Megaupload down, 7 charged with online piracy
Discussion
Streps said:
They make the assumption that one illegal download equals one lost sale.
They fail to realise people 'try before they buy'. Nobody can argue some revenue is lost
But i think the numbers quoted are simply plucked out of the air.
This is a source of frustration, especially if you have niche interests. There's some great YouTube stuff being highlighted over in the "For fans of heavy music" thread, plenty of which I'd love to legally own, but how exactly do you find out where to buy a ten year old Brazilian Black Metal album that was hideously obscure at the time? Some of it is new enough that the bands and artists offer direct free/donation downloads from Soundcloud and the like, but some of it just doesn't exist for legitimate purchase. I've Googled my socks off, but all I can find are blogs with download links. I'd gladly pay a sensible amount for a legal, unimpaired download, but it just doesn't exist as far as I can see. Would seem rather perverse to prosecute me for illegally obtaining something I have no means of obtaining through legal channels! That doesn't justify it, but it a source of frustration.They fail to realise people 'try before they buy'. Nobody can argue some revenue is lost
But i think the numbers quoted are simply plucked out of the air.
As i and others have said they made this rod for their own back. They have since the beginning taken the attitude of sticking their head in the sand and like a drug or alcohol or even a wife beater taken the attitude it isn't there fault when it so clearly is.
I suspect they are also very bitter about the whole apple itunes situation revenue wise.
The simple fact is before itunes even existed attempts were made by various people to get the movie and music industry to allow online content distribution in the way of itunes however they staunchly refused to allow it for some god only knows reason.
Thereby forcing people to distribute stuff illegally and therefore creating the very culture they now b
h and moan about.
I recall reading before iTunes existed about various companies etc who had approached the music companies etc with a view to setting up a paid online sharing system and being systematically shot down. I recall thinking at the time how fuvking stupid the movie and music industry was being as it was the way of the future.
So how to resolve the piracy problem? I don't think there is a way legislative or not.
The industry also don't seem to realise that the very institution they seek to attack is the same that has created them their present and future wealth.
I have on occasion illegally downloaded a song I have heard and then gone on to buy the whole album. Something I would not have done were it not for being able to download the first song illegally in the first place.
They throw out all these figures about how much piracy costs them when I suspect the real cost is less than a third of what they put it at long term. Especially when you remove all the money they spend lobbying against piracy through advertising buying politicians votes etc.
I suspect they are also very bitter about the whole apple itunes situation revenue wise.
The simple fact is before itunes even existed attempts were made by various people to get the movie and music industry to allow online content distribution in the way of itunes however they staunchly refused to allow it for some god only knows reason.
Thereby forcing people to distribute stuff illegally and therefore creating the very culture they now b
h and moan about.I recall reading before iTunes existed about various companies etc who had approached the music companies etc with a view to setting up a paid online sharing system and being systematically shot down. I recall thinking at the time how fuvking stupid the movie and music industry was being as it was the way of the future.
So how to resolve the piracy problem? I don't think there is a way legislative or not.
The industry also don't seem to realise that the very institution they seek to attack is the same that has created them their present and future wealth.
I have on occasion illegally downloaded a song I have heard and then gone on to buy the whole album. Something I would not have done were it not for being able to download the first song illegally in the first place.
They throw out all these figures about how much piracy costs them when I suspect the real cost is less than a third of what they put it at long term. Especially when you remove all the money they spend lobbying against piracy through advertising buying politicians votes etc.
The only reason this is happening is because of a poorly thought out 'Removal tool' that was given to copyright holders to help remove their content from megaupload.
When something is uploaded to megaupload an MD5 checksum is created. This is a unique identifier for the file.
If someone uploads the same file then megaupload will keep just ONE instance of the file but generate another link. This means if 100 people upload the file totally independently from one another then the file will exist ONCE on the server but will have 100 links to it.
Copyright holders were given a tool that they were told would remove the file from the servers.
They'd find on of these 100 links out on the interwebs, shove it in the tool and bam. The LINK to the file was deleted. The File remained, as did the other 99 links.
This means that the people who run Megaupload knew full well that there weren't adhering to DMCA requests which says the file must be removed.
They knew exactly what they were doing.. It would have been totally trivial to make the removal tool remove all files with the MD5 checksum of the offending file. The didn't do it because they thought they were being clever and they wanted to profit from these works.
There's a reason they were making hundred of millions when that's not the norm for file sharing sites who play by the rules.
Megaupload deserve what they're getting, imo. That's even coming from someone who's watched illegally uploaded movies on megavideo.
When something is uploaded to megaupload an MD5 checksum is created. This is a unique identifier for the file.
If someone uploads the same file then megaupload will keep just ONE instance of the file but generate another link. This means if 100 people upload the file totally independently from one another then the file will exist ONCE on the server but will have 100 links to it.
