MegaUpload has been shut down

Glaucus said:
Basically when people upload a file on megaupload, it's given a unique hash, if that file already exists, it doesn't upload the file, just generates a new unique URL for the user.
The report copyright procedure, only removed that particular URL and not the file or the other hundreds of unique URLs for that file. So they didn't actually remove the files at all.
Click to expand...

In reality they'd have no choice but to use deduplication technology otherwise the storage required would be prohibitive. The problem with deduplication is it makes deleting files far more complicated that if each file was a separate entity.

Now I'm not excusing them as they could take down the files if requested. It would just take more work than deleting a single file.
 
Glaucus said:
Disagree on first part, agree on second part. A crime has punishment which is a deterrent. It shouldn't just be costs. No other crime is.

As for proof, I totally agree.



I didn't say combine it with theft, and I also stated that it isn't like theft and should have a lower punishment bracket, so try again on that point.




Why should they?
Also it wouldn't work any way, cheap vs free I wonder how many would change. Some will perhaps even lots. It doesn't tackle the issue though.
Food's cheap and easy to access. People still steal it.
Speedings easy to avoid, most of us still speed.
Click to expand...

Question for you AH...

If someone took a photo of a piece of artwork, say in a gallery, should they be charged as a criminal?

Same thing in reality, you have duplicated someones work without their consent and as such you appear to be arguing that person should get a criminal record and fine...?

In another example, a street painter (someone drawing things on pavements) draws an image, someone takes a photo (without his consent) and uses it as their desktop background. Should the artist be able to get them charged for infringement of ip?

Just because it is images rather than moving images or music why should it be any different?
 
LordSplodge said:
In reality they'd have no choice but to use deduplication technology otherwise the storage required would be prohibitive. The problem with deduplication is it makes deleting files far more complicated that if each file was a separate entity.

Now I'm not excusing them as they could take down the files if requested. It would just take more work than deleting a single file.
Click to expand...

The issue was not with duplication and it's not hard at all to remove the file. It's all linked back to the file and they already used. Such a system for child pornography.

Why would it be difficult, the system actually makes it easier, all links go back to one file. Delete the file from any of those links and all links die.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
If someone took a photo of a piece of artwork, say in a gallery, should they be charged as a criminal?

Same thing in reality, you have duplicated someones work without their consent and as such you appear to be arguing that person should get a criminal record and fine...?

?
Click to expand...

It's not the same thing at all, a photograph is not an inpdentical copy. It's not even close. So probably a lesser offence again. Although most galleries will not let you take photos and you have a right to film and take pictures in public, so street art is pointless question as its in the public and you have a right to picture and film.
Artists already have some rights. I don't know the law enough but:
General photography is not permitted in the MCA galleries. If you wish to seek copyright approval to photograph work for publication or personal use please contact the MCA's Publicity and Public Relations department via [email protected].
Click to expand...

Oh and most people wouldn't become a criminal. You don't get a criminal record for minor crimes, like speeding. Unless of course in extreme case, I belive you can?
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
It's not the same thing at all, a photograph is not an inpdentical copy. It's not even close. Is it an exact copy? No. Is it even remotely similar copy? No.
Artists already have some rights.
Click to expand...

Yet this debate has been going on since before the internet. Recording from radio? How about cammed versions of films from cinemas? They are not direct copies either, yet fall into the same area as downloading pristine copies* from the internet.

If you argue that a photographed copy of a piece of art is not the same then you must agree that a videos copy of a film is not the same either. Yet the film companies disagree with you.

*In fact they aren't pristine/identical copies at all. They are generally downsampled and poorer quality, just like taking a photo of a piece of drawn work.
 
How is recording from radio not direct copy? Other than a tiny bit of interference. It's still work created by the artists.

Not the same as a photograph of someone's work, also see my edit.

Why would I have to agree.
One the videos, radio etc. is the actual work from the artists. A photogparh of a painting, is not the work from the artists, it's at best a combination of you and them both acting as artists. Not only has the format changed. But it's totally different. It's no longer an oil painting that an artist has spent hours on. Although as the link above says it has rights non the less.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
General photography is not permitted in the MCA galleries. If you wish to seek copyright approval to photograph work for publication or personal use please contact the MCA's Publicity and Public Relations department via [email protected].
Click to expand...


Oh and most people wouldn't become a criminal. You don't get a criminal record for minor crimes, like speeding. Unless of course in extreme case, I belive you can?
Click to expand...

