Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://torrentfreak.com/cyberlocker-ecosystem-shocked-as-big-players-take-drastic-action-120123/

This is just one article of a few lurking on the internet. For those not wishing to read, the aftershock of Megaupload being taken down and it's CEO being arrested is now being felt at quite a force. Many popular filesharing sites have decided to remove their rewarding system and in more extreme cases, banned accounts and removed a mass of uploaded files. What this has ended up doing to said websites is allowing their users to download content they've uploaded - but that's it. No more downloading other content from other people. Whether this is a pre-emptive move so they don't get taken down as well, or a sudden realisation that their websites are policed poorly, is not certain. What is certain though is that filesharing websites may never be the same again.

Thoughts?

If people want something, they should pay for it. The self-righteous defense of piracy is getting old. You are not entitled to other people's work for free. It's not the same as stealing, but it is still wrong to put stuff up for mass consumption that someone else put time and effort into making.

So, I am glad that filesharing websites that allow the illegal distribution of other people's material are tightening up. I just wish many in the entertainment industry would realise that making online content easier to access would result in increased sales and less piracy.

Edit: Just realised that my post could look like it is pointed at you, Jovius, it is not.

The problem is that those sites are absolutely essential for software development. When you are looking up a custom driver or a very specific homemade utility or something, you are not going to be able to find it if these sites go away.

I know "open source" sounds like nonsense piracy apologism, but seriously, you can't work on open source stuff without places like megaupload existing. Any kind of pc tinkering and you're going to need a custom something that one person made one time and put on megaupload.

There is significantly more illegitimate use on sites like that than legitimate use, but the legitimate use basically cannot exist otherwise and that's an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What bothers me, though, is that the media companies don't want to do the legwork for their lawsuits anymore. They want more and more laws allowing them to ask the state to do their work for them. They want to take down entire sites instead of requesting specific files. They want to defend their IPs, but they want a free ride.

If a giant company infringes on my IP, I have to get a lawyer and sue them for years. If I infringe on theirs, they just have to ask youtube nicely and it's gone without any due process. That's kind of irritating considering they never account for fair use. Wide nets are not the way to go when speech is on the line.

Da Boss wrote:If people want something, they should pay for it. The self-righteous defense of piracy is getting old. You are not entitled to other people's work for free. It's not the same as stealing, but it is still wrong to put stuff up for mass consumption that someone else put time and effort into making.

So, I am glad that filesharing websites that allow the illegal distribution of other people's material are tightening up. I just wish many in the entertainment industry would realise that making online content easier to access would result in increased sales and less piracy.

Edit: Just realised that my post could look like it is pointed at you, Jovius, it is not.

Actually, this demonstrates SOPA is already in work.
I hope you dont agree with that?

Rented Tritium pretty much summed it up.

Even more, you really need filesharing, not for piracy only.

thenoobbomb wrote:Actually, this demonstrates SOPA is already in work.

Actually, it doesn't. This is a straightforward copyright criminal complaint (with attendant additional crimes and conspiracies charged).

Here's the indictment.

thenoobbomb wrote:I hope you dont agree with that?

Le sigh.

Tritium: I use open source software quite a bit, and I've never downloaded any of it from a site like megaupload.

The open source content providers are left alone, but if they are using a site involved in prolific illegal activity to distribute, they must expect the long arm of the law to catch them even inadvertantly at some point. The answer for them is that the sites they use must be policed more stringently, and they must agitate for more stringent policing so that they have a stable platform to work from.

thenoobbomb: SOPA is something else entirely than a site being taken down for allowing widespread piracy.

Tritium, you do have a good point about the advantage large corporations have over individuals with regard to lawsuits. That does indeed suck, but it is a separate issue to piracy.

Da Boss wrote:If people want something, they should pay for it. The self-righteous defense of piracy is getting old. You are not entitled to other people's work for free. It's not the same as stealing, but it is still wrong to put stuff up for mass consumption that someone else put time and effort into making.

What about stuff that isn't on general release and therefore cannot be paid for? I know of a case of material for the soundtrack for a TV ending up on the internet after the composer (allegedly) distributed it on the quiet. Although really, while the composer created it, he doesn't own it, merely has some royalty rights. Furthermore, when the Official Soundtrack was released, the track selection was slightly different meaning there never has been a legitimate way to get them all. On another occasion a composer sold a very limited run of a soundtrack to a made for TV movie. It was a few years ago, it will never receive a full release, and the copies available were never available on general retail.

There's also much older music that has never been released on forms other than vinyl. I think these cases are definitely in the grey, it's not like downloading the latest Hannah Montana stuff, it doesn't hurt anyone and supplies a demand the only way it can be.

There's also the distribution of fan made material, that may make use of copyright footage and soundtracks, but has a lot of other work put in to make it something that isn't generally available.

I don't believe in categorical imperatives, and it's easy to find fringe cases where these things are acceptable, but you know that's not what I was talking about, right?

Might as well just try to shut the whole internet down at this rate. Excuse me while I upload...hmm... copyrighted images all over the whole of the internet on all forums, facebook, and anywhere else I can. I think I'll try using a famous painting.

This crap is nonsense, and I can't believe it came out of the state I live in. megaupload was a file host, the issue is what was uploaded, and this has been a longstanding issue since the creation of file hosts. It just so happens there is a little more to megaupload that's hurting them right now in regards to this, but dammit all.

Can you explain why it's nonsense?

juraigamer wrote:
This crap is nonsense, and I can't believe it came out of the state I live in. megaupload was a file host, the issue is what was uploaded...

The issue was Megaupload profiting from copyrighted material, and its longstanding history of ignoring copyright complaints.

Open Source will survive.

Anyone can set up a file-sharing website, issue secure user accounts, and purge pirated copyright material and the people uploading them.

It helps keep out the riff-raff if you charge for the service.

dogma wrote:

juraigamer wrote:
This crap is nonsense, and I can't believe it came out of the state I live in. megaupload was a file host, the issue is what was uploaded...

The issue was Megaupload profiting from copyrighted material, and its longstanding history of ignoring copyright complaints.

Yup. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the copyrighted material wasn't there.

Well... nah we still would.

No-one has said anything about how Aspera Faspex has been taken down for file sharing.

juraigamer wrote:
Yup. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the copyrighted material wasn't there.

Well... nah we still would.

Well, there's something of a grey area here.

Youtube is what I'm most familiar with, so I'll go there. Youtube is very judicious in ensuring that its partners do not host copyrighted material, and just as judicious in ensuring that any copyright complaint is responded to; generally favoring the party filing the complaint. However, Youtube still hosts a large amount of copyrighted material. Either because it hasn't received a complaint, or because i has refused the complaint. Now, there is an argument to be made, that even if the content in question generates no ad revenue, that Youtube profits from its by way of incidental traffic.

This gray area is what SOPA and PIPA sought to codify, in favor of major publishers.

dogma wrote:Well, there's something of a grey area here.

Youtube is what I'm most familiar with, so I'll go there. Youtube is very judicious in ensuring that its partners do not host copyrighted material, and just as judicious in ensuring that any copyright complaint is responded to; generally favoring the party filing the complaint. However, Youtube still hosts a large amount of copyrighted material. Either because it hasn't received a complaint, or because i has refused the complaint. Now, there is an argument to be made, that even if the content in question generates no ad revenue, that Youtube profits from its by way of incidental traffic.

This gray area is what SOPA and PIPA sought to codify, in favor of major publishers.

I'm not sure what you mean by "grey area." From the context of your post it sounds like you're talking about Youtube's responsibility (or lack thereof) to takedown material which may or may not be infringing.

SOPA (haven't gone through PIPA) has nothing to do with these types of "grey areas," it has to do with international sites that are beyond the reach of DMCA takedown requests.

edit: there is a bit of a broadening of the criminal copyright statute, but I don't think that's what you were referring to either.

biccat wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "grey area." From the context of your post it sounds like you're talking about Youtube's responsibility (or lack thereof) to takedown material which may or may not be infringing.

