MegaUpload has been shut down

[Amp34]

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.

If you are getting as pedantic as "3D effects" of oil paintings then I'll be pedantic and start talking about the sound effects, 3D and size of a cinema... I see where you are coming from but for a large number of paintings it really makes little difference, which is why people buy so many prints from galleries and why so many people have prints up at home as main feature art in their rooms.

As for the street artist, there were a number of reasons I wrote that. Firstly that gets away from the permissions issue you may have in a gallery, secondly they have the same copyright rights as the art in the gallery (as mentioned previously in the UK content creators have automatic copyright of things they create, the main difference is the permission to photograph issue, which isn't the same as a copyright issue). Thirdly it was to show that big companies and small single man bands have the same rights in the UK. So no I'm not going to drop it, it is an important part of the argument.


You believe they are all different, and believe some should be criminal, yet those same laws would have to apply to tourists taking photos of artwork, just as they do to people camming in cinemas and copying other work done by big companies. As soon a they start making money from that copy is another matter entirely however.

 

[alwyn]

Pity it got shut down, whats next ?

 

[Glaucus]

Have you watched the talk?

Most of it and it's mainly about SOPA/pipa, not general copyright. Just finishing it now.

It's still not relevant to the discussion.

If you are getting as pedantic as "3D effects" of oil paintings then I'll be pedantic and start talking about the sound effects, 3D and size of a cinema... r.

Put them in a lower catogry as well, these days most are not cinema filming that has pretty much died. It's DVD/blue-ray rips, be it release or test ones. Which have all the 3d and everything else.

You don't have to have one law fits all, we have many split laws. Or we have one law fits all, which have very big splits in punishment depending which parts of those laws you break.

 

[Amp34]

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.

True, AFAIK it is now legal to "backup" but not circumvent copy protection? Which means in reality you can't do it....

 

[Amp34]

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.

I dunno, some people do, especially on this forum...

(sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[LordSplodge]

Most of it and it's mainly about SOPA/pipa, not general copyright. Just finishing it now.

It's not mainly about SOPA. It actually is about how the content moguls won't adapt and keep lobbying for increasingly broad legislation rather than adapting. It also shows how human nature and the Internet work. People want to share.

This doesn't mean copyright infringement should be ignored but the way the media industry is dealing with it isn't the right way. People were given the right to record for their own use and the media corps lobbied to make media uncopiable. Essentially they got the right to modify the computers you own. When this failed they went after DNS. They even want to remove due process and make it guilty until proven innocent.

That isn't right and essentially is where we are now with MegaUpload. SOPA/PIPA would have made the situation a million times worse.

 

[LordSplodge]

True, AFAIK it is now legal to "backup" but not circumvent copy protection? Which means in reality you can't do it....

Yeah. See the law is too focused on the media corps side. We, the consumer, gets shafted.

If it wasn't for the Internet we'd still be paying £18 for a CD and more for DVDs. At least you can backup a CD. Not that they didn't try to copy protect and break the CD format though.

 

[Glaucus]

It's not mainly about SOPA. It actually is about how the content moguls won't adapt and keep lobbying for increasingly broad legislation rather than adapting. It also shows how human nature and the Internet work. People want to share.
.

Most of it is about SOPA.
And it's mainly drivel. Wow they want to police us. Well yeah. What do you thing law is. Wow humans want to share. That's nothing new, Internet didn't start that and it also means nothing, just becuase we want to do stuff, doesn't mean we should be able to.
He brings up good points about SOPA but we already know that and this isn't the SOPA discussion thread.

As for the modifying your computer with out knowledge, that is just lol worthy. Everyone news about hdpc and other protection methods. It's not some underhand stuff.That's also an American law not uk.

Fight against speeding hasn't worked, does that mean we make speeding legal?
There is no way to stop copyright infrengment, you can make it much harder for the masses though.

 

[LordSplodge]

Most of it is about SOPA.
And it's mainly drivel. Wow they want to police us. Well yeah. What do you thing law is. Wow humans want to share. That's nothing new, Internet didn't start that and it also means nothing, just becuase we want to do stuff, doesn't mean we should be able to.
He brings up good points about SOPA but we already know that and this isn't the SOPA discussion thread.