Without using the "I don't live in Australia" argument... not permitted does not normally mean illegal. In the UK there would be issues of gaining permission in a private place to photograph (there are laws on this, they can ask you to leave, AFAIK not delete anything however, at least without taking you to court). This is not related to copyright however, rather privacy laws. That discussion does not cover the latter paragraph I wrote about art in public places.
 
Amp34 said:
This is not related to copyright however, rather privacy laws. That discussion does not cover the latter paragraph I wrote about art in public places.
Click to expand...

what discussion on public art? There isn't a discussion. You have a right to film and photograph in public. Hence if an artist uses or displays art in public they forfeit their rights.

How about a Scottish gallery
Conservation. Repeated exposure to flash photography can, over time, bleach works out and cause colours to fade.
Copyright. Copyright for works remains with the artist and their descendants. The National Galleries can reproduce images as we have the correct permissions and licence. Contact the Picture Library on 0131 624 6260 or email [email protected][/email[/B]]. Taking photos of the buildings themselves from the outside is permitted.* High quality photography of the National Galleries of Scotland buildings is also available from the Picture Library.[/QUOTE]
They still have certain copyright protection.
Click to expand...
 
Glaucus said:
How is recording from radio not direct copy? Other than a tiny bit of interference. It's still work created by the artists.

Not the same as a photograph of someone's work, also see my edit.

Why would I have to agree.
One the videos, radio etc. is the actual work from the artists. A photogparh of a painting, is not the work from the artists, it's at best a combination of you and them both acting as artists. Not only has the format changed. But it's totally different. It's no longer an oil painting that an artist has spent hours on. Although as the link above says it has rights non the less.
Click to expand...

Yet if if someone with a reasonable amount of skill and reasonable consumer camera took a photo of a painting it would be very difficult to tell it wasn't a direct copy. That is the whole point, it's exactly the same point as someone camming in a cinema. That is a combination of, as you put it, both acting as artists.

I cannot see how you can't see that they are the same. Just because one is is filming something produced by a big corporation and another is someone filming* something by a "nobody" does not mean it is different. In the UK artists/content creators have automatic copyright over their own creations, both have equal rights under UK law. Yet you are arguing the opposite.

*By filming, the only difference between the two is that one is multiple frames and the other is a single frame...
 
Glaucus said:
what discussion on public art? There isn't a discussion. You have a right to film and photograph in public. Hence if an artist uses or displays art in public they forfeit their rights.

How about a Scottish gallery

They still have certain copyright protection.
Click to expand...

Yes I know, that's my argument...

EDIT: You appear to be mixing up two issues here.

In the UK, as I stated, content creators (whatever format) have automatic copyright.

Permission to photograph in a building is a completely different issue.

Whether you are in a building or a public place the copyright remains the same, however permission to photograph/video (in that area) changes.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
Yet if if someone with a reasonable amount of skill and reasonable consumer camera took a photo of a painting it would be very difficult to tell it wasn't a direct copy. That is the whole point, it's exactly the same point as someone camming in a cinema. That is a combination of, as you put it, both acting as artists.

I cannot see how you can't see that they are the same. Just because one is is filming something produced by a big corporation and another is someone filming* something by a "nobody" does not mean it is different. In the UK artists/content creators have automatic copyright over their own creations, both have equal rights under UK law. Yet you are arguing the opposite.

*...
Click to expand...
Now we get to emotive argument with no basis. So the artists known world wide and sell for millions for one piece of art are noboadys are they? Of course not, silly argument.

They just aren't the same at all. One is a digital media. One is anything from oil painting to metal statues. A photograph is not reproducing or copying the art, in anywhere near the same level as a xvid or what ever format you want to use.
Now if you are talking about ripping of digital artwork on deviant art, then yes that would be identical and so should fall under same rule.

And no yet again, your totally failing to see the difference, it has nothing to do with one frame or multiple frams. Is a three d piece of artwork copied in detail by a photograph? No it isn't.
 
Last edited:
I am still waiting for the day when these studios get their act together and licence all their films to a service like Netflix or Lovefilm so I can watch any film I like whenever I like in at least 720p. I can buy blu rays for films where I want full on 1080p and lossless audio. At the the moment Netflix/Lovefilm have awful quality streaming, severely limited catalogues and terrible interfaces. I think Apple will come along and do the same thing they did with MP3 players - other companies were already making MP3 players before Apple came along, but apple built a better interface on their device and created a large catalogue of music that people could get basically any song they wanted from. Apple will most likely launch a slick interface similar to iTunes and they will have a massive catalogue of films available to stream straight to your TV. Then we can finally start the shift from the outdated model of waiting for a show or film to be shown at a specific time to a completely on demand model. iPlayer and 4OD and the like have the right idea, but we need a consolidated provider like Sky/Virgin to bring the content together into one delivery method. I think within the next decade we will perceive the current model of waiting for terrestrial signals to be broadcast at specific times to be absolutely bonkers.
 
