MegaUpload shut down, founder arrested

[Leanne]

While I think that copyright laws have become utterly ridiculous and are being abused shamelessly by corporations assuming ownership of things they're not entitled to, I am with Edward on this one, for this reason:

I make money from my writing, not from merchandising or "gigs" -- though I'm slowly overcoming it, my fear of social situations (thanks to my ex) precludes my doing the recitals that I used to enjoy, therefore it's the page or nothing. Over the years I have realised a decent return as these things go, and however insignificant it might seem to others, even the loss of a couple of hundred dollars is a massive deal to a poet. It came to my attention recently that someone I'd (probably foolishly) sent an electronic copy of an MS to has been disseminating it for profit (small, but still...) While this could be seen as flattering to someone who's prone to such vanities, I see it as a major violation of trust and a pain in the arse (though it might be said that I should have thought of it first). If I choose to put my writing up in the public domain, that's my business and I quite like it being freely available, but if someone else does, well that's a right fucker and I'm less than impressed, however there's not a lot I can do about it because, as is the case with Ed's sister, the pirate is in the USA. Legal battles for the sake of a few dollars are rather Pyrrhic.

I'm not opposed to things like Youtube, which I tend to consider more advertising than anything else and it's pretty cool to be able to quickly look up a vid/song/whatever for instant enjoyment. File sharing though... that's rather another story. Unless it's your own work, or you have the legal right to share it, that's theft. Intellectual property still has "property" about it.

*Incidentally, I consider corporations who slap copyrights on things they've only slightly modified and claim as their own to be equally guilty of theft, and since their profits are substantially greater, the law should punish them far more harshly.

[abu nuwas]

While I think that copyright laws have become utterly ridiculous and are being abused shamelessly by corporations assuming ownership of things they're not entitled to, I am with Edward on this one, for this reason:

I make money from my writing, not from merchandising or "gigs" -- though I'm slowly overcoming it, my fear of social situations (thanks to my ex) precludes my doing the recitals that I used to enjoy, therefore it's the page or nothing. Over the years I have realised a decent return as these things go, and however insignificant it might seem to others, even the loss of a couple of hundred dollars is a massive deal to a poet. It came to my attention recently that someone I'd (probably foolishly) sent an electronic copy of an MS to has been disseminating it for profit (small, but still...) While this could be seen as flattering to someone who's prone to such vanities, I see it as a major violation of trust and a pain in the arse (though it might be said that I should have thought of it first). If I choose to put my writing up in the public domain, that's my business and I quite like it being freely available, but if someone else does, well that's a right fucker and I'm less than impressed, however there's not a lot I can do about it because, as is the case with Ed's sister, the pirate is in the USA. Legal battles for the sake of a few dollars are rather Pyrrhic.

I'm not opposed to things like Youtube, which I tend to consider more advertising than anything else and it's pretty cool to be able to quickly look up a vid/song/whatever for instant enjoyment. File sharing though... that's rather another story. Unless it's your own work, or you have the legal right to share it, that's theft. Intellectual property still has "property" about it.

*Incidentally, I consider corporations who slap copyrights on things they've only slightly modified and claim as their own to be equally guilty of theft, and since their profits are substantially greater, the law should punish them far more harshly.

But that's a pity, really..I mean you agreeing....as I was in the process of publishing your twinkling ankles poem under my own name - well, Edwina-- to-gether with other leading Penge Poets, such as Ava Krap, Deal Thong, Y-blil, and many more. Now I feel morally obliged to pulp the entire edition..

[Wildcard]

But you guys keep going on about theft while no one is talking about manic money from this stuff. I think it's safe to say we all agree that MegaUpload was infringing. File sharing is different and here's how:

1. No one is sharing obscure texts or manuscripts and stealing from small time poets or other indie artists (and by no one I mean if it exists it's is very small scale) for profit or otherwise.
   People share popular titles of movies and music mostly, and small torrents of eBooks don't last long in the public torrent sector because they aren't very popular.
   
2. True file sharers don't accept compensation of any kind for the files that they share.
   It isn't about making money, it's about sticking it to the man. Hollywood and their ilk aren't freaking starving, ya know.
   
3. And the two stories that you guys hav shared are cases of infringement because someone has stolen your work and turned a profit from it.

If you watch a YouTube video of your favorite band (or some brand new one) then in the new legislation, you are infringing. That is not what copyright law was intended to prevent.

[Leanne]

While I agree (like I stated before) that copyright laws are getting way out of hand -- at least in the US, which means pretty much everywhere one goes on the internet -- file sharers aren't Robin fucking Hood you know!

If it exists on a "very small scale", and is making money illegally from people who you perhaps quite rightly point out are "small time", doesn't that actually equate to quite a large percentage of the "small" profits that "small time" artists are ever going to make?

