MegaUpload Has Been Taken Offline

Forums › Off topic › MegaUpload Has Been Taken Offline

1 | ... | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | ... | 40

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#585221 22-Feb-2012 16:14

1080p:
freitasm: Kim Dotcom granted bail " after new evidence came to light."

I wonder what is known now about this case?

That he does not have access to secret cash reserves.

I would have said the fact he got bail points to the probability that he does have access secret cash reserves.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#585301 22-Feb-2012 18:37

No doubt he has friends that will assist with the bail money.
Probably not music companies though :)

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#585308 22-Feb-2012 18:51

nzlemming: Germany, which does not extradite its citizens to the US.

This has been reported a lot, but I don't think it is actually true at all.

nzlemming

79 posts

Master Geek

#585338 22-Feb-2012 19:56

gzt:
This has been reported a lot, but I don't think it is actually true at all.

Article 16 of the Basic Law says you're mistaken.

EDIT: I'll amend that by saying that the 1978 Extradition Treaty between the US and Germany gives both sides an out if they really, really want to:

Article 7
(1) Neither of the Contracting Parties shall be bound to extradite its own nationals. The competent executive authority of the Requested State, however, shall have the power to grant the extradition of its own nationals if, in its discretion, this is deemed proper to do and provided the law of the Requested State does not so preclude.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#585446 23-Feb-2012 01:25

marmel:
Brendan:
marmel: Unlikely to prejudice any possible proceedings when the only people visiting the site are the ones that have been using it or the few that have picked up on the fact this action has taken place.

Unless it is widely reported in mainstream media I can't see it making any difference at all.

Are you a stakeholder in copyright law or enforcement?

It sure seems like it.

My view is fairly simple. If you want to download music or a movie that costs money via normal legal channels then I think you should pay for it, just like if you went to a store and made a purchase.

Whether you should pay less taking into account there's no physical production cost as such is another argument.

It's a simplistic view that disregards the changing attitudes of the public, but I understand the concept of your argument.

So no I don't have any stake in copyright law or enforcement but I just think even if you don't agree with music companies or copyright at all it doesnt give you the right to go out and download material for free.

There is a long history of public disobedience to law. Indeed, I think the argument is quite unequivocal: modern law is founded on centuries of civil disobedience being resolved with better laws each time.

I see no reason why copyright should not be the same. It's very clear the vast majority of the public disagree with the way it is being done now.

The only puzzle here is how you fail to recognize that, and insist on calling your opponents in the debate thieves.

So I agree with sites that allow such practices being shut down. Maybe something else will rise from the ashes ashes that will make both sides happy but I doubt it. It's apparent from this thread that some people just think they have a right to download anything on the internet for free regardless of what it is.

And no I'm not pointing the finger at anyone in particular its just a general statement about some of the replies throughout the thread.

I think you have swapped the real argument (that you cannot defeat) for a much weaker and more puerile one that you CAN defeat.

It's a strawman argument. It is beneath you, and I hope you see that soon.

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#585450 23-Feb-2012 01:44

Just a note to those vehemently opposed to violating copyright; do you know any musicians? Have you asked their opinions?

I am a part time musician & the majority of my peers are not against people downloading their music. Infact ask david dallas about the situation. He regrets charging for his first album as it reduced his exposure. He has reach far greater heights & financial success releasing The Rose Tint for free..

Ask Hollie Smith how the traditional music model worked out for her. She got left with a huge debt follow that system, & was in a far worst position after making an album.

Also just a quick question, let's say someone makes a rather average movie that makes a global profit of $320 million. I have no intention out seeing it at the cinema our buying the dvd. After a while before the dvd is released, I download it & watch it.
Can someone point out who has lost what in that scenario?

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek

#585498 23-Feb-2012 08:05

MikeyPI: Also just a quick question, let's say someone makes a rather average movie that makes a global profit of $320 million. I have no intention out seeing it at the cinema our buying the dvd. After a while before the dvd is released, I download it & watch it.

Can someone point out who has lost what in that scenario?

Nothing if it was just you, but perhaps if everyone did it then they wouldn't watch it when it was eventually broadcast on TV, so I guess the movie studio or the TV station might loose out.

I say might, because people I know will still watch something broadcast even when they own the DVD or it is 'on the computer'.

Glad to see Kim released on bail.

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#585579 23-Feb-2012 10:24

MikeyPI:
Also just a quick question, let's say someone makes a rather average movie that makes a global profit of $320 million. I have no intention out seeing it at the cinema our buying the dvd. After a while before the dvd is released, I download it & watch it.

Can someone point out who has lost what in that scenario?

This argument infuriates me, because it's flat out wrong. The fact that you watched it at all means that you decided you did in fact want to see it, therefore that film has some value to you. For you to claim that "I wouldn't pay for it anyway" is just an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that you're actually lying, because you did want to watch it and therefore were it not available for free you would have paid to do so or not watched it.

Why should you be allowed to have your cake and eat it too? Especially when if a corporation tries it, there's a massive outcry about how evil they are. I see a lot of this one sided logic from the pro-piracy fanatics.

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#585620 23-Feb-2012 11:23

turnin: No doubt he has friends that will assist with the bail money.
Probably not music companies though :)
?

I didn't think you needed to pay a bond for bail in New Zealand.

djrm

191 posts

Master Geek

#585648 23-Feb-2012 12:23

You can get charged for police bail but that, apparently doesn't happen. Most bails have terms such as the ones for Kim, within a certain distance from home, times etc.

I personally think this whole episodes stinks and see it as the FBI getting stung over SOPA and so hitting out at the biggest target. This is all to do with ego.

SCUBADOO

192 posts

Master Geek

#585671 23-Feb-2012 12:57

Kyanar:

This argument infuriates me, because it's flat out wrong. The fact that you watched it at all means that you decided you did in fact want to see it, therefore that film has some value to you. For you to claim that "I wouldn't pay for it anyway" is just an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that you're actually lying, because you did want to watch it and therefore were it not available for free you would have paid to do so or not watched it.

Why should you be allowed to have your cake and eat it too? Especially when if a corporation tries it, there's a massive outcry about how evil they are. I see a lot of this one sided logic from the pro-piracy fanatics.

Why should you be allowed to have your cake and eat it too

Kyanar

Why have you called someone a liar on this forum? Sorry "lying".

Mods: Is that allowed?

"This argument infuriates me, because it's flat out wrong."

Some people are easily upset.

"The fact that you watched it at all means that you decided you did in fact want to see it, therefore that film has some value to you"

Gosh I have often watched many programs of no interest to me in the past. How would you know until that occurs?

"For you to claim that "I wouldn't pay for it anyway""

Well I would not either - unless it does actually " has some value to you" (me).

"the fact that you're actually lying"

Mods - I do not know any other poster here - I do object to that!

"therefore were it not available for free you would have paid to do so or not watched it."

Very strange logic?

"Why should you be allowed to have your cake and eat it too?'

I do that every day.

"I see a lot of this one sided logic from the pro-piracy fanatics. '

I am not one of them.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#585673 23-Feb-2012 13:04

Objection noted. Also noted that Kyanar was not even replying to you, but to MikePI.

So now folks back to the "good ways".

nzlemming

79 posts

Master Geek

#585703 23-Feb-2012 13:43

SCUBADOO:

"therefore were it not available for free you would have paid to do so or not watched it."

Very strange logic?

Sadly, this is exactly the "logic" that the content industries have been successful in promoting among the lawmakers of the world. In my mind, it amounts to "why should you have something for free that I have to pay for?"

richms

28172 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#585706 23-Feb-2012 13:49

Not as strange as assigning losses to what is pirated that cant be bought.

Richard rich.ms

allan

2043 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#585707 23-Feb-2012 13:50

SCUBADOO:

"therefore were it not available for free you would have paid to do so or not watched it."

Very strange logic?

Except that if an appropriate mechanism were in place to allow both download and reasonable payment, he may actually have decided to pay and watch it anyway.

1 | ... | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | ... | 40