Glaucus said:
Now we get to emotive argument with no basis. So the artists known world wide and sell for millions for one piece of art are noboadys are they? Of course not, silly argument.

They just aren't the same at all. One is a digital media. One is anything from oil painting to metal statues. A photograph is not reproducing or copying the art, in anywhere near the same level as a xvid or what ever format you want to use.
Now if you are talking about ripping of digital artwork on deviant art, then yes that would be identical and so should fall under same rule.

And no yet again, your totally failing to see the difference, it has nothing to do with one frame or multiple frams.
Click to expand...

You appear to be failing to grasp what I have said. Nowhere did I say "artists known world wide and sell for millions for one piece of art are noboadys (sic)". The "nobody" I was referring to was the street artist, the "artists known world wide and sell for millions for one piece of art are noboadys" is the big corporation. In law both have the same rights, yet you appear to suggest they do not.

You have also not explained how someone taking a photo of a piece of art is different to someone filming a video. Bearing in mind a piece of art (and at this point I should say I am a photographer) can be a photo... So taking a photo of a photo is somehow different to filming a film?
 
Amp34 said:
You have also not explained how someone taking a photo of a piece of art is different to someone filming a video. Bearing in mind a piece of art (and at this point I should say I am a photographer) can be a photo... So taking a photo of a photo is somehow different to filming a film?
Click to expand...

it's quite simple. Does a camera capture and reproduce the 3d effect of oil paintings, or reproduce a 60meter sculpture? No it doesn't. So it isn't the same. No, taking a photo of a photo depending where said photo was, would be like copying a picture from deviant art or filming a film.

As for street artists, why do you keep banging on about that, if they do art in a public place they have no rights, however you do have legal rights to film and take pictures in public places. So please drop that point. It's pointless.
 
RationalGaze said:
I am still waiting for the day when these studios get their act together and licence all their films to a service like Netflix or Lovefilm so I can watch any film I like whenever I like in at least 720p. I can buy blu rays for films where I want full on 1080p and lossless audio. At the the moment Netflix/Lovefilm have awful quality streaming, severely limited catalogues and terrible interfaces. I think Apple will come along and do the same thing they did with MP3 players - other companies were already making MP3 players before Apple came along, but apple built a better interface on their device and created a large catalogue of music that people could get basically any song they wanted from. Apple will most likely launch a slick interface similar to iTunes and they will have a massive catalogue of films available to stream straight to your TV. Then we can finally start the shift from the outdated model of waiting for a show or film to be shown at a specific time to a completely on demand model. iPlayer and 4OD and the like have the right idea, but we need a consolidated provider like Sky/Virgin to bring the content together into one delivery method. I think within the next decade we will perceive the current model of waiting for terrestrial signals to be broadcast at specific times to be absolutely bonkers.
Click to expand...

I can't wait for that. When films are available to download on a variety of devices in high quality people will pay for them. We already see this in the music area, with zune, spotify etc. subscriptions, as soon as this quality is reached for films then I will be getting a subscription to that as well.

Currently that is not the case, instead you either have to buy the DVD and transfer it to your computer (or carry DVD's everywhere) or you can just download it in high quality with the touch of a few buttons and a lot less hassle. Unfortunately the latter is "piracy" at the moment, yet far less hassle for most people...
 
Amp34 said:
Currently that is not the case, instead you either have to buy the DVD and transfer it to your computer...
Click to expand...

that's generally not legal either :(, we need far more rights as consumers, to format shift as well as make as many copies as we want for personal use.
 
Glaucus said:
How is recording from radio not direct copy? Other than a tiny bit of interference. It's still work created by the artists.
.
Click to expand...

Go watch this Ted Talk and see how the media industry lost the right to stop home recordings from radio/tv and mix tapes. Then see how they made it so media couldn't be copied (a la the DMCA)

With SOPA and other bills they keep making the scope broader. It won't work, people want to share. That's the founding thought behind the Internet. They need to get a 21st century business practise not legislate.
 
LordSplodge said:
Go watch this Ted Talk and see how the media industry lost the right to stop home recordings from radio/tv and mix tapes. Then see how they made it so media couldn't be copied (a la the DMCA)

.
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with anything.

No they won't stop it, however you can remove it from the masses and turn it back it to a niche.

As for people want to share, that's not a justification. Most males want to get their groove on with girls. We don't go around rapping. Most of us want to speed and do speed, doesn't give us the right to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom