PDA

View Full Version : Megaupload Is Dead Now Forever!


WTAtennisfan15
Jan 19th, 2012, 09:22 PM
http://www.billboard.com/news#/news/megaupload-shut-down-by-u-s-prosecutors-1005932352.story

Megaupload Shut Down by U.S. Prosecutors; Kim Dotcom, Three Others Arrested

MegaUpload, one of the world's largest file-sharing sites,, was shut down Thursday, and its founder and several company executives were charged with violating piracy laws, federal prosecutors said.

An indictment accuses Megaupload.com of costing copyright holders more than $500 million in lost revenue from pirated films and other content. The indictment was unsealed one day after websites including Wikipedia and Craigslist shut down in protest of two congressional proposals intended to thwart online piracy.

The Justice Department said in a statement said that Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and three others were arrested Thursday in New Zealand at the request of U.S. officials. Two other defendants are at large.

Late last year, the site became an even greater magnet for controversy after it released a song and video featuring Kanye West, Will.I.Am, Swizz Beatz and many other celebrities apparently endorsing the site.


Swizz Beatz's Resume: The HIstory of a Multi-Tasker

Megaupload was unique not only because of its massive size and the volume of downloaded content, but also because it had high-profile support from celebrities, musicians and other content producers who are most often the victims of copyright infringement and piracy.

The Hong Kong-based company listed Swizz Beatz, who married Alicia Keys in 2010, as its CEO.

Before the site was taken down, it posted a statement saying allegations that it facilitated massive breaches of copyright laws were "grotesquely overblown."

"The fact is that the vast majority of Mega's Internet traffic is legitimate, and we are here to stay. If the content industry would like to take advantage of our popularity, we are happy to enter into a dialogue. We have some good ideas. Please get in touch," the statement said.

A lawyer who represented the company in a lawsuit last year declined comment Thursday.

Megaupload is considered a "cyberlocker," in which users can upload and transfer files that are too large to send by email. Such sites can have perfectly legitimate uses. But the Motion Picture Association of America, which has campaigned for a crackdown on piracy, estimated that the vast majority of content being shared on Megaupload was in violation of copyright laws.

The website allowed users to download films, TV shows, games, music and other content for free, but made money by charging subscriptions to people who wanted access to faster download speeds or extra content. The website also sold advertising.

The indictment was returned in the Eastern District of Virginia, which claimed jurisdiction in part because some of the alleged pirated materials were hosted on leased servers in Ashburn, Va.

Dotcom, a resident of both Hong Kong and New Zealand, and a dual citizen of Finland and Germany, made more than $42 million from the conspiracy in 2010 alone, according to the indictment. Dotcom is founder, former CEO and current chief innovation officer of Megaupload.

GoofyDuck
Jan 19th, 2012, 09:30 PM
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Certinfy
Jan 19th, 2012, 09:32 PM
Fucking pieces of shit are these American tools.

Sammo
Jan 19th, 2012, 09:34 PM
Fucking pieces of shit are these American tools.

This.


On a side note... are you sure about it being forever?

currie84
Jan 19th, 2012, 09:35 PM
There are about 200 similar sites still working so no real harm done.You can still download illegally music and movies.

Certinfy
Jan 19th, 2012, 09:37 PM
There are about 200 similar sites still working so no real harm done.You can still download illegally music and movies.
Megaupload had everything with incredible download speeds though. It can't be replaced. :sad:

Ellery
Jan 19th, 2012, 09:37 PM
Megavideo and its infamous YOU HAVE WATCHED 72 MINUTES OF VIDEO :oh:

Adal
Jan 19th, 2012, 09:37 PM
There are about 200 similar sites still working so no real harm done.You can still download illegally music and movies.
This is just the beginning though.

Shit got real.

currie84
Jan 19th, 2012, 09:39 PM
Excuse me but are we gonna pretend that this site wasnt indeed hosting pirated material?What's this outcry about?

WTAtennisfan15
Jan 19th, 2012, 09:40 PM
If those SOPA/PIPA laws are going to get trough, then this is just the tip of the iceberg!