[billy]

is it that we put a price on culture?
as for changing a public domain work (book) just adding the publisher to it is enough. if you copy it and they sue, you will lose and the courts will see it as copyright theft. the same as the mona lisa with a moustache becomes a copyright work. this is fact. if you take a picture of the iffel tower at night you break copy right laws, they have sued and they have won court cases.
they won because they said the light lay out on the tower is a creative endeavour. the trouble i have with copyright laws on ideas is that you probably just got the idea from someone elses work. the poem, the book, the song, mostly variations on a theme. i find it hard to understand how language or words are not copyrightable yet a line of words are. as far books are concerned or art, most people who download them would never buy the e book or the paper book. i can put some gibberish music up thats total shite, give a decent title, like "bang yer puss" and id prob get a million download, i'd prob also get a million people thing "what utter shite" the music industry would sue those people if they could for $25000 a pop.

i was at a party last night with a manger of a pop group called "the twelve bullets" after a discussion he said, "we're putting up a website to sell merchendise, cd's, tshirt, mugs etc after seeing what kind of contracts they were offered we're thinking of going the pirate route, put an odd single up to draw them to the site and use a donate button for downloads, it's a meme that's being used more and more" (all his words)

i have no objection to an author/poet making a living from writing by selling his/her works but for seventy years? oh look i have a creation and for 70 years after i die people have to pay whoever owns the rights. people don't or shouldn't have the right to own culture for 70 years after the creator dies. and even be able to renew it after that period. personally that what i see as being the crime. one more serious than someone downloading a sylivia plath poem. or a beatles record.
it isn't done for personal gain in the strictest sense, it's done on the conglomerate name so big business can own the culture of the world. just look who ons the Beatles song books, the stones song book, jacksons song book. they get traded like commodities sold for 100's of millions. i listened to most of them as a child growing through adolescence into adult hood, payed to see many at concerts and i'm then told i can't download a beatles song? sorry but i find it morally reprehensible.

on tv now i see ads for loans with apr of 1760% when i was 20 the gov said only a certain amount of interest could be charged, credit cards are capped but now it seem you can charge astronomical rate on a loan. the same is said of media, they want to charge us an astronomic amount, or should i say they want to make an astronomic amount. it's no better than legal thievary. the copyright laws need changing. to break an unjust law is not a crime. piracy (not the high sea sort) will make the laws be altered in line with a reasonable copyright meme. it is in my opinion those who steadfastly seek to hold the reigns of culture for a life time and 70 years that act criminally. jmo

[Wildcard]

Okay I've given it a lot of thought and thing that keeps standing our in my mind are the accusations (not just here but all over) that pirates are just a bunch of lazy fuckers that don't want to pay for anything. Obviously I can't speak for the world but if you could have a look at my collection of CDs, vinyl, DVDs, books, software, etc. I think it would be hard to argue that piracy has caused me to stop contributing to the entertainment industry.

Just last month I paid $12.99 for an eBook of 'The Triggering Town' becaue Todd recommended it, bought a Yelawolf (recording artist) T-shirt, the new Pearl Jam movie PJ20 with coffee table book and about 7 vinyls to add to my collection- and I exist below the poverty level in my country.

All of those things that I purchased were spurred by online piracy(except the book Tdd suggested) because I downloaded them, previewed then and then just 'had to have' them.

I don't have the luxury of making entertainment purchases based on whim- just hoping that I'll like what I buy. On Amazon, or iTunes, you can only sample a few seconds of a song to see if you like it and because they are so afraid you will strip the DRM and keep the song that there is a no refund policy.

Bottom line is the old methods are not good enough and piracy will force the entertainment industry to make some much needed changes. Competition is a good thing.

[billy]

i never really went into the cost of abook, some over $50 dollars. by that criteria of wealth it often means those on low incomes can not own a copy, if a reference book they may only read it in a library. (not outside one)

when my kids were young i had the full en Britannica, in book form and paid for, i even bout quite a few of the year book addenda. i also bought most of the classics for my kids (who refused to even look at them ) like mark, my vinyl collection along with my genuine cd collection ran into the thousands of items. i paid for them. now everytime i want to listen to one i have to (by law) pay for the right. books, i had a collecetion of about 2000 though i never read many of them most were too highbrow for me to get into. now if i download one as an ebook i have to pay; so please forgive me if i download any cd i deem fit (i don't download new stuff cos i don't like most of it. please forgive me if i download plaths poetry or anyone elses to read, i will never buy a poetry book unless it's a gift for someone. i will never put my name to someone elses work and will always credit them with their creations, i will never sell a poem, one of my own or someone elses, i will read poem, i will on occasion recite it to someone else, which illegal. i will put it on this site if i think it will be benificial in the bringing orf poetry to others.

i will never put a poem up or use a poem of an unpublished piece of poetry without permission, not even if i accredit it (i know to do so could hinder it being published). but i am a pirate and i will download anything that's being sold should i so wish to. not because it's easy but because it's what i think is morally right. i don't agree with the copyright laws as they stand. those that gain from them and fight change are greedy oligarchs (whatever that means ) and should be ashamed of their greed. jmo.

[Wildcard]

Preacher, preach on Arrrrrr

[billy]

it my pov is all. and i won't condemn someone for disagreeing with it
at the end of the day all we're doing is discussion a subject.