As for the modifying your computer with out knowledge, that is just lol worthy. Everyone news about hdpc and other protection methods. It's not some underhand stuff.That's also an American law not uk.

So you really think that we don't parrot American law? Look at the DEA for evidence that we do. Nevermind our willingness to extradite somebody for providing links and breaking no UK Law yet not extraditing known terrorists..

As for the rest well if an eloquent TED talk doesn't point out why these laws are wrong and how the industry is stuck in the past then we will remain diametrically opposed.

You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Hopefully this new social journalism will help keep future laws that don't represent the people in check. It's like the Occupy movements, power is (as it should be) shifting from Government to its citizens.

 

[Glaucus]

So you really think that we don't parrot American law? Look at the DEA for evidence that we do. Nevermind our willingness to extradite somebody for providing links and breaking no UK Law yet not extraditing known terrorists..

As for the rest well if an eloquent TED talk doesn't point out why these laws are wrong and how the industry is stuck in the past then we will remain diametrically opposed.

You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Hopefully this new social journalism will help keep future laws that don't represent the people in check. It's like the , power is (as it should be) shifting from Government to its citizens.

Do I need to repeat my selfs? This isn't a thread on SOPA
Not broken any UK laws? The judge disagrees with you there.
Parrot American law? No we really don't. Something's are similar, but no we do not blindly copy US law.

Eloquent? No he talks a lot of republish with a littel sense. Try's to make out that sharing is something new due to Internet and should be protected, tries to make out companies break your devices underhand (which they don't), tries to say if it's unpolicable give up. Well in that case you might as well throw all laws out. Non are policeable in the true sense.

 

[LordSplodge]

Do I need to repeat my selfs? This isn't a thread on SOPA
Not broken any UK laws? The judge disagrees with you there.
Parrot American law? No we really don't. Something's are similar, but no we do not blindly copy US law.

Eloquent? No he talks a lot of republish with a littel sense. Try's to make out that eps haring is something new and should be protected, tries to make out companies break your devices underhand (which they don't), tries to say if it's unpolicable give up. Well in that case you might as well throw all laws out. Non are policeable in the true sense.

See, like I said; we are diametrically opposed as our views are entirely opposite!

 

[Glaucus]

See, like I said; we are diametrically opposed as our views are entirely opposite!

Or blinded.

People try to defend copyright infringement even when they know it's wrong. Rather than getting on with it in the safe knowledge that in the UK you are totally protected from prosecution. People try to defend it, why?
It's also not polar opposites. You seem to think it's either total freedom or SOPA. It isn't.
I also think us as consumers should have far more rights, something I'm sure you will agree with.
Regardless of view you should still be able to see when someone is using filla which means nothing.

 

[busbyuk]

The argument regarding copying films and taking pictures of paintings doesn't really work.

You'll probably find that most Paintings, sculptures etc are done by artists who want their medium seen by as many people as possible as what true artist really doesn't want their artwork seen by the masses.

The large majority of films however are made for one purpose only and that is to obviously make a profit. I would be willing to bet that the films which are made and controlled by directors who see their work as an artform do not object to the sharing of their work by filesharing websites.

 

[Amp34]

Or blinded.

People try to defend copyright infringement even when they know it's wrong. Rather than getting on with it in the safe knowledge that in the UK you are totally protected from prosecution. People try to defend it, why?
It's also not polar opposites. You seem to think it's either total freedom or SOPA. It isn't.
I also think us as consumers should have far more rights, something I'm sure you will agree with.
Regardless of view you should still be able to see when someone is using filla which means nothing.

I think part of the reason is a lot of people (including me I'll admit) don't want the internet to be censored in any way. It's a place to escape the real world sometimes, to do whatever the hell you want, without rules, unlike the real world with all it's rules and regulations, work and family etc. Unfortunately those sort of acts restrict what we can do on the internet and start controlling it, but then that's because what happens on the internet can affect our real world lives. It's a fine balance that none know the answer to.

 

[lunarwolf]

Or blinded.