Brooklyn90
Jan 19th, 2012, 09:49 PM
Here is the start of some of our freedom being taken away...

currie84
Jan 19th, 2012, 09:59 PM
Nonsense.If i was to open a store and sell copies of cds, dvds and blue rays,i'd end up in jail.That's essentially what megaupload or any other filesharing company is doin.I've used those kind of sites myself a lot of times but i'm not gonna pretend that it is legal,or cry about them being shut down

Lord Choc Ice
Jan 19th, 2012, 10:00 PM
I'm all for illegal downloads stopping...but that wasn't all Megaupload was good for :sad:.

Petkorazzi
Jan 19th, 2012, 10:11 PM
But it's so ignorant to shut down the entire site without prior notice! :weirdo: It was a file sharing site, which doesn't necessarily mean it has to be pirate stuff. Some people definitely kept some personal videos and other uncopyrighted stuff on there and they've lost access to it forever. :shrug:

Reptilia
Jan 19th, 2012, 10:40 PM
Does this mean Megavideo is gone too? :sad:

Lord Choc Ice
Jan 19th, 2012, 10:51 PM
http://www.3news.co.nz/Megauploads-Kim-Schmitz-arrested-in-Auckland-site-shut-down/tabid/412/articleID/240007/Default.aspx

One of the world's largest file-sharing sites was shut down this morning, its founder arrested in Auckland, and several company executives charged with violating piracy laws, US federal prosecutors said.

Online activists Anonymous struck back almost instantly, shutting down both the US Justice Department and Universal Music's websites in a response called 'Operation Payback'.

As of 11:11am today, both websites were still down.

“It was in retaliation for Megaupload, as was the concurrent attack on Justice.gov,” said Anonymous operative Barret Brown.

Mr Brown also said: “more is coming” and other members of Anonymous are pursuing a joint effort with others to “damage campaign raising abilities of remaining Democrats who support SOPA”.


Shit's gonna get rough :haha:.

pov
Jan 19th, 2012, 10:55 PM
Excuse me but are we gonna pretend that this site wasnt indeed hosting pirated material?What's this outcry about?
Ah . . . a minion of the mega-corps are you?

Pump-it-UP
Jan 19th, 2012, 11:05 PM
http://www.3news.co.nz/Megauploads-Kim-Schmitz-arrested-in-Auckland-site-shut-down/tabid/412/articleID/240007/Default.aspx



Shit's gonna get rough :haha:.

fbi.gov is about to go down. There's gonna be some DRAMA tonight. :lol:

pov
Jan 19th, 2012, 11:07 PM
Nonsense.If i was to open a store and sell copies of cds, dvds and blue rays,i'd end up in jail.That's essentially what megaupload or any other filesharing company is doin.I've used those kind of sites myself a lot of times but i'm not gonna pretend that it is legal,or cry about them being shut down
And if you opened a location where people came and left copies on the shelves for others to take freely? I have yet to see where any of this involves the site selling anything.

currie84
Jan 19th, 2012, 11:10 PM
And if you opened a location where people came and left copies on the shelves for others to take freely? I have yet to see where any of this involves the site selling anything.

they were hosting illegal,copyrighted material and got money from advertisements and lifelong memberships of users who wanted to download this material.Technically they werent selling it,but they were making profit out of it.

pierce85
Jan 19th, 2012, 11:14 PM
Whenever one is closed three new ones will emerge. This won't go unanswered

pov
Jan 19th, 2012, 11:16 PM
An indictment accuses Megaupload.com of costing copyright holders more than $500 million in lost revenue from pirated films and other content.
This is such a crock! As if everyone who downloaded would have paid for the copies otherwise.

Milito22
Jan 19th, 2012, 11:30 PM
Yankees :rolleyes::(:mad:

Andiyan
Jan 20th, 2012, 12:06 AM
Who needs that website anyway?

Shinjiro
Jan 20th, 2012, 12:46 AM
:crying2:

ce
Jan 20th, 2012, 12:51 AM
Dear God, let us live our lives :weirdo:

Mateo Mathieu
Jan 20th, 2012, 01:09 AM
Who needs that website anyway?
This.

I always download TV shows via torrent :)

LeonHart
Jan 20th, 2012, 04:02 AM
Government needs to get off my internetz ASAP.

Steven.
Jan 20th, 2012, 04:47 AM
Billions of torrent sites around. You'll be fine. Loving the drama though!

That being said, I really hope this isn't just the tip of the iceberg. :sad:

Shadowcat
Jan 20th, 2012, 05:29 AM
NO!!! :sobbing: Now this sucks!!! :sobbing: Megaupload works best for me!!! Screw the officials who arrested the owner and who closed down the website!!!

Vartan
Jan 20th, 2012, 05:38 AM
One site goes down another one goes up. They will just move it to another country.

Mary Cherry.
Jan 20th, 2012, 06:05 AM
https://p.twimg.com/AjjE2PTCMAA81Jl.jpg:large

new-york
Jan 20th, 2012, 06:05 AM
Some say it's back already. Not sure whether the new addy is a fake.

Steven.
Jan 20th, 2012, 09:31 AM
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly1ln35UkT1ql2603o1_500.jpg

Betten
Jan 20th, 2012, 09:43 AM
No more watching tennis matches on Megavideo :sad:

Brena
Jan 20th, 2012, 09:48 AM
I like PirateBay's press release on this SOPA/PIPA shit: http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/sopa.txt

Steven.
Jan 20th, 2012, 09:56 AM
^ good read.

Apoleb
Jan 20th, 2012, 10:19 AM
Excuse me but are we gonna pretend that this site wasnt indeed hosting pirated material?What's this outcry about?

The moment you release a product and becomes in the hands of someone else you don't own it anymore. It's an infringement of freedom for people to tell me what should I do with what I already have.

It's not like those artists/musicians/..etc can't make a living anymore. It's because they want to make more, and the ethical defense is just bs.

The Witch-king
Jan 20th, 2012, 12:19 PM
The moment you release a product and becomes in the hands of someone else you don't own it anymore. It's an infringement of freedom for people to tell me what should I do with what I already have.

It's not like those artists/musicians/..etc can't make a living anymore. It's because they want to make more, and the ethical defense is just bs.

This is NOT true. You can't do whatever you please with someone else's intellectual property unless they allow you to. That's a very basic principle of intellectual property law which you will appreciate if and when you create anything worth copying.

I'm all for illegal downloads stopping...but that wasn't all Megaupload was good for :sad:.

What else was it good for:confused:

HippityHop
Jan 20th, 2012, 01:21 PM
This is NOT true. You can't do whatever you please with someone else's intellectual property unless they allow you to. That's a very basic principle of intellectual property law which you will appreciate if and when you create anything worth copying.



What else was it good for:confused:

Correct. The people who think that it's ok to steal the creative work of others are generally people who have never created anything worthwhile themselves.

The Dawntreader
Jan 20th, 2012, 01:34 PM
It's scary how puritan these companies are becoming. No fun, no distribution if it means they can't hoard money. They are a disgrace.

WTAtennisfan15
Jan 20th, 2012, 01:38 PM
So the Anonymous ones did shut down (temporarily) FBI and MIAA as a response to Mega being shut down.

N2WqU-HvyUI

In that video "the voice" of the google translator speaks up about the situation.

Apoleb
Jan 20th, 2012, 02:05 PM
This is NOT true. You can't do whatever you please with someone else's intellectual property unless they allow you to. That's a very basic principle of intellectual property law which you will appreciate if and when you create anything worth copying.



I think you're confusing a few things.

First of all, it's lame to base the point on what I can or what I can't, since uhm, 1) legality != morality, 2) I'm trying to challenge exactly that.

Second, there's a difference between taking/erasing personal credit for someone else's work/idea, and distributing a physical record which he doesn't possess anymore without giving him money for it. He/she is very much still getting credit for the intellectual product. You can't lump those issues as if they are the same things.

In the past, people used to buy albums having listened to one or two songs from them, and they couldn't get access to the other ones. I call that "rip off" but no one was there to fight for the "right of the customers".

And I think the download age has probably made life easier for the artists who are really struggling, cause people actually now have access to their product instead of what the big record companies were trying to force down people's throats through radio and the few TV stations.

