, or a registration to use the internet. It is free to use due to advertising. In life, everything we do is regulated, in birth we are certified and identifed, and in death, and everywhere in between.

There are minor controls over the internet. Spam filters, copyright infringment as you mentioned, the DIA child abuse filter. Allowing such actions to avoid the inconvenience of spam that has no value, and for some, a cost, to avoid child abuse content, and to have filters for illegal content is a small price to pay for a free service. The same cannot be said of some countres that filter for political reasons, in effect controlling a factor of the population by removal off free speech.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user

#576700 3-Feb-2012 10:35

marmel:
Bad law means people ignore it. Good law is law that people find sensible and reasonable.?

I think the laws around assaulting someone are pretty good. Plenty of people ignore that?

The fact is people ignore laws all the time for a large number of reasons. Sit in court for a few days and you will hear the same stupid excuses time after time.

I wonder what we'd find if we compared the number of people who ignore the law regarding assault and the law regarding copyright infringement. My guess is that an exponentially larger number of people ignore the copyright law (either through ignorance or intent) and I think this is the point being made.

Even if we were to interview all of those people and ask them if they believe what they did was wrong. I think the numbers would still weigh heavily in the copyright infringement category.

I have said this before; to all those who close their ears and call copyright infringement theft, to all those who refuse to consider another alternative to our current law, you are achieving nothing but to expose your own ignorance and narrow-mindedness.

@tdgeek
Son, you need to cool off the personal attacks on people who express a point of view. Not only is it rude, your attempts to poison the well only discredit your own views.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#576710 3-Feb-2012 10:46

The whole "its not theft" is hokum. It's a smoke screen put up by those who don't want their toy taken away.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41071

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#576713 3-Feb-2012 10:50

crackrdbycracku: So downloading copyrighted films is wrong, because creators are not fairly paid for the work they produce.

Correct.

crackrdbycracku: OK, so it's an issue of morality, not so much legality. Personally, I think the argument "but it's illegal" is a bit hollow in a democracy and sounds a bit like "but mum said we aren't allowed".

It became a "legal" issue when laws were created around because creators (or rights holders) felt they were not being paid for the fruit of their labour.

crackrdbycracku: We see plenty of examples of corporate immorality everyday; for example massive Apple profits on the backs of Foxconn working conditions and so on. The corporate argument is that they are getting the goods for the lowest possible price. They may not breaking the law in the country where they operate, but they may have bought the law there anyway.

Immoral? Yes. Illegal? No.

crackrdbycracku: The point is we see this as immoral, irrelevant of legality.

Dura lex, sed lex. The law is harsh but it is the law. You can't just go around the law because you don't like it. You can help change the law through your vote, by contacting your MP, Representative, Senator, Council and keep telling them about it.

crackrdbycracku: Why should people pay more than they have too for movies when corporations don't pay more than they have too for labour?

Corporations pay what the market dictactes. Consumers who keep buying their iPad, iPhone and Xbox, while knowing really well what's going on in China are responsible for this too.

I don't think the "corporation pay" argument applies in the creative industry as much as in the electronics industry. It's not like movies are made with slave labour.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 68

#576718 3-Feb-2012 10:53

KiwiNZ: The whole "its not theft" is hokum. It's a smoke screen put up by those who don't want their toy taken away.

Are you saying the people (industry groups) who say it is theft are not simply doing to it so their toy isn't taken away?

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#576721 3-Feb-2012 10:54

KiwiNZ: The whole "its not theft" is hokum. It's a smoke screen put up by those who don't want their toy taken away.

Fixed that for you:

The whole "it's ~~not~~ theft" thing is hokum. It's a smoke screen put up by those who don't want their ~~toy~~ monopoly position in the market taken away.

gzt: What are the alternatives to rampant DCMA and the like?

The media corporates should step up and meet this market.

You would think a search for "beyonce torrent" would display advertising for any number of copyright compliant services which provide beyonce's music via torrent. You would think any number of copyright compliant services would pop up in the first page. But, no and no. Not one single item.

After so many many years, choice of platform is tiny, with practically no effective competition in the market. It has all the appearance of a highly regulated monopoly.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#576722 3-Feb-2012 10:55

crackrdbycracku: So downloading copyrighted films is wrong, because creators are not fairly paid for the work they produce.

OK, so it's an issue of morality, not so much legality. Personally, I think the argument "but it's illegal" is a bit hollow in a democracy and sounds a bit like "but mum said we aren't allowed".

We see plenty of examples of corporate immorality everyday; for example massive Apple profits on the backs of Foxconn working conditions and so on. The corporate argument is that they are getting the goods for the lowest possible price. They may not breaking the law in the country where they operate, but they may have bought the law there anyway.

The point is we see this as immoral, irrelevant of legality.

So, isn't a person who downloads material just getting the goods at the cheapest possible price? That is bandwidth and the required equipment. It may be illegal, it may not as very few cases have actually gone to court. But how does the moral argument differ?