Copyright holders were given a tool that they were told would remove the file from the servers.
They'd find on of these 100 links out on the interwebs, shove it in the tool and bam. The LINK to the file was deleted. The File remained, as did the other 99 links.
This means that the people who run Megaupload knew full well that there weren't adhering to DMCA requests which says the file must be removed.
They knew exactly what they were doing.. It would have been totally trivial to make the removal tool remove all files with the MD5 checksum of the offending file. The didn't do it because they thought they were being clever and they wanted to profit from these works.
There's a reason they were making hundred of millions when that's not the norm for file sharing sites who play by the rules.
Megaupload deserve what they're getting, imo. That's even coming from someone who's watched illegally uploaded movies on megavideo.
Tallbut Buxomly said:
<snip>
The real shame is all the grief and hassle normal consumers have to go through until they wake up"home taping is killing music"
"the VCR is like the boston strangler"
"illegal downloads are killing music"
They kick and scream and cry and shout at every new technology, singularly fail to embrace it, have stupid legislation passed to prop up their broken model.
They never innovate. It's such a shame, they could have stopped this problem in its tracks, made so much more money, offered brilliant consumer services...but instead they litigated the arse off of anyone it perceived as a threat, stubbornly refused to embrace technology and actively battled it. It's got to be the only industry I know of who treat their customers like criminals, ignore their wishes and kick and scream when the go elsewhere.
Ironically, the people that suffer the most are average consumers, as usual
iTunes is getting there, but it should have been where it is today, about 5-10 years ago.
ETA: some will say this doesnt justify piracy, I make no stand one way or t'other, however in my view, irrespective of stance on piracy - it invalidates the industry right to b
h about it so hard."Customers are stealing our stuff!"
"Could they buy it?"
"No, but they're a lost sale!!!!!!"
Edited by roachcoach on Friday 20th January 13:21
MartG said:
A similar analogy would be going after banks who offer safety deposit boxes - you KNOW that some of them are bound to contain something dodgy, so why don't they shut the banks down ?
Because in this case it is much easier to shut down the hosting website rather than going after and prosecuting the thousands of end users (most of whom aren't even in the States, so getting to them might not even be possible) who upload illegal content.It might be wrong but they're not interested in that; all they care about is that the files are offline.
Edited by ramz on Friday 20th January 13:34
Frankeh said:
off_again said:
Silent1 said:
Old PHers will remember our run in with that German tt known as kimble/Kim Schmitz/Kim dotcom
Couldnt happen to a nicer man.t known as kimble/Kim Schmitz/Kim dotcomFrankeh said:
off_again said:
Silent1 said:
Old PHers will remember our run in with that German tt known as kimble/Kim Schmitz/Kim dotcom
Couldnt happen to a nicer man.t known as kimble/Kim Schmitz/Kim dotcomUnfortunately, did a good job of breaking PH and a whole load of other sites who were hosted by the same provider. Since PH is / was advert funded, kind of caused a bit of a problem. He's notorious for doing these types of things though - well known for being a bit of a "tit".
off_again said:
well known for being a bit of a "tit".
A tit with quite an impressive (if a little unimaginative) collection of cars though - see the last few pages of http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictmentsamwilliams said:
A tit with quite an impressive (if a little unimaginative) collection of cars though - see the last few pages of http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment
He's got feck all now though...samwilliams said:
off_again said:
well known for being a bit of a "tit".
A tit with quite an impressive (if a little unimaginative) collection of cars though - see the last few pages of http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictmenthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWSFtpP4Nbs
samwilliams said:
A tit with quite an impressive (if a little unimaginative) collection of cars though - see the last few pages of http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment
"102. Artwork, Predator Statue"Fistpump!
Indictment said:
On or about August 31, 2006, VAN DER KOLK sent an e-mail to anassociate entitled “lol”. Attached to the message was a screenshot of a Megaupload.com filedownload page for the file “Alcohol 120 1.9.5 3105complete.rar” with a description of “Alcohol120, con crack!!!! By ChaOtiX!”. The copyrighted software “Alcohol 120” is a CD/DVDburning software program sold by www.alcohol-soft.com
That did make me laugh. That'd be the 'copyrighted' 'Alcohol' software that aids in ripping games, dvd's, etc? 
Indictment said:
a representative from Google AdSense, anInternet advertising company, sent an e-mail to DOTCOM entitled “Google AdSense AccountStatus.” In the e-mail, the representative stated that “[d]uring our most recent review of your site[Megaupload.com,]” Google AdSense specialists found “numerous pages” with links to, amongother things, “copyrighted content,” and therefore Google AdSense “will no longer be able towork with you.”
That one is funny too. Edited by Oakey on Friday 20th January 17:51
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff