MegaUpload shut down, founder arrested

[addy]

http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-...ing-184576

MegaUpload, one of the largest file-sharing sites on the Internet, has been shut down, on charges that it has caused the entertainment industries more than $500 million in lost revenue and generated $175 million “in criminal proceeds” via advertising sales and membership fees.

Two corporations – Megaupload Limited and Vestor Limited – were indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia and charged with “engaging in a racketeering conspiracy, conspiring to commit copyright infringement, conspiring to commit money laundering and two substantive counts of criminal copyright infringement.” Founder Kim Dotcom and six others were charged, each facing a maximum of 55 years in prison if convicted on all counts. A total of 18 domains connected to the Mega company were seized and datacenters in three countries raided, leading to the loss of millions of personal files owned by uploaders. http://torrentfreak.com/feds-please-retu...ad-120120/

What kills me is how they are repeatedly called a "gang" and a "piracy ring". I for one have used megaupload for perfectly legitimate reasons... sharing powerpoints, that kind of stuff. The charges frame them as active traffickers, which isn't accurate

[Leanne]

It's possible that the founders and directors were using the business to launder money as suggested... BUT... I can't help thinking that this is more about political timing and propaganda than actually catching any bad guys doing bad nasty terrible things that ruin the way the world operates.

[addy]

I can't help thinking that this is more about political timing and propaganda than actually catching any bad guys doing bad nasty terrible things that ruin the way the world operates.

That's crazy talk! Whyever would you think that?

Seriously though you're right, the timing is transparent as hell

[billy]

in a word, bollocks; and now some more words...


they don't care that they removed millions of non copyrighted files that were freely shared. all they want is the money the lobbyist pay to the party funds. copyright laws need to be changed so the owner makes a decent profit for a decent amount of time. but not so long as to cause companies like the movie industries eg disney to dictate who watches or listens to what.

i bought a book of shakespeare's complete works years ago and guess what, it was fuckin copyrighted. the parts they added (the publishers) wasn't copyright, the whole fuckin book was copyrighted. many songs copyright the same riffs and even the same words. the brings a 71 year old song out and copyright it.

at present copyright is i think 70 years. thats way too long. i could go along with 70 years if there were a clause that said after 2 or 3 years after the 1st sale it can be freely shared in soft copy on the net. people would still buy the disc dvd or book while we could share it in forums etc. think how many 69 year old poems we are not supposed to share.
a proviso could be made to give proper creditation as we do when we show someone elses poem. sorry but i find what they do offensive to common decency. don't get me wrong, anyone who downloads something to sell that isn't theirs should get a criminal record. copyright laws need sorting out.

[abu nuwas]

Copyright lasts for differing periods. Where there is a known author, it runs for 70 years from his/her death. It is what they have to leave to their kin-- in some cases, it may be, that they only write one immensely popular book, and it seems reasonable that they, and theirs, should make money from their efforts, rather than someone else. Perhaps the period after death is too long, though my recollection is, that it is only a relatively recent change, maybe ten years ago.

I am, as befits an antique, out of step with you guys. I do not like criminal gangs, I am generally against the N'Drangheta, the Cosa Nostra, Yardies, and the like. I do not see that making use of electronic gadgetry makes a thief any less of a thief. And how will it be, when all music and books are available by nefarious means, for no payment? When writers cannot make a living, and nor can musicians?

None of which make any difference to my feeling of outrage if I type in the name of something, ancient or modern, and find I cannot get it --instantly!

[Leanne]

When writers cannot make a living, and nor can musicians?

Isn't that now? :p

[Wildcard]

MegaUpload was taken down because they got greedy. File-sharing isn't about making millions by selling that which you did not create- it's about sharing what you've bought with others. In this way, those that cannot afford the culture of entertainment may still experience it and those that only afford a small slice of it can share what they have and enjoy everyone else's slice too. MegaUpload was also the source for artists to share their original content with the online public for free (while being paid for hits) so it was a win-win situation- that was not good enough for Kim Dotcom. He and his cohorts could've made a lot of money with that strategy, but they got greedy and careless . . . Hopefully someone else will take that strategy and keep it clean.

I do not see that making use of electronic gadgetry makes a thief any less of a thief.

If I stole your car, I'm a thief. If I were somehow able to copy your car and leave your original alone I would be a genius. This is file-sharing: the work of the very intelligent to share entertainment of all kinds.

Let's just say that all musicians gave away their music . . . would they all go broke? No. Artists spend a lot of money in production of CDs, but get very little return for their investments. They get a much greater portion of their earnings from concerts, T-shirts (and other tangible merchandise) and radio play. These things would be left untouched and artists (and not labels) would still survive.

All information should be free. Period.

And how will it be, when all music and books are available by nefarious means, for no payment?

Why does it have to be nefarious? What if all information were immediately available for free? Wouldn't create a greater audience for the author of the work? Isn't that what it's all about? When did literature become about making a buck? It's sad to me that people can't see that the greatest reward isn't money- it's about touching the most people.

If someone writes a book and gives it away and millions read it then they will undoubtedly get book signings, TV show interviews, sponsorships, TV host offers, writing jobs for TV and cinema, etc . . . the list goes on and on. Who makes a lot of money being a poet these days anyway . . . I mean really?

(All of the above flew out of me very quickly, but I mean no disrespect to anyone. )

[abu nuwas]

MegaUpload was taken down because they got greedy. File-sharing isn't about making millions by selling that which you did not create- it's about sharing what you've bought with others. In this way, those that cannot afford the culture of entertainment may still experience it and those that only afford a small slice of it can share what they have and enjoy everyone else's slice too. MegaUpload was also the source for artists to share their original content with the online public for free (while being paid for hits) so it was a win-win situation- that was not good enough for Kim Dotcom. He and his cohorts could've made a lot of money with that strategy, but they got greedy and careless . . . Hopefully someone else will take that strategy and keep it clean.

I do not see that making use of electronic gadgetry makes a thief any less of a thief.

If I stole your car, I'm a thief. If I were somehow able to copy your car and leave your original alone I would be a genius. This is file-sharing: the work of the very intelligent to share entertainment of all kinds.

Let's just say that all musicians gave away their music . . . would they all go broke? No. Artists spend a lot of money in production of CDs, but get very little return for their investments. They get a much greater portion of their earnings from concerts, T-shirts (and other tangible merchandise) and radio play. These things would be left untouched and artists (and not labels) would still survive.

All information should be free. Period.

And how will it be, when all music and books are available by nefarious means, for no payment?

Why does it have to be nefarious? What if all information were immediately available for free? Wouldn't create a greater audience for the author of the work? Isn't that what it's all about? When did literature become about making a buck? It's sad to me that people can't see that the greatest reward isn't money- it's about touching the most people.

If someone writes a book and gives it away and millions read it then they will undoubtedly get book signings, TV show interviews, sponsorships, TV host offers, writing jobs for TV and cinema, etc . . . the list goes on and on. Who makes a lot of money being a poet these days anyway . . . I mean really?

(All of the above flew out of me very quickly, but I mean no disrespect to anyone. )

We live in an age where information is all. The Law relating to Intellectual Property is there to protect that information. If an American scientist works out how to make a plane, or ship, invisible, that information has value, and belongs to him, or his employers. It does not belong to, say, the Chinese, who have been practising wholesale industrial espionage on your country for such commercial secrets. The fact that the US can still build stealth aircaft, does not mean that they have not lost something, and that something has been stolen. I see no difference.

"File-sharing" seems to cover the legitimate, where you might share something you had created, or to which you had a right, and the illegitimate, where I perhaps, obtain a song by buying it, and then, with no right to the copyright, share with limitless numbers of people. I do not see why an artist should be forced to traipse around, just because others are too mean to buy what he has created. Then again, it's mighty handy....

[Wildcard]

Handy it is . . .

It's more than that . . . it's an opportunity that might not exist without the collective efforts of the the file-sharing community. Why is it fair for people to miss out on the boon of literature because they are too poor to afford it?

[srijantje]

or can't get it where they live

[billy]

We live in an age where information is all. The Law relating to Intellectual Property is there to protect that information. If an American scientist works out how to make a plane, or ship, invisible, that information has value, and belongs to him, or his employers. It does not belong to, say, the Chinese, who have been practising wholesale industrial espionage on your country for such commercial secrets. The fact that the US can still build stealth aircaft, does not mean that they have not lost something, and that something has been stolen. I see no difference.

not really, secrecy is there to protect such stuff, countries do not put such items on the internet, they are kept in closed filing systems and not shown to the whole of the internet, yes of course stealing this stuff is espionage and theft. if i go into your email and take a file, i would be stealing it. if on the other hand you'd made a record 5 years ago and it was on the net. i'd copy it. money for artists is often derived from concerts and royalties paid by radio stations. the main money, almost all of it, from cd goes to the record companies, it's why they have so much power politically.
if i by a pack of sweets, i don't pay royalty i don't break copyright law when i share or give one away even though they're copyrighted (the recipe) if however i buy a children's book i am under current copyright laws breaking the law if i allow my child to read it. the think with copyright law as it stands is the fact it's so long and can be renewed. in all things except music book and film and art, if i buy something and sell it i'm not breaking copyright law. even if i sell it at a profit. it belongs to me. if i buy a book in theory i can't allow anyone to read it. if i take a picture of a degas in a museum i'm breaking the law because they now the painting. why should a person be continually paid cash for something? if a copyright runs out i am allowed to print said book and sell it, my version has a 70 year copyright...is that right? Disney uses mainly classical music in it's films, changes a few notes and then claims copyright on the music. ther are limits and there are limits. basically copyright law states this, if you write a page of your poetry and place it on a bill board, no one can look at it because under copyright law i can't read it unless the copyright holder says i can.
there was a court case where people were taken to court for listening to a record being played by someone else. the same with a video. i'm quite happy that people earn money on there creative creations, but lets have some sensible laws. rowlings and her family will within 70 years have earned billions from her 6 or so books. so will the movie makers so will the dvd sales. the theme parks. you only have to go back a few centuries to see that copyright is a fairly modern invention. everything yo use today around your home in your car everything has been derived from another persons creations, yet do we offer royalties to everyone involved. no the only one to get royalties are the ones who own the current copyright. do we think nissan created the car, or gmc or ford? no they all stole ideas, in truth they something and thought hey i can improve on that, they reinvented it but wait, if you only a small percent of someones idea or picture or text you're still breaking copyright laws. the process which gives you paper on which you read, stolen or copied. the pc, stolen or copied. ink, stolen of copied. pen, stolen or copied. it's all by your standard (and i mean no disrespect) been stolen but never mind, let's make text, pictures, music inviolate.
the only reason we have such a copyright law is not for us the man in the street. it for the media mogals, so they can take a person to court and get 25 000 dollars from some poor mum who downloaded a song. one final point, all and i mean all government documents belong to the people and as such cannot be copyrighted. good isn't it. it's why they have the official secrets act, and why they only show things after a thirty year wait in the uk. the usa have a secrecy act as well, signed by millions of employees. but gob docs do not fall under copyright, how can they they belong to us

"File-sharing" seems to cover the legitimate, where you might share something you had created, or to which you had a right, and the illegitimate, where I perhaps, obtain a song by buying it, and then, with no right to the copyright, share with limitless numbers of people. I do not see why an artist should be forced to traipse around, just because others are too mean to buy what he has created. Then again, it's mighty handy....

if you share wit you brother it's illegal
to share something you have a copyright too, you should use a creative commons licence, if you don't and you fall out with a friend you can sue them for copyright theft. it should be used on the net but we don't use it, wiki does. but most don't.

mainly copyright theft affects the media because they have out of date business models.
lets look at itunes, a pound a tune and you don't even get a hard copy hehe. buying books from amazon dot com that you can't hold. and the list is pretty big.

if we're stealing so much profit from these people why are their profits soaring.

the film industry has priced vid shops out of the market. they now sell the film on the net for 5 dollars etc. you get to keep it for viewing for a month.
they need to a better business model.

seldom do poets or even authors lose money from the net copies, most wouldn't buy the stuff anyway. but think of this. it gets them noticed, it's why a lot of indy music is put on file sharing sites for free, people who like their music visit their sites and then but a t shirt (it makes em more cash)

i remember a science fiction book by an Australian author offering a free download., he had 6 more books that people then bought, i bought two of them and lost the buggers. people who put their names to the work of others, now that i think is out and out theft jmo

[Erthona]

The bottom line is the application of copyright law has been surreptitiously changed and they are trying to apply it in ways it was never meant to be applied. Copyright was about protecting against lost profits (BTW stealth technology would fall under patent law ). If I want to rent a movie and show it everybody in the neighborhood, by projecting it up on a bedsheet tied to my tree, I am not breaking a copyright law, if however I start charging five bucks a head for people to come inside my house and watch the movie on my new big screen TV, I am in violation of copyright law. What they are doing now is trying to make copyright law pertain to situation where there is no money involved. The number of people a file is shared with is incidental to copyright, however if I charge just one person one penny for the file, I am violating copyright.

This is not business as usual, they are trying to make copyright apply in situations it never has before, and to mean something it has never meant before, and to do so while claiming this has always been the case. They are lying.

Read the language people "conspiring to commit". Not committing! There is a reason it is worded that way.

[srijantje]

it's a bit off topic,but isn't it the same monsanto is getting away with by copyrighting seeds?so you buy their seeds but can't reuse them?

[billy]

If I want to rent a movie and show it everybody in the neighborhood, by projecting it up on a bedsheet tied to my tree, I am not breaking a copyright law,

in the uk this is the law pertaining to the above;
Restricted acts

It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the owner:

Copy the work.

Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.

Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.

Adapt the work.
the public means anyone not a family member. so if someone walks in on a film you're breaking the c'right

This is not business as usual, they are trying to make copyright apply in situations it never has before, and to mean something it has never meant before, and to do so while claiming this has always been the case. They are lying.

the they are the media lobbyists. all they see are more ways to make money, and a way to continue a archaic business model. their aim is stop all file sharing unless they can control and charge for it.
a tv licence allows us to watch terrestrial tv in our house, anywhere in our house. sky charges for each room. putting one's name to the work of others i see as a copyright violation as well as charging someone for the piece, to me both are theft.[/quote]

Read the language people "conspiring to commit". Not committing! There is a reason it is worded that way.

conspiracy if often the worse crime.

[Erthona]

""File-sharing" seems to cover the legitimate, where you might share something you had created, or to which you had a right, and the illegitimate, where I perhaps, obtain a song by buying it, and then, with no right to the copyright, share with limitless numbers of people. I do not see why an artist should be forced to traipse around, just because others are too mean to buy what he has created. Then again, it's mighty handy...."

I guess that's from Ed also.

There has been market research done, sorry I can't remember where, that shows "album" sales increase in markets where people have to ability to pay for the product, when a song is "shared" on the internet. Of course sales will not increase in Bangladesh because those people never had the money to buy it in the first place. It is these non-existent sales that the record companies are complaining about. The large majority of artist don't complain because

a. they get little revenue from their "records"
b. they know that internet sharing gets them major publicity
c. they are not established artist and so it only helps them.

Think about this. Record companies put "official" versions on YouTube which can easily be pirated. Why?

Another issue,and the primary one: Record companies are afraid they will become obsolete because artist can go directly to the public with sales and cut the record companies out of the loop. These copyright laws are about making sure that doesn't happen, by making sure "sharing" doesn't happen. It has nothing to do with copyright.

[billy]

Another issue,and the primary one: Record companies are afraid they will become obsolete because artist can go directly to the public with sales and cut the record companies out of the loop. These copyright laws are about making sure that doesn't happen, by making sure "sharing" doesn't happen. It has nothing to do with copyright.

for me the above is a perfect way to explain why it's happening.

if i wrote a book of poems that were good enough i'd create a website. set up n internet shop get the book listed with an isb number and post it on piratebay with a link to my site. the shop would sell mugs tshirts and other saleable products as well as having a donation button for the disc download, they could give a little as they felt. (i'd also stick the book on amazon etc.

i'd do this because publishing is a hard route to go down. much more likely to taken on by a publisher with a couple of books under your belt. jmo

[Erthona]

"It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the owner:

Copy the work."

This is not true in the USA. Copyright is not about intellectual property, that is a patent. Plagiarism is not a legal issue.

Doesn't anyone remember the commercials about making you own personalized play list, or making one for your girlfriend or boyfriend (not family members). They have been trying to change how copyright law is applied for at least the last twenty years.

Look. If copyright the way the want to make it is legitimized this site will have to shut down, or employ a full time staff to make sure that I don't paste,

"it's a bit off topic,but isn't it the same monsanto is getting away with by copyrighting seeds?so you buy their seeds but can't reuse them?" by SJ

because once it is published on the internet it is de facto copyrighted, and this site in now in violation of copyright law, and SJ could sue them for copyright violation, for failing to keep copyrighted material from being published on this site.


btw Monsanto does not copyright seeds, it is a patent on the specific genetic makeup of the seeds, specially GMO-seeds (Genetically modified organism).