And please spare me the crap and the tool after you. I worked in the scientific field where intellectual property is your whole work, but you don't get paid every time someone downloads an article(!!!!).

pov
Jan 20th, 2012, 02:21 PM
It's not like those artists/musicians/..etc can't make a living anymore. It's because they want to make more, and the ethical defense is just bs.
The push is not being done by the artists/musicians. Its mostly the companies that hold the rights to the work of those artists.

pov
Jan 20th, 2012, 02:33 PM
Second, there's a difference between taking/erasing personal credit for someone else's work/idea, and distributing a physical record which he doesn't possess anymore without giving him money for it. He/she is very much still getting credit for the intellectual product. You can't lump those issues as if they are the same things.


So . . do you believe that once you buy a physical record you should be able to make copies and distribute them freely? If so, what sort of system do you see as allowing the musician/artist to generate money from their work?

Beat
Jan 20th, 2012, 02:37 PM
what a surprise: the music and film industry going about it the wrong way. again.

The Witch-king
Jan 20th, 2012, 02:57 PM
I think you're confusing a few things.

First of all, it's lame to base the point on what I can or what I can't, since uhm, 1) legality != morality, 2) I'm trying to challenge exactly that.

Second, there's a difference between taking/erasing personal credit for someone else's work/idea, and distributing a physical record which he doesn't possess anymore without giving him money for it. He/she is very much still getting credit for the intellectual product. You can't lump those issues as if they are the same things.

In the past, people used to buy albums having listened to one or two songs from them, and they couldn't get access to the other ones. I call that "rip off" but no one was there to fight for the "right of the customers".

And I think the download age has probably made life easier for the artists who are really struggling, cause people actually now have access to their product instead of what the big record companies were trying to force down people's throats through radio and the few TV stations.

And please spare me the crap and the tool after you. I worked in the scientific field where intellectual property is your whole work, but you don't get paid every time someone downloads an article(!!!!).
When I said you "can't" I thought that was somewhat clear I meant you're not allowed to this being a thread about the legal consequences of IP violations and all:shrug:.

Anyway, I'm sorry but I don't see a difference between you as the non-owner distributing someone elses property (again, legally speaking, you do not own other peoples intellectual property or have any rights to it unless they expressly give it to you) for FREE when that person could and should be earning money for it. This is peoples livelihood, and even if it isn't, it's what they deserve because it's their property. Imagine me letting people stay in your house and use your things when you go out of town without your permission and without paying you any kind of rent. That would be absurd and unfair, no?

I don't really know what your former employment entailed but I'm suppose there are some rules and agreements, that perhaps you didn't read in detail/knew about, that determine what people could do with those articles. Are you talking about uploading to a research paper to a university server that is normally used to host and distribute articles? 'Cause that could act as some kind of implied consent to people downloading it from that server whenever they please.:shrug: Either way people can't do what they please with your work unless you let them.

And yes, I agree about the internet being great for unsigned/unknown artists. :wavey:

Apoleb
Jan 20th, 2012, 02:58 PM
So . . do you believe that once you buy a physical record you should be able to make copies and distribute them freely? If so, what sort of system do you see as allowing the musician/artist to generate money from their work?

It is tough to say. The current system is working alright. The successful artists/musicians still make a buckload of money (maybe too much), and as I said before, people are more likely to be exposed to the less famous ones because they can download/listen to through the internet, for free. This means the public has more choice and more power in who they chose to support.

Which is why I do like to resist any moves to change the way the system currently operates. The point I'm getting at: there's no sound ethical basis for that crackdown, but I don't think I will support a "distribution free" law either. It is not black and white. Maybe mass distribution needs to be defined and restricted, but certainly not all kinds of distribution.

pov
Jan 20th, 2012, 03:04 PM
It is tough to say. The current system is working alright. The successful artists/musicians still make a buckload of money (maybe too much), and as I said before, people are more likely to be exposed to the less famous ones because they can download/listen to through the internet, for free. This means the public has more choice and more power in who they chose to support.

Which is why I do like to resist any moves to change the way the system currently operates. The point I'm getting at: there's no sound ethical basis for that crackdown, but I don't think I will support a "distribution free" law either. It is not black and white. Maybe mass distribution needs to be defined and restricted, but certainly not all kinds of distribution.
Yeah. That's fairly close to my current thinking on it. One thing though - there are very, very, very few artists/musicians that make great amounts of money. And even for those that do, if they are in contract to a major label, most make very little from "record" sales.

currie84
Jan 20th, 2012, 03:05 PM
The current system definitely isnt working.Music industry is dying.Read the reports,sales including legal downloads are decreasing every single year.How in the world do artists got it better when noone is buying their product.Where i live there used to be 10 record stores,now there is not a single one left,noone is paying for music anymore,why should they when they can just open google and find whatever they want for free.Those pro piracy /filesharing sites dont realise that in few years there wont be nothing new to download/share since noone will be willing to create or release new music for free.

Apoleb
Jan 20th, 2012, 03:20 PM
The current system definitely isnt working.Music industry is dying.Read the reports,sales including legal downloads are decreasing every single year.How in the world do artists got it better when noone is buying their product.Where i live there used to be 10 record stores,now there is not a single one left,noone is paying for music anymore,why should they when they can just open google and find whatever they want for free.Those pro piracy /filesharing sites dont realise that in few years there wont be nothing new to download/share since noone will be willing to create or release new music for free.

The proportion of overall artists who benefit from the recording industry is probably pretty small, cause only a few manage to become celebrities and sell their products. They are losing profit, yes, but they are still mega-rich and nothing suggests that they will be starving soon. There are many ways to make money other than selling their music anyway, through endorsements, live shows..etc

As I said, the ones with smaller names are probably benefiting cause they can spread their stuff without having the support of record companies.

Polikarpov
Jan 20th, 2012, 04:07 PM
Downloaded my first tennis match and porn video from this site.

RIP, Megaupload. You have served me and my penis well.

HippityHop
Jan 20th, 2012, 04:52 PM
Yeah. That's fairly close to my current thinking on it. One thing though - there are very, very, very few artists/musicians that make great amounts of money. And even for those that do, if they are in contract to a major label, most make very little from "record" sales.

Anyone who has dealt with the music "business" knows that it's probably the easiest place to get ripped off. Performers who are not creators make their money from "record" sales. If they have a good contract where they are getting say $1.25/unit they can do very well provided the company doesn't rip them off by "recouping" money for studio time, video shoots etc.

The real money is in the creative (songwriting) end. That's why when Whitney Houston's version of I Will Always Love You sent Dolly Parton smiling all the way to the bank.

pov
Jan 20th, 2012, 05:30 PM
The real money is in the creative (songwriting) end. That's why when Whitney Houston's version of I Will Always Love You sent Dolly Parton smiling all the way to the bank.
The major money musicians/artists make is from touring and sales of merchandise. And although I've seen the figure bandied about, most artists get way less than $1.25 per album. And most of the time the company will recoup all it's initial investment out of the artists's take.

For every $25 standard tour t-shirt sold, as much as $10 per t-shirt may go directly to the artist.

jrm
Jan 20th, 2012, 06:42 PM
why couldn't it be upload.to :o

i hate how everyone is uploading on that shit site

HippityHop
Jan 20th, 2012, 07:54 PM
The major money musicians/artists make is from touring and sales of merchandise. And although I've seen the figure bandied about, most artists get way less than $1.25 per album. And most of the time the company will recoup all it's initial investment out of the artists's take.

If you mean performers, that's true. However anybody in the industry will tell you that the real money is made from royalties and publishing (especially if you have written hits. Think Rod Temperton, Stevie Wonder etc). Nowadays performers (I don't use the word artist lightly) should have their business handled better than in the past.

I remember talking with one of the members of the Temptations who said that they were singing during their heyday for a $.01/record. And even with touring, if you have the wrong business manager you'll wind up with little or nothing.

pov
Jan 20th, 2012, 08:07 PM
If you mean performers, that's true. However anybody in the industry will tell you that the real money is made from royalties and publishing (especially if you have written hits. Think Rod Temperton, Stevie Wonder etc). Nowadays performers (I don't use the word artist lightly) should have their business handled better than in the past.

I remember talking with one of the members of the Temptations who said that they were singing during their heyday for a $.01/record. And even with touring, if you have the wrong business manager you'll wind up with little or nothing.
Again - not so. Most of the artists I like write their own material so I've never done research about those who don't. Let's put it this way - a band on a typically major label contract that writes and performs their own material and has a hit record generally makes most of their money from touring and merch.