People try to defend copyright infringement even when they know it's wrong.

why? because someone decided it was wrong? stop drinking the kool aid. copyrights and patents are a scam and artificial barriers to deny free and fair competition - or maybe you think paying £30-£50 for a blu ray would be ok.

should you have been put to jail when you photocopied pages of books in the library as a student to do your research papers? took pictures of national monuments for your photo album.

i've always found it paradoxical that sony who sells music and movies also sell DVD-Rs etc...

anyway this megaupload story is without due process and as usefull as the war on drugs. when napster went down, 10 other ways popped shortly afterwards

 

[Amp34]

The argument regarding copying films and taking pictures of paintings doesn't really work.

You'll probably find that most Paintings, sculptures etc are done by artists who want their medium seen by as many people as possible as what true artist really doesn't want their artwork seen by the masses.

The large majority of films however are made for one purpose only and that is to obviously make a profit. I would be willing to bet that the films which are made and controlled by directors who see their work as an artform do not object to the sharing of their work by filesharing websites.

I'd disagree entirely. A lot of artists make their living from the art, from sales of their art, just like film companies. If you take a photo rather than buy the official print (or the actual artwork itself) then you are doing just the same as some one downloading a film or camming in a cinema. They lose out on a sale, and profit.

 

[Glaucus]

why? because someone decided it was wrong? stop drinking the kool aid. copyrights and patents are a scam and artificial barriers to deny free and fair competition - or maybe you think paying £30-£50 for a blu ray would be ok.

No they aren't, without patents who would research anything. You think companies will drop 800million to designs. And test a drug, when anyone could go and make it with out the 800million price tag ontop of the manufacturing. That's the average cost of a modern drug for research and testing.

You are one of a few who belive you are right, but are so short sighted you don't even consider what you are saying.

Companies are free to charge what they want, don't like it don't pay for it and don't use it. No ones holding a gun to your head.

Why would they be put in jail? By the law you can photocopy and use extracts.
Why do you find it paradoxical? What a silly thought. You know that more than copyrighted material can be saved to a cdr.

 

[Amp34]

why? because someone decided it was wrong? stop drinking the kool aid. copyrights and patents are a scam and artificial barriers to deny free and fair competition - or maybe you think paying £30-£50 for a blu ray would be ok.

should you have been put to jail when you photocopied pages of books in the library as a student to do your research papers? took pictures of national monuments for your photo album.

i've always found it paradoxical that sony who sells music and movies also sell DVD-Rs etc...

anyway this megaupload story is without due process and as usefull as the war on drugs. when napster went down, 10 other ways popped shortly afterwards

Rubbish, copyright and patents are important, we wouldn't be in the lives we have become accustomed to if they weren't. Why would drug companies spend millions of pounds if as soon as they released a drug another company could come along and undercut them due to the lack of research fees. The copyright and patent system may be broken but it is important, otherwise there would be little/no research and companies wouldn't spend hundreds of millions on films...

EDIT: Beaten... By exactly the same argument as well.

 

[lunarwolf]

No they aren't, without patents who would research anything. You think companies will drop 800million to designs. And test a drug, when anyone could go and make it with out the 800million price tag ontop of the manufacturing. That's the average cost of a modern drug for research and testing.

they always need to produce new products since they open new markets and important for long term survival. FYI the polio vaccine that saved countless lives was given for free and not patented. man and science have evolved for many years without patents. you are the one that is shortsighted. there are many other ways you can stimulate companies to do research that improve the world by giving them incentives such as tax breaks, 0% financing etc... and not by giving them monopolies which only lead to abusive practices. monopolies are not in anyone's interest except for the monopoly holder.

 

[Amp34]

they always need to produce new products since they open new markets and important for long term survival. tFYI the polio vaccine that saved countless lives was given for free and not patented. man and science have evolved for many years without patents. you are the one that is shortsighted.

Unfortunately it would be a race to the bottom... Companies wouldn't be spending hundreds of millions researching because those companies would had gone broke fairly quickly, leaving just the generics, manufacturing the same drugs we already have.

Patents promote research. Get rid of patents and most research will go down the drain as it wouldn't be economically sensible.