Feds Shut Down Popular File-sharing Website Megaupload!

Are you an artists just to make shitloads of money, or are you an artist to reach as many people as possible with your work?

 

IMO, it should not matter. You put all the effort and time in to create something, people are not entitled to just take it for free. Now if you are a-okay with that, fine, but if you aren't, even though a bit unrealistic these days I think as it will happen anyhow, you still have a right to want to protect your stuff. It shouldn't matter whether you are in it solely for money or out of the sake of doing it though.

 

And yes, if you burn an mp3 to a CD the quality remains that of the mp3, it does not magically increase the quality

 

That's what I thought, but just wanted to check

What about stealing copyrighted photos and placing them on your desktop? I'm sure EVERYONE has done that once or twice.

I wish the general public could have been rallied like this over the light bulb ban

 

 

 

Roman, just a bit confused here, but are you saying it is illegal to record music off the radio? If so, how is it legal to record programs off the television, but not legal to record something off the radio? The impression I had was recording things are fine so long as one doesn't try to sell them...?

It depends on what your purpose is... Sony v. Universal (the case that made the VCR legal) is a lot narrower than you seem to think.

 

It could be that they don't notice the difference.

Thats my point.

It depends on what your purpose is... Sony v. Universal (the case that made the VCR legal) is a lot narrower than you seem to think.

 

Is it legal if one's purpose is to just use the recording for their own enjoyment?

Tiesto is more original than a lot of artists out there, you just don't like him but to each him own. Since dubstep is the new thing even Britney Spears used it in her songs. Go with the flow and make money.

 

 

I'm pretty sure he has created trends as much as he has followed them. But the point was not whether or not he's an artist, a trendsetter or a commercial sellout, but the fact that he acknowledge that piracy makes him reach out to more people, creating a larger audience resulting in more concerts and more profit. This was before Spotify etc though.

 

 

I didn't say I didn't like him. I've got at least a dozen of his releases or tracks he helped produce. I don't think it is any secret him and basically every other artist including game creators produce in an attempt at least in part to make some $$$$. Making the assumption that piracy helps every artists bottom line is incorrect.

Maybe this has already been pointed out, but I'm pretty sure this "Kim Dotcom" is the same guy that was being a total douche nozzle in one of the gumball rallies across Europe. If I remember correctly, he was leaving ahead of the pack every morning and then claiming first place as well as doing a massive burnout on a golf course and flinging mud all over a group cars...

 

Edit: Yup... its him.

 

 

He must have had a lot of time on his hands because he was the #1 ranked player on Modern Warfare 3.

 

 

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/im...-205144239.html

I have to be honest.... Ive never been to this guys site before.... I can sort of ASSUME how his site worked from what Ive read here and in press reports, and it sounds like he was very MUCH violating the law...

 

I can tell you a couple of things for sure:

 

1. I am an EXPERT on U.S. and International copyright law. And I mean that in the LITERAL sense. I could walk into any courtroom in the country tomorrow morning and be qualified as an expert witness on the subject.

 

2. I use Youtube A LOT.

 

3. Youtube does NOT violate copyright law. Not from what I've seen.

 

I'm not questioning your credentials in copyright law.

 

Megaupload let users upload files and then lets other people download the files. If they want to download larger files or download quicker they pay Megaupload a subscription fee. Other sites, like Rapidshare use this same model.

 

I read through the indictment for Megaupload. The foundation of the case is that the owners/employees knew there was copyrighted content on the site, consumed the copyrighted content personally, and tried their best to prevent rights holders from removing the files. Another "key" point was that they failed to appoint a registered DMCA agent until a few years in. How many website owners know that they need to register a name and address with the US Copyright office for every website they own in order to fall under the DMCA safe harbor?

 

Take a look at the Viacom Youtube lawsuit. Youtube's founders knew there was illegal content on their site, most likely consumed it themselves, and wanted to minimize the removal of copyrighted content because it would slow down their business. If you used Youtube back in 05 or so, there were plenty of full length movies and TV shows on there. To this day I can find "videos" of copyrighted songs on Youtube of virtually any artist I've ever heard, including those rare enough that have limited to no digital music distribution.

 

Megaupload and Youtube were started in roughly the same time period. The difference is that Google bought Youtube and with it came essentially a billion dollar defense fund. Viacom lost their case.

I'm not questioning your credentials in copyright law.

 

Megaupload let users upload files and then lets other people download the files. If they want to download larger files or download quicker they pay Megaupload a subscription fee. Other sites, like Rapidshare use this same model.

 

I read through the indictment for Megaupload. The foundation of the case is that the owners/employees knew there was copyrighted content on the site, consumed the copyrighted content personally, and tried their best to prevent rights holders from removing the files. Another "key" point was that they failed to appoint a registered DMCA agent until a few years in. How many website owners know that they need to register a name and address with the US Copyright office for every website they own in order to fall under the DMCA safe harbor?

 

Take a look at the Viacom Youtube lawsuit. Youtube's founders knew there was illegal content on their site, most likely consumed it themselves, and wanted to minimize the removal of copyrighted content because it would slow down their business. If you used Youtube back in 05 or so, there were plenty of full length movies and TV shows on there. To this day I can find "videos" of copyrighted songs on Youtube of virtually any artist I've ever heard, including those rare enough that have limited to no digital music distribution.

 

Megaupload and Youtube were started in roughly the same time period. The difference is that Google bought Youtube and with it came essentially a billion dollar defense fund. Viacom lost their case.

 

 

The fact that you can find "videos" of copyrighted music on youtube isnt the end all of the story. Remember... Copyright is a Constitutionally recognized protection that is at odds with another constitutionally recognized protection- The First Amendment. And the USE of otherwise copyrighted materials for what is known as "FAIR USE" is RECOGNIZED in the Copyright law. Its a horribly complex analysis that has to be conducted on a case by case basis- It involves what type of material you use, how you use it, how much you use, and the economic impact the use has on the owner... I dont want to get into more than that here, but the stuff IVE seen on Youtube are FAIR USE... Fans who make NEW "tribute" type videos with a particular song as background (which is tiptoing in a greay area)... And PARODIES ABOUND on Youtube. Parodies are CLASSIC Fair Uses under the copyright act.

 

EG: The only original, none copyrighted material in this video is the VO.... And it is 100% NOT copyright infringement:

 

 

 

A few months ago I uploaded a video of my totally fcuking awesome Lamborghini Countach, with its dripping with awesome sauce ALPINE 7909 Head unit. To illustrate the AWESOMENESS of my AWESOMMY stereo, I had it playing one of my favorite songs. I got an email saying that the song I used was copyrighted.... Did I freak out? Nope. Did I take down my video? Nope. Why? Because Im a copyright lawyer and I know that what I did falls into the FAIR USE category. So they can blow me.

 

 

A few weeks ago I posted a video of a FIGHT I witnessed at a rock concert I was at. While the fight was going on the singer was singing away.... I got an email from youtube.... Did I take the video down? Nope. Why? The song was incidental to the NEWSWORTHY EVENT that was being reported by me. They can blow me.

And let's be honest, the music industry isn't so hard on YouTube these days because of the huge audience it draws in for their artists. You think the label really minds Katy Perry getting 200 million views? I'm sure the artists don't. YouTube has grown into a tool that is useful for marketing -- very useful -- and besides, none of us know the deals Google may or may not have with other companies these days. It might be illegal for MegaUpload to host a bunch of music, but that doesn't mean it is for Google. If companies saw some type of benefit or return on MegaUpload, they probably wouldn't care -- guess they don't and they do.

 

One headwind that Google doesn't really face is copyright infringement from TV, movies, and software. None of their services host software, so throw that out. TV/Movie content gets removed incredibly fast as well for those that care. I could search MegaUpload and find just about any major TV show or film. On YouTube, I won't find anything. RomanDad's video of music playing in the background got flagged -- a video that probably had 30 views. Clearly someone is doing a better job, and/or someone is intentionally doing a bad one.

 

And while this may have no legal basis, IMO, if MegaUpload can't afford or doesn't have the resources to police their content, then that is their problem. Not being able to follow the rules doesn't mean you get to break them. It means you just don't get to play the game.

And let's be honest, the music industry isn't so hard on YouTube these days because of the huge audience it draws in for their artists.

Youtube is also now running ads and PAYING the copyright owners. Which is really the point.

People use adblocker so they don't see any ads.

People use adblocker so they don't see any ads.

Smoe people do... So fcuking what? That doesnt effect the PAYMENT Youtube sends to the COPYRIGHT OWNERS. Maybe ADVERTISERS factor that in to the amount they pay YOUTUBE to run the ads.... But who gives a shit?

 

People DVR through TV commercials too.... And before that they ran to the fridge to get a drink. It has no effect on the advertising business model.

 

 

 

This is really NOT THAT COMPLICATED PEOPLE...

 

 

VIEWERS dont PAY Youtube... ADVERTISERS DO. Unless you work on Madison Avenue and are buying ads on Youtube, what the fcuk do you care who watches the ads?

 

VIEWERS ALSO dont pay the Copyright owners. YOUTUBE DOES. So they dont give a shit if anybody watches the ads either. Youtube gets paid by the advertisers regardless, and copyright holders get paid by Youtube regardless.

 

Neither Viewers, Youtube or copyright owners pay for the ads. Manufacturers of goods and services pay for those ads up front as well. And they base those payments on the perceived effectiveness of the ads. I suppose if the ad fails to deliver sales, they reconsider that ad agency.

 

But how in the fcuk does any of this have anything to do with whether the stuff on Youtube is copyright infringement?

 

 

Mother of fcuking God.

 

Had megaupload been tossing some cash at the owners of the copyrighted material they were ENCOURAGING people to pirate on their site, they wouldnt have been shut down EITHER. ITS ABOUT MONEY PEOPLE. Not who has the most behind them, but who is actually PAYING IT TO THE PEOPLE THE LAW SAYS ITS OWED TO.

I just wanted to mention it, that's all.

I just wanted to mention it, that's all.

Oh. Ok. I'm a little tense right now.

Judge rules warrant used to seize cash,property & cars should have never been issued and is null and void

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article....jectid=10792862

Now it's sounding like the trial may never happen because the government can't actually serve the company with the charges: http://abovethelaw.com/2012/04/megaupload-...radition-rules/:

What a clusterf###.

This Kim dotcom guy is familiar looking. Did he used to have a brabus S600 and took part in one of the first Gumball rallies? I think he may even have won the gumball once.

Now it's sounding like the trial may never happen because the government can't actually serve the company with the charges: http://abovethelaw.com/2012/04/megaupload-...radition-rules/:

What a clusterf###.

 

Possibly good for him personally, but MegaUpload is dead and not coming back, which is what they really wanted.

 

Huge legitimate competition is now available and mainstream (Dropbox, Google Drive, iCloud, etc,) and something tells me thing guy won't risk it again if he gets a break this time. He has a family and his life is borderline destroyed and he's at risk of losing everything. Even though he's always been doing one shady thing after another, I think this reality check will be the end of it.

Guy knows how to spend the money!

This Kim dotcom guy is familiar looking. Did he used to have a brabus S600 and took part in one of the first Gumball rallies? I think he may even have won the gumball once.

 

Yup, its him... I noticed that too. See post #81.

Yup, its him... I noticed that too. See post #81.

 

ahh sorry, I missed that post. If memory serves correctly he had a Brabus S600 and a brabus CL at the same gumball rally.