HippityHop
Jan 20th, 2012, 08:26 PM
Again - not so. Most of the artists I like write their own material so I've never done research about those who don't. Let's put it this way - a band on a typically major label contract that writes and performs their own material and has a hit record generally makes most of their money from touring and merch.

Well, we disagree there. Having been very close to that business, I can tell you that a hit song, especially if it get's many covers will generate far more money than what touring will generate. Why do you think think that the Beatles catalog is so valuable? Yesterday (Lennon/McCartney) has been recorded at least 250 times and every time it's recorded (and get's played) the writer/writer's estate (provided they still own the publishing) get's paid.

One of my former students got 12 1/2% of a mega hit in the mid 90s. He showed me his first check from BMI which was $82,000 and change.

Sammo
Jan 20th, 2012, 08:40 PM
:spit: Anonymous just published everything about FBI director :haha:

gentenaire
Jan 20th, 2012, 08:50 PM
The current system definitely isnt working.Music industry is dying.Read the reports,sales including legal downloads are decreasing every single year.How in the world do artists got it better when noone is buying their product.Where i live there used to be 10 record stores,now there is not a single one left,noone is paying for music anymore,why should they when they can just open google and find whatever they want for free.Those pro piracy /filesharing sites dont realise that in few years there wont be nothing new to download/share since noone will be willing to create or release new music for free.

I pay for music, I pay for films and series. The problem is that quite often, they don't want my money. Just because I don't live in the US, there's a lot of material out there that's not made available to me. So then I download the torrents. I'm willing to pay, but if they don't want my money....
Why on earth isn't itunes a worldwide store? Why can't I buy music through the American itunes? The only reason you can only buy from your own country's store, is so they can track record sales by country and make lists.

I don't mind paying for TV series, I do mind waiting. If they'd just release everything worldwide at the same time, a lot of people wouldn't be downloading it. But why should I wait a couple of months or even a year before being allowed to watch a certain show? I have to stay away from twitter and facebook in order not to get spoilers. I prefer to watch these shows along with my online friends at the same time, so we can discuss these shows at the same time. If there was a paying service that allowed me to watch these TV shows immediately upon release, I'd pay for it.
But no. Record companies, Hollywood, they stick to their pre-internet business model.
A lot of these shows I got to know through my online friends, so thanks to the internet. It IS a way to get a broader audience.

moviemac
Jan 21st, 2012, 07:06 PM
So . . do you believe that once you buy a physical record you should be able to make copies and distribute them freely?
Yes, that sounds like a good idea. As long as you don't make it a business for yourself, there is not much wrong with it. :rolleyes: The more people know about a record/song etc., the more are likely to pay for it somehow...
If so, what sort of system do you see as allowing the musician/artist to generate money from their work?
Asking for payment. You would be amazed, how many people are willing to pay for something they enjoyed and they want more of. The problem is, the content industry has not established any system to make that feasible on a global scale. Usually they want to get paid BEFORE you use their creation/product. Now that is a perfectly understandable approach, when we are talking about physical products, you can't sell the same chair/car/house/apple twice, but you can do that with digital products at completely negligible costs. Make everything people want available easily and immediately and I guess 98 out of 100 people would go the legal way. But that is simply not the case. When it is easier and faster to download a whole tv show season via torrent than it is to download a single episode from an online shop, what do you expect most people to do...


The current system definitely isnt working.Music industry is dying.Read the reports,sales including legal downloads are decreasing every single year.

That is simply completely untrue.
Digital sales have been growing every year since they became available. Overall revenue has gone down slightly, but of course distribution has become much cheaper! It is way less costly to sell a million downloads then selling a million cds. So revenue might be down a little, profit isn't. And record sales aren't downhill completely either, e.g. album sales in the US in 2011 grew by 1.3% (first growth since 2004).

And of course profits from merchandising and touring are setting new records every year. So don't tell me the music industry as a whole is starving, that is bullish*t.