Here are the three main areas of legal protection (learn them, know them, use them-that is also a copyright violation) :

Patent: "the exclusive right granted by a government to an inventor to manufacture, use, or sell an invention for a certain number of years."

Trademark: "any name, symbol, figure, letter, word, or mark adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant in order to designate his or her goods and to distinguish them from those manufactured or sold by others. A trademark is a proprietary term that is usually registered with the Patent and Trademark Office to assure its exclusive use by its owner."

Copyright: "the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc.: works granted such right by law on or after January 1, 1978, are protected for the lifetime of the author or creator and for a period of 50 years after his or her death."

The operative word in the definition is "exploit"!

Exploit: "to utilize, especially for profit"

"and otherwise exploit"

and in other or different manner likewise make a profit from the said activity, as copying and licensing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"but if this world keeps right on spinning
for the better or the worse
and all it ever gets is older and around,
from the rocking of the cradle,
to the rolling of the hearse,
the going up was worth the coming down!"

Notice: This site is in violation of the copyright act for allowing the above quote to be posted (in part or in whole), and it's owner may be subject to criminal prosecution for conspiring to abet the violation of the said law by the poster of the above cited quote. The owner of this site may be required to reimburse the copyright holder of the above copyrighted material an agreed upon dollar amount as outlined in ascap's royalties agreement amount per use, plus accrued interest, based on number of time viewed.


...SO? feeling lucky punk? Well are ya? :angel:

[billy]

i think all too often we don't see how far some laws actually extend.
in truth i think poetry is the least abused for profit. we have poems up of Sylvia and sexton. if i wanted a book of them i'd buy one, utilizing them hasn't stopped me from buying a book or cd. because i wouldn't but then anyway, and that's often the case.
that said, i'd be much more inclined to buy a book after reading or hearing some of their poems on this site should i be a member. now days they want you to buy a cd for the one song on it you've heard.

when i was younger i bought and read quite a lot, now and then as i get older. i never bought an album i didn't listen to.

lets ask ourselves, how many people read dickens, shakespeare at school how many haven't see cleopatra or the taming of shrew. and how many bought the books of those people after the fact. i know i did. i learned of shakespeare through tv, not through education, i had non many of my generation had little more. no one ever lost a penny from anything i downloaded. a few made something.

[abu nuwas]

I am afraid I should have got on this at the beginning, and disagreed line by line. I find there is simply too much now, and I doubt anyone would want to read page after page of me being right.

I do see that it is an immediate issue for some, in a way that it is not for me. However, much of what has been said, appears to me to have been driven, not by what might or might not be right or wrong, or even whether the law says some of the outlandish things claimed, but by the fact that it appears to be in our personal interest to have it so. That is rather like a murderer telling his friends that murder is OK, just because he did it. Or a thief.

Dale is under the impression that copyright is not intellectual property, and not a matter for law. Plainly, it is, and it is. It has also been suggested that merely adding a jot or a tittle to some ancient work, brings it back to copyright. The courts would look at the facts, and if that were so, dismiss any claim as de minimis. An excerpt would depend on how long the excerpt. If I write a new, and obviously highly insightful, preface to the works of Shakespeare-- no, if you want it, but it. If you want to cite a line or two, demonstrating my flashing brilliance perhaps, no Judge is going to uphold a copyright claim. But remember-- I wrote this, not you. If you quote in extenso, you will be well fucked in the courts.

Much has been made of musicians making money from gigs and merchandising. I see no reason why they should be obliged to do either, but as for the latter, I can tell you, it is not so simple. My sister is a painter. She has some arrangements with a bloke that does merchandising, and she earns money from that -- but across the net, there are people offering unlicensed copies etc, from which she gets zilch. Unless I have completely misconceived the points made by others, you are on the side of the pirates. Why does she take no legal action? She is here, in the UK, and they are around the world, largely in America.

I reverence you all, of course

[Wildcard]

Ed you are missing the point. No long diatribes- I'll make it simple: pirates do not seek to make money from the work of others, they seek to share with others the culture they have access to . . . that's why they call it file sharing.

Make more sense?