Rob Furious
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 5, 2010 13:50:09 GMT -5
Posts: 1,373
|
Post by Rob Furious on Jan 21, 2012 18:48:28 GMT -5
I downloaded from Megaupload almost daily, lol. I'm really not too worried, how would they fine or jail the millions and millions that used that site, especially when a good portion of those people aren't American. Same here, I did upload some stuff too but it was just a few files that never got more than 10 downloads or anything like that. It's really messed up though.
|
|
|
Post by ahunter8056 on Jan 21, 2012 18:58:51 GMT -5
First thing that came to my mind when I read it lol. Was quite worried this morning when I watched JeepersMedia's video on it, but now after looking on wikipedia, it says there are 8 billion users on Megaupload. There is no way they can fine and jail everyone. So nothing really to worry about. LOLWUT? There are only 7 billion people in the entire world... My bad then.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 30, 2024 17:57:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2012 19:06:58 GMT -5
The chances of the US government actually suing that many people is extremely low. Plus it will be for downloading things like big movies and what not. The RIAA would LOVE to sue for this stuff but likely won't, their lawyers know the cost involved already. It's cheaper to all involved(including the government) to cut their losses and just let it be the warning for people. Seriously, I know the government likes wasting money for stupid crap; but even they should know how much it will waste on lawsuits for this. You're downplaying the stupidity of our government a bit. Piracy and the Internet go hand in hand at this point, trying to do things like this is just going to piss people off and cause circular logic to happen. This won't lead to everyone being more legit, this will just cause people to be sneakier for a while until it happens all over again. Actually make business models that can benefit the creator AND consumer and boom. I'm sure it wouldn't waste any more money than it is now and with that option, you aren't having sites being shut down on either side.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 21, 2012 19:21:14 GMT -5
I can buy a CD from a store.
I can then take that CD and sell it to someone else and then they can sell it to someone else and so on. The RIAA gets no money from me or anyone else selling that CD to someone else.
That is legal.
I can take the CD and rip the songs to my computer and give them out for free.
That is illegal.
So it's fine and dandy for me to make some money on the CD but illegal for me to give it away for free.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Old School™ on Jan 21, 2012 19:46:01 GMT -5
I think I may have used MegaUpload a time or two, but it wasn't anything really special. There are others out there, so they aren't really stopping anything by taking away MegaUpload.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 21, 2012 20:19:15 GMT -5
I can buy a CD from a store. I can then take that CD and sell it to someone else and then they can sell it to someone else and so on. The RIAA gets no money from me or anyone else selling that CD to someone else. That is legal. I can take the CD and rip the songs to my computer and give them out for free. That is illegal. So it's fine and dandy for me to make some money on the CD but illegal for me to give it away for free. Because you giving it away robs them of sales. There's no question that there's piracy on the web and no question that said piracy costs copyright holders money. The question is how much. That's not been sufficiently answered IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 30, 2024 17:57:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2012 20:24:02 GMT -5
Happened with Napster, Kazaa etc and now Megaupload. You can't stop piracy but you can only try and minimize it. They don't have the time to go after everyone. I doubt they would even if they did. Money laundering is probably the only thing Megaupload will get charged with.
|
|
facemeat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 24, 2011 0:38:10 GMT -5
Posts: 2,891
|
Post by facemeat on Jan 21, 2012 20:26:27 GMT -5
I can buy a CD from a store. I can then take that CD and sell it to someone else and then they can sell it to someone else and so on. The RIAA gets no money from me or anyone else selling that CD to someone else. That is legal. I can take the CD and rip the songs to my computer and give them out for free. That is illegal. So it's fine and dandy for me to make some money on the CD but illegal for me to give it away for free. Because you giving it away robs them of sales. There's no question that there's piracy on the web and no question that said piracy costs copyright holders money. The question is how much. That's not been sufficiently answered IMO. Selling used CD's also "robs them of sales", though. I'm not saying that selling a used CD is on par with piracy, but you can't really deny that they both "rob them of sales".
|
|
|
Post by Scotty on Jan 21, 2012 20:32:23 GMT -5
!
|
|
|
Post by ebilbryan™ on Jan 21, 2012 22:26:37 GMT -5
It's a ing shame that the government will just keep trying to pass bill after bill to severely limit, if not completely eliminate the rights of citizens. I would really hope that these bills would cause revolts if passed, but I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Mole on Jan 22, 2012 0:16:29 GMT -5
I can buy a CD from a store. I can then take that CD and sell it to someone else and then they can sell it to someone else and so on. The RIAA gets no money from me or anyone else selling that CD to someone else. That is legal. I can take the CD and rip the songs to my computer and give them out for free. That is illegal. So it's fine and dandy for me to make some money on the CD but illegal for me to give it away for free. The presumption (however misguided) is that even if that one CD crosses the hands of a million people, only person owns it at a time. 1 sale, 1 owner. If you rip a CD and put those files online, the nature of digital media means that if a million people download your files, a million people "own" that media simultaneously. 1 sale, 1 million owners. Like I said, it's an imperfect way of looking at ownership and piracy, especially in a world where even physical media is digital, but that's also why most physical media is riddled with copy protection.
|
|
One Love
Main Eventer
We Suck
Joined on: Aug 12, 2005 10:56:52 GMT -5
Posts: 4,589
|
Post by One Love on Jan 22, 2012 10:08:15 GMT -5
Would using zamzar count as something that might fall under this category?
|
|
|
Post by Tye Hyll on Jan 22, 2012 10:43:59 GMT -5
I can buy a CD from a store. I can then take that CD and sell it to someone else and then they can sell it to someone else and so on. The RIAA gets no money from me or anyone else selling that CD to someone else. That is legal. I can take the CD and rip the songs to my computer and give them out for free. That is illegal. So it's fine and dandy for me to make some money on the CD but illegal for me to give it away for free. The presumption (however misguided) is that even if that one CD crosses the hands of a million people, only person owns it at a time. 1 sale, 1 owner. If you rip a CD and put those files online, the nature of digital media means that if a million people download your files, a million people "own" that media simultaneously. 1 sale, 1 million owners. Like I said, it's an imperfect way of looking at ownership and piracy, especially in a world where even physical media is digital, but that's also why most physical media is riddled with copy protection. Each user could legally rip the songs off said CD for there own personal "backup" and then resell the cd and so on. Also it is actually illegal for anyone to view a DVD without purchasing it, to a certain degree.
|
|
|
Post by Mole on Jan 22, 2012 11:01:26 GMT -5
The presumption (however misguided) is that even if that one CD crosses the hands of a million people, only person owns it at a time. 1 sale, 1 owner. If you rip a CD and put those files online, the nature of digital media means that if a million people download your files, a million people "own" that media simultaneously. 1 sale, 1 million owners. Like I said, it's an imperfect way of looking at ownership and piracy, especially in a world where even physical media is digital, but that's also why most physical media is riddled with copy protection. Each user could legally rip the songs off said CD for there own personal "backup" and then resell the cd and so on. Also it is actually illegal for anyone to view a DVD without purchasing it, to a certain degree. Like I said, it's a flawed reasoning, but that's the only reasoning that justifies the disparity between legal action against people who share physical media and people who share digital media.
|
|
|
Post by Tye Hyll on Jan 22, 2012 11:06:42 GMT -5
Its all silliness, Im pretty sure this is why the video game industry wanted to bring down Gamestop at one point. But then you'd have to go after Amazon, ebay, its a whole mess. Sharing media is too deep and there really is no way of going back now.
|
|
|
Post by Angel Beast on Jan 22, 2012 13:29:54 GMT -5
Its all silliness, Im pretty sure this is why the video game industry wanted to bring down Gamestop at one point. But then you'd have to go after Amazon, ebay, its a whole mess. Sharing media is too deep and there really is no way of going back now. But the video game industry came up with a simple solution to make money off used games by having content made available through codes for free in never before purchased releases. If someone with used games wanted the content they'd have to pay for it. So places like Gamestop can still sell used games and the game industry can still make money off used games being sold.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 22, 2012 13:32:36 GMT -5
Each user could legally rip the songs off said CD for there own personal "backup" and then resell the cd and so on. Also it is actually illegal for anyone to view a DVD without purchasing it, to a certain degree. Like I said, it's a flawed reasoning, but that's the only reasoning that justifies the disparity between legal action against people who share physical media and people who share digital media. Sharing digital media is completely different from physical media. If I give you a CD, I no longer have access to it. The scarcity model still exists. If I give you digital media, I still have access to my copy. And you can give it to other people and I still maintain access. The digital world is completely and totally different from the analog one. It requires different rules that haven't been worked out yet.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 22, 2012 13:39:23 GMT -5
Like I said, it's a flawed reasoning, but that's the only reasoning that justifies the disparity between legal action against people who share physical media and people who share digital media. Sharing digital media is completely different from physical media. If I give you a CD, I no longer have access to it. The scarcity model still exists. If I give you digital media, I still have access to my copy. And you can give it to other people and I still maintain access. The digital world is completely and totally different from the analog one. It requires different rules that haven't been worked out yet. You can rip the songs from the CD and save them to your computer. You can then sell the CD while keeping the songs on your computer. I've never heard of someone getting in trouble for that.
|
|
|
Post by carling27 on Jan 22, 2012 17:57:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by carling27 on Jan 22, 2012 18:09:46 GMT -5
|
|