Where i live there used to be 10 record stores,now there is not a single one left,noone is paying for music anymore
People do buy online, both digital downloads and mail-order. It's easier, it's faster, it's cheaper – in all kinds of combinations.
Now I'm not saying by any means, that there is no "piracy", but people pirate stuff mainly because they perceive it as the best source available. You can't solve that problem by drying out those sources, you need to create a better one. It has worked to some extent with iTunes, but that's not enough yet. Content needs to be available globally instantly in the way, shape and form customers want it – it is possible with torrents, so why shouldn't it be possible through an industry provided solution.

edificio
Jan 21st, 2012, 10:34 PM
Megavideo and its infamous YOU HAVE WATCHED 72 MINUTES OF VIDEO :oh:

I know, especially annoying when your video is 90 minutes long. :rolleyes:

Still, I'm sad to see Megupload go, because some tennis videos are just not available through pay sources, so exchanging videos via such sites is the only option.

Melly Flew Us
Jan 22nd, 2012, 01:13 AM
piracy is a form of social resistance and long may it live.

have to say not really impressed with anonymous' work so far - was hoping for better.

but i guess that's easy for me to say.

HippityHop
Jan 22nd, 2012, 01:34 AM
piracy is a form of social resistance and long may it live.

have to say not really impressed with anonymous' work so far - was hoping for better.

but i guess that's easy for me to say.

Acutally piracy is stealing plain and simple. Those of us who are not thieves don't think it's OK.

darrinbaker00
Jan 22nd, 2012, 01:58 AM
Well, we disagree there. Having been very close to that business, I can tell you that a hit song, especially if it get's many covers will generate far more money than what touring will generate. Why do you think think that the Beatles catalog is so valuable? Yesterday (Lennon/McCartney) has been recorded at least 250 times and every time it's recorded (and get's played) the writer/writer's estate (provided they still own the publishing) get's paid.

One of my former students got 12 1/2% of a mega hit in the mid 90s. He showed me his first check from BMI which was $82,000 and change.

In the case of the Beatles' catalog, a large piece of the royalty pie goes to the estate of Michael Jackson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony/ATV_Music_Publishing

He owned all of his songs, a sizable portion of the Beatles' catalog, and even a few Elvis tunes. His children's children will never have to work a day in their lives.

Vartan
Jan 22nd, 2012, 02:37 AM
Anonymous has just taken down Department of Justice, RIAA, UMG, and MPAA websites, presumedly in retaliation for Megaupload.

They ain't playin'.

Mynarco
Jan 22nd, 2012, 03:21 AM
^Just tested. DoJ and MPAA are still working, but UMG and RIAA are down

Vartan
Jan 22nd, 2012, 03:35 AM
It was done earlier.

Paneru
Jan 22nd, 2012, 03:53 AM
So, how long before kids selling lemonade becomes illegal? :cool:

edificio
Jan 22nd, 2012, 04:14 AM
So, how long before kids selling lemonade becomes illegal? :cool:

Well in some locales you need city permission.

HippityHop
Jan 22nd, 2012, 12:52 PM
So, how long before kids selling lemonade becomes illegal? :cool:

Well, if the kids steal somebody else's lemonade that should be illegal. If they make their own, not so.

Shadowcat
Jan 22nd, 2012, 01:09 PM
So, how long before kids selling lemonade becomes illegal? :cool:

It is illegal in my country :sobbing:

Calvin M.
Jan 22nd, 2012, 02:24 PM
There are about 200 similar sites still working so no real harm done.You can still download illegally music and movies.

Excuse me but are we gonna pretend that this site wasnt indeed hosting pirated material?What's this outcry about?

Nonsense.If i was to open a store and sell copies of cds, dvds and blue rays,i'd end up in jail.That's essentially what megaupload or any other filesharing company is doin.I've used those kind of sites myself a lot of times but i'm not gonna pretend that it is legal,or cry about them being shut down

they were hosting illegal,copyrighted material and got money from advertisements and lifelong memberships of users who wanted to download this material.Technically they werent selling it,but they were making profit out of it.

The current system definitely isnt working.Music industry is dying.Read the reports,sales including legal downloads are decreasing every single year.How in the world do artists got it better when noone is buying their product.Where i live there used to be 10 record stores,now there is not a single one left,noone is paying for music anymore,why should they when they can just open google and find whatever they want for free.Those pro piracy /filesharing sites dont realise that in few years there wont be nothing new to download/share since noone will be willing to create or release new music for free.

Completely agreed with all your posts.

I realize that people have their preferences for sites like Megaupload but they aren't the only game in town so the "outcry" is unnecessary. No offense but it is annoying when people complain about getting something they truly enjoy for free.