If only Youtube got 2 points for the takedown, and the offending content got 2 points for the reversal, I would be cool.

biccat wrote:
SOPA (haven't gone through PIPA) has nothing to do with these types of "grey areas," it has to do with international sites that are beyond the reach of DMCA takedown requests.

edit: there is a bit of a broadening of the criminal copyright statute, but I don't think that's what you were referring to either.

I'm referring to Sec. 201.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
SOPA (haven't gone through PIPA) has nothing to do with these types of "grey areas," it has to do with international sites that are beyond the reach of DMCA takedown requests.

edit: there is a bit of a broadening of the criminal copyright statute, but I don't think that's what you were referring to either.

I'm referring to Sec. 201.

Section 201 is amending the current law. I had redlined the act in another thread.

If I recall correctly, the act is amended by inserting "including by electronic means" and "public performances" throughout. I don't think there was ever any question that copied material on Youtube is in fact infringing simply because it is streamed.

Although if you've read an article or something on section 201, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.

biccat wrote:
Although if you've read an article or something on section 201, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.

To be honest, and I may have said this before, I heard about the law, read the law, and sort of cast about as to its actual effect.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Although if you've read an article or something on section 201, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.

To be honest, and I may have said this before, I heard about the law, read the law, and sort of cast about as to its actual effect.

Fair enough.

I don't think anyone's really that concerned about section 201, at least not from what I've read. A lot of people really don't know what the law is, they just know that it gives corporations the power to shut down pirating websites.

God I hate being on the same side as Chris Dodd and Bill Maher. Although in my defense, people are paying Chris Dodd to side with me and Bill Maher didn't read the law, he just thinks Religulous would've been a smash hit if it weren't for those darn right-wing pirates.

(caution: biased site, video of him being a blithering idiot at the link)

Honestly I’m not surprised by this. The current “wild west” environment for electronic piracy was never going to be a permanent thing and there was always some sort of change on the horizon. Crackdowns on the distribution of electronic piracy have been discussed, as far as I am aware, for at least 5-10 years now.

The commercialisation of the internet and the accessibility of electronic distribution are still fairly new thing and a failure to adapt to the new environment IMO is what probably caused it. Probably the only real solution to the issue, as said by the Da Boss, would be for the entertainment industry to focus increasing the accessibly of content electronically (as well as decrease the price of electronic media). This has already started to happen already (with things like iTunes, ebooks, PSN/XBL, netflix) but more still needs to be done.

Personally this wouldn’t affect me as I’ve always liked buying products as apposed to downloading them.

Rented Tritium wrote:The problem is that those sites are absolutely essential for software development. When you are looking up a custom driver or a very specific homemade utility or something, you are not going to be able to find it if these sites go away.

I know "open source" sounds like nonsense piracy apologism, but seriously, you can't work on open source stuff without places like megaupload existing. Any kind of pc tinkering and you're going to need a custom something that one person made one time and put on megaupload.

There is significantly more illegitimate use on sites like that than legitimate use, but the legitimate use basically cannot exist otherwise and that's an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What bothers me, though, is that the media companies don't want to do the legwork for their lawsuits anymore. They want more and more laws allowing them to ask the state to do their work for them. They want to take down entire sites instead of requesting specific files. They want to defend their IPs, but they want a free ride.

If a giant company infringes on my IP, I have to get a lawyer and sue them for years. If I infringe on theirs, they just have to ask youtube nicely and it's gone without any due process. That's kind of irritating considering they never account for fair use. Wide nets are not the way to go when speech is on the line.

Honestly, there are better options than sites like megaupload for open source coding....

https://github.com/

I have never understood why they didn't shut down the library's. All that copy writed material being passed around. Or radio stations, which broadcast product on the first wireless networks. Other peoples IP and copyrighted material needs to be protected, but there should be reasonable standards for fair use. Especially in light of the US supreme court having decided that congress can recopywrite something that has already been in the public domain.

Insurgency Walker wrote:I have never understood why they didn't shut down the library's. All that copy writed material being passed around. Or radio stations, which broadcast product on the first wireless networks. Other peoples IP and copyrighted material needs to be protected, but there should be reasonable standards for fair use. Especially in light of the US supreme court having decided that congress can recopywrite something that has already been in the public domain.

You're trolling, right?

If you're not, I don't think you quite understand how radio stations and libraries work.

Honestly, anyone who tries to claim megaupload or any site like it is used primarily for legal uses is kidding themselves. It’s just nonsense. A move to shut down sites unwilling to effectively police the material on their site seems only a natural and sensible effort.

That doesn’t mean the ever expanding length of copyrights, and the incredibly over the top punishments for small scale piracy aren’t an issue, of course.

To me, though, when you look at the percentage of people who download copyrighted material regularly, it seems obvious you can’t ever stop it entirely. There will always be new download formats that skip around the law, no matter what laws you write you can’t stop supply when there’s a billion odd people looking to download. The genie is out of the bottle.

The thing you can do is offer a product that’s superior, at a price that’s low enough that people are willing to pay for those superior features. Among my old group of friends I was the only who still bought computer games, they simply downloaded as a matter of course, but once Steam came out, offering the games at a price significantly lower than retail, and with the convenience of download they all swapped over. I think there’s only one that still uses pirated games, and he still buys anything with multiplayer if he wants to play with the rest of the guys.

It’s a model that movie and music companies really need to get behind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Insurgency Walker wrote:I have never understood why they didn't shut down the library's. All that copy writed material being passed around. Or radio stations, which broadcast product on the first wireless networks. Other peoples IP and copyrighted material needs to be protected, but there should be reasonable standards for fair use. Especially in light of the US supreme court having decided that congress can recopywrite something that has already been in the public domain.

Umm, radio stations track every song they play, and submit these numbers to the RCA with payment for the use of those songs, who then forward royalty cheques on to the artists involved.

Libraries don't create new copies*, they merely loan out the copy they already bought. Like you taking a DVD you bought and lending it to a friend, or selling it at a garage sale.

Yes, there should be reasonable standards for fair use. That has nothing to do with making a movie freely available on an upload site.



*There are also specific allowances under statute for copying, but only for preservation of rare items, not really what we're talking about here.

sebster wrote:The thing you can do is offer a product that’s superior, at a price that’s low enough that people are willing to pay for those superior features. Among my old group of friends I was the only who still bought computer games, they simply downloaded as a matter of course, but once Steam came out, offering the games at a price significantly lower than retail, and with the convenience of download they all swapped over. I think there’s only one that still uses pirated games, and he still buys anything with multiplayer if he wants to play with the rest of the guys.

It’s a model that movie and music companies really need to get behind.

Pretty much this. Problem is the big American (lets be honest, they are American) businesses trying to get new laws like SOPA and PIPA through will not try to encourage sales from better services and cheaper prices because they won't make as much money; in their eyes anyway. Valve's pulled it off and they rake in millions (I assume), so why nobody else does it in other entertainment industries is rather confounding. I suppose it'll change when the current CEO's retire with gold-plated diamond-encrusted pensions and fresher people will take over with a better mindset.

Also I'd like to make it clear that I'm not condoning what's happening as a sin - only pointing it out since it hasn't been mentioned yet. I've never used torrenting or filesharing websites to gain illegal material

sebster wrote:The thing you can do is offer a product that’s superior, at a price that’s low enough that people are willing to pay for those superior features. Among my old group of friends I was the only who still bought computer games, they simply downloaded as a matter of course, but once Steam came out, offering the games at a price significantly lower than retail, and with the convenience of download they all swapped over. I think there’s only one that still uses pirated games, and he still buys anything with multiplayer if he wants to play with the rest of the guys.

It’s a model that movie and music companies really need to get behind.

iTunes and Netflix already apparently have satisfied these market needs.

Filesharing and torrent websites are really the last hurdles in the anti-piracy movement.

I'm not sure how they'll deal with torrents. Although eliminating easily accessible torrents will go a long way towards bringing piracy down to managable levels.

Book Publishers vs.Libraries

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/business/for-libraries-and-publishers-an-e-book-tug-of-war.html?_r=1

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/2012/01/publishers-hate-libraries-but-we-sort-of-knew-that.html

I guess publishers do hate public libraries.

Didn't we have this article some years ago when the same thing happened to Napster?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Filesharing and torrent websites are really the last hurdles in the anti-piracy movement.

Until the next one pops up.