The federal government, with help from police abroad, came down on Megaupload.com with the online cop fury of an Old Testament God. But why Megaupload? And why now?
There are plenty of players in the no-questions-asked online storage game: HulkShare, MediaFire, YouSendIt. They’re all staples of web sharing—and they’re all still up and running today. Partly because they’re smaller than Megaupload; partly because they’re smarter, but mostly because they don’t operate like sloppy drug kingpins.
The Justice Department’s whopping 72-page indictment against Megaupload—or as it’s tellingly referred to in the document, the “Mega Conspiracy”—illuminates a cavalier operation of opulence, carelessness, and tonnes of money. The Mega Conspiracy crew—which spanned continents, and was lead by flamboyant fatboy millionaire conman Kim Dotcom—was openly, wittingly rich off of copyrighted music. They were flagrant about their intentions to squeeze cash out of Simpsons episodes and 50 Cent albums; rewarding their most piracy-pushing users, laundering money through the site, and spending the cash in the most conspicuous ways imaginable.
And the feds have records of all of it.
Of all the brushes that painted a giant target on Megaupload’s back, the most obvious one is size. Megaupload ain’t no misnomer; the megasite consumed a staggering 4 percent of all traffic on the internet with 50 million daily visitors. There were other places to throw the dart, but Megaupload was a glowing bullseye the size of a dinner plate; they earned millions on their own through ad revenue, and allegedly cost copyright owners an estimated £322 million (the MPAA reportedly provided highly inflated financial damage estimates to the DoJ in advance of the crackdown). The Mega Conspiracy was too good for its own good.
The sheer volume alone was enough to attract the attention of the Justice Department’s Intellectual Property Task Force; from there, it wasn’t hard for the feds to start getting very suspicious, very quickly. Because Megaupload wasn’t just big; it was brazen. The site didn’t have blinking text that said SHARE YOUR PIRATED STUFF HERE, but the motive was clear. According to the indictment, the site wanted good pirated gems uploaded and spread far and wide. The document goes on to state that Mega knew it had infringing videos and songs on its servers, and wanted it downloaded as much as possible for maximum ad money. So they bribed users to do it for them, says the indictment:
“The Mega Conspiracy did provide financial incentives for premium users to post links on linking sites through the “Uploader Rewards” program, which ensured widespread distribution of Megaupload.com links throughout the Internet and an inventory of popular content on the MegaConspiracy’s computer servers.”
The rewards took the form of premium account upgrades, which allowing for faster downloads, or in some cases, straight cash.
The sprawling indictment goes on to describe cash that was spread around Megaupload’s international presence, with million dollar transfers flying between Hong Kong, Virginia, and Georgia, courtesy of a coding team that spanned US, Europe, and New Zealand. Some of this money went back into beefing up Megaupload, or was paid out to its super users. The Mega money bin also served as a handy way to launder money, the feds claim:
“Members of the Enterprise and their associates committed money laundering, attempted to commit money laundering, and conspired to commit money laundering to facilitate and expand the Enterprise’s criminal operations.”
Pretty cut and dry. And on top of all that, plenty of the dough was just pocketed: in 2010 alone, Kim Dotcom, the site’s Dr. Robotnik-meets-Larry Flynt founder, hauled in £27 million. His taste for women, expensive things, and surfeit is well documented. Last fall, while attempting to bribe New Zealand into residency and a £19 million mansion, he bought a £322,000 fireworks show for the city of Auckland. Just because he could. In the Feds’ eyes, he was a known crook who lived too large. And if you’re itching for a piracy conviction, why go after boring Jimmy HulkShare when you can hit the guy laundering money around the planet and buying his own fireworks shows?
Then again, Megaupload’s meteoric piracy blaze and Dotcom’s obese materialism had been rolling for years. Why yesterday? We asked the DoJ’s IP Task Force, and they haven’t responded (yet). But CNET’s Molly Wood has a conspiratorial-sounding theory that makes a hell of a lot of sense—and explains why that itch had grown so strong. It all comed down to SOPA:
“My sources tell me the timing of the Megaupload arrests was no accident. The federal government, they say, was spoiling for a fight after the apparent defeat of SOPA/PIPA and not a little humiliation at the hands of the Web. And what better way to bolster the cause for cyber-crackdown than by pointing to a massive display of cyber-terrorism at the hands of everyone’s favorite Internet boogeyman: Anonymous?”
They certainly got Anonymous’ attention.
The feds—those tasked as intellectual property sentinels in particular—want more power to kill sites like Megaupload. It looks like they’re not going to get their way through legislation though, so setting a prominent target ablaze in a very public and dramatic manner is a great screw you to SOPA’s foes.
If that’s the case, the Department of Justice should be gagging on irony: their swift destruction of Megaupload sans SOPA proves how gratuitous the bill was in the first place. This week has been the week of copyright warfare, but the decision to nuke the king copyright violator so spectacularly only goes to show how little the feds need bigger bombs.
Original photo: Amy Walters/Shutterstock













I get the impression that this article is biased towards the feds, agreeing with their claims instantly and making personal digs at Kim Dotcom.
I get the impression you’re probably not too familiar with this site, and the fact that we’re definitely not advocating *that* side of this particular situation.
I am not taking sides either, but I always wondered how they managed to operate for so long, when people that are doing much less get convicted and or sued and more recently deported for doing nothing illegal.
I thought in the past to sign up with them to download and thought to myself, this is so wrong that it will come down soon.
I’m with you on that. A lot of P2P sites walk a fine line between legal and illegal, and gain bit of profit from ads – admittedly mostly to sites like megaunload. But that wasn’t megaunload’s operation, no fine line there, they blatantly broke the law for vast profit, and flaunted it.
And Anonymous need to choose their battles wisely, they have done themselves no favours here, and been played like a patsy by the feds. It is OK to fight for freedom and want a open Internet, if that’s the battle you got my attention. But if they are saying the feds are out of hand for taking action against a band of stupid, and obvious, international criminals, then I fail to see any injustice in that. Where is it?
Im with you on this. Theres a big difference in freedom within the scope of the law, and breaking the law for their own gain. It doesnt matter if they are providing some legitimate services. If it’s illegal they should be brought to justice.
Could you rephrase that? A simpleton like me failed to find the point of what you just said.
It is surprising to think that Megaupload have been able to operate they way they have for so long.
They have feigned legitimacy, and deleted copyrighted content when they have been under enough pressure to do so, but it is obvious that they thought they created something lucrative enough to get away with in arrogance and splendor.
It’s a shame that so much genuinely legitimate content is disappearing along with the copyrighted junk they stored.
They are the digital equivalent of a brothel masquerading as a massage parlour. No more piratey ‘happy endings’ this time…
I agree in part, how anyone spends money, the lavish life style, women, cars or fireworks have nothing to do with it. If mega upload make money in a legitimate way such ad through advertising then they can spend it however they like, not everyone goes for the clean cut corporate image. To m,e what the investigation should focus on is the wrongdoing, what differs