MegaUpload has been shut down
- Thread starter Scon
- Start date
You don't pay to watch the programme, aside from TV subscription costs. The Advertiser is paying the Television Company, there is no contract between you and the Advertisers or the Television Company. There is no instruction that I have to sit and watch the adverts, hell I don't even have to watch the whole television programme if I don't want to.
The difference between Person A and Person B in your example is that Person A is not doing anything wrong, they haven't broken a contract or defaulted any kind of payment they were supposed to make. Person B on the other hand has obtained a copy illegally. If they wanted to watch the show they could have either done so when it was on television, on a catchup service or purchased it on video.
As I said before, trying to argue that not seeing the adverts on television is akin to illegally downloading a film that is in the cinema is just plain silly.
Second that, some of the arguments people use to justify piracy are brilliant it's a bit like fox hunters say it's all about controlling fox populations when obviously it's really becuase they enjoy it. I wish the pirates would just put there hands up and admit what they are doing is wrong but they don't care instead of hiding behind lame excuses.
If nothing else this thread proves how we are living in an "entitlement" society.
People feel "entitled" to listen to music & watch films *illegally* just because they can. They say "we wouldn't have bought it, so nobody loses!" which almost entirely misses the point.
You haven't paid for it so you aren't supposed to have it. Whether you *think* it hurts anyone is besides the point. The law (which admittedly is an ass sometimes) & the rights holders say you can't have it if you don't pay for it.
Since the rights holders own it (or made it), they get to decide.
People feel "entitled" to listen to music & watch films *illegally* just because they can. They say "we wouldn't have bought it, so nobody loses!" which almost entirely misses the point.
You haven't paid for it so you aren't supposed to have it. Whether you *think* it hurts anyone is besides the point. The law (which admittedly is an ass sometimes) & the rights holders say you can't have it if you don't pay for it.
Since the rights holders own it (or made it), they get to decide.
The problem is when we buy something we tend to share it with friends/relatives. Well i do. I would lend a dvd to a mate. (communal, social etc)
Music and film executives see this as lost profit and breaking copyright.
THAT should set off warning alarms to everyone who uses the internet.
That they can do this without due legal process? Shouldnt the site remain live whilst an investigation takes place to determine guilty? That is, due process.
Small group of users fight back by taking down some of the companies they feel is responsible. (Anon)
Ultimately the government (even if they were reluctant to do so at first) will introduce uber restrictive laws governing the Internet. They will cite Anon as digital terrorists because of what they have done.
By fighting back it just forces the gov to fight back even harder. This is the beginning of the end of the internet as we know it.......
Music and film executives see this as lost profit and breaking copyright.
- On the one hand you have this immense and groundbreaking tool that lets us SHARE (social) what we have with friends = The Internet.
- On the other we have music/film companies (capitalism) increasingly using their power to try to stranglehold the internet.
THAT should set off warning alarms to everyone who uses the internet.
That they can do this without due legal process? Shouldnt the site remain live whilst an investigation takes place to determine guilty? That is, due process.
Small group of users fight back by taking down some of the companies they feel is responsible. (Anon)
Ultimately the government (even if they were reluctant to do so at first) will introduce uber restrictive laws governing the Internet. They will cite Anon as digital terrorists because of what they have done.
By fighting back it just forces the gov to fight back even harder. This is the beginning of the end of the internet as we know it.......
Don't confuse concepts. Capitalism has nothing to do with copyright and IP. Copyright is a direct intervention in capitalism by governments.
If big corporations = capitalism, then USSR was the stronghold of capitalism as they had arguably the biggest single corporation ever seen.
Lending a mate your DVD copy of Avatar is not the same as uploading it on the Internet, accessible to millions. Otherwise two soldiers are an army, and a handful of sand is a beach.
It may be the beginning of the end for effortless piracy, but the Internet is much more than a collection of illegal music and films (or porn!). Reports of the demise of the Internet are premature.
A megacorporation? Really? .....
Its the principle of the thing, sharing of knowledge and information is essentially being shut down. The reason given is because that which is being shared is illegal. I'm not condoning illegal activity but to shut down something that enables information exchange and is not by itself breaking the law. It is the content which is legal or illegal not the site itself.
Free information exchange is not synonmous with illegal/piracy. It is disturbing if you think that it is.
Well it's in their name...
But well, yes, it was one of the most visted sites on the web. They were making millions from it, which isn't going to go in their favor.
Last edited:
Almost everything you said there is wrong. And almost everyone here knows it.
So what exactly is the point of posting that here where you'll get shot down in an instant?
We all know what MegaUpload was for, and it wasn't the free flow of public-domain information.
LOL
How about you start, seeing as you're making a claim that they are removing freedom of information.
Well as i said in my previous post...
Content can be legal or illegal but a site that merely facilitates sharing of information? That can be termed illegal? File sharing is not illegal per se.
Otherwise every single site which has a similar facility e.g. facebook, youtube etc can be taken down without a thought by a US court order merely on the estimation that it has the potentiality to break copyright.
The problem is in doing this they basically have free reign to take down any other site which hosts files. Facebook, Flickr, Imgur, Tinypic, Hotfile, Rapidshare, etc. Are ALL subject to the same crap pulled here. I don't like it.
Exactly
SOPA (proposed US law) according to the interpretation of this chap on mashable would have drastic affects on untold numbers of websites across the world. Out of their jurisdiction surely?