Why should people pay more than they have too for movies when corporations don't pay more than they have too for labour?

If something is wrong then it's wrong, correct?

Geez lost my post! In short, the creators are NOT paid. It is an issue of morality, and legality. Apple are not the only one in Asia with labour issues, but tall poppy sees them in the firing line, thats another topic, not relevant here. Cheapest possiboe price? Its free to you if you download a copyright file, not cheaper. Or do you see a burglar getting off a charge as he paid for it (getaway car, fuel, balaclavas!!!). Corporations pay the least, yes, so do medium businesses, and small businesses, and you and me when we shop.

If its legally wrong, its wrong. If its also morally wrong its wrong. If you take something for free that others pay for, thats wrong.

I'm not a copyright fanboy, I look at this from a neutral view. As I see it, we've been doing this for ages, and now that things are heating up, we don't like it. Those that argue that it's not a real physical thing are just trying to justify it to themselves.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#576724 3-Feb-2012 10:58

crackrdbycracku:
KiwiNZ: The whole "its not theft" is hokum. It's a smoke screen put up by those who don't want their toy taken away.

Are you saying the people (industry groups) who say it is theft are not simply doing to it so their toy isn't taken away?

*cough* *cough* *cough* geez what a smoke screen

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#576727 3-Feb-2012 11:00

gzt:
KiwiNZ: The whole "its not theft" is hokum. It's a smoke screen put up by those who don't want their toy taken away.

Fixed that for you:

The whole "it's not theft" thing is hokum. It's a smoke screen put up by those who don't want their toy monopoly position in the market taken away.

gzt: What are the alternatives to rampant DCMA and the like?

The media corporates should step up and meet this market.

You would think a search for "beyonce torrent" would display advertising for any number of copyright compliant services which provide beyonce's music via torrent. You would think any number of copyright compliant services would pop up in the first page. But, no and no. Not one single item.

After so many many years, choice of platform is tiny, with practically no effective competition in the market. It has all the appearance of a highly regulated monopoly.

How many Musicians are there? and that's a monopoly ????????????????????????????????????????????????

How many studios are there? and that's a monopoly ??????????????????????????????????????????????????

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#576728 3-Feb-2012 11:02

1080p:
marmel:
Bad law means people ignore it. Good law is law that people find sensible and reasonable.?

I think the laws around assaulting someone are pretty good. Plenty of people ignore that?

The fact is people ignore laws all the time for a large number of reasons. Sit in court for a few days and you will hear the same stupid excuses time after time.

I wonder what we'd find if we compared the number of people who ignore the law regarding assault and the law regarding copyright infringement. My guess is that an exponentially larger number of people ignore the copyright law (either through ignorance or intent) and I think this is the point being made.

Even if we were to interview all of those people and ask them if they believe what they did was wrong. I think the numbers would still weigh heavily in the copyright infringement category.

I have said this before; to all those who close their ears and call copyright infringement theft, to all those who refuse to consider another alternative to our current law, you are achieving nothing but to expose your own ignorance and narrow-mindedness.

@tdgeek
Son, you need to cool off the personal attacks on people who express a point of view. Not only is it rude, your attempts to poison the well only discredit your own views.

Attacks? I am just passing on my view, son. You disagree on my view thats fine, and you accuse me of poisoning others and being rude???

I quote
" to all those who close their ears"
" expose your own ignorance and narrow-mindedness. "

Rude??" Perhaps you can keep the discussion as a discussion, rather than using such words to minimise others. There is plenty of discussion here for readers to make their own opinion

As regards your point over the higher numbers of infringers as compared to assaulters, I agree. Are you saying that as many do this, its ok?

nzlemming

79 posts

Master Geek

#576762 3-Feb-2012 12:16

tdgeek: Entirely the wrong term?? It is if you support taking something that others pay for, that you do not.

You are making a moral judgement here which is not supported by the law. This is because theft is about removing property from a person who rightfully possesses it so that they don't have it any more.

When a file is copied, nothing is removed except the potential for a sale, which may or may not eventuate. Potential is not something that can be accurately measured, or stolen.

If you won't accurately use the terminology, then we cannot discuss anything.

nzlemming

79 posts

Master Geek

#576767 3-Feb-2012 12:22

marmel:
I think the laws around assaulting someone are pretty good. Plenty of people ignore that?

The majority of people do not assault others and even those who do assault others mostly recognize that the law is a good one. That's not the same thing as ignoring a bad law.

The fact is people ignore laws all the time for a large number of reasons. Sit in court for a few days and you will hear the same stupid excuses time after time.

Actually, I have and have been on juries as well.

You're making an illogical connection: bad laws are ignored by people, therefore all laws people ignore must be bad laws. I did not say that (and would not) but feel free to work without a logical framework to support you.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#576777 3-Feb-2012 12:43

Yes, we cannot discuss anything as you have determined that you are correct, and those that do not support your views are incorrect.

1 | ... | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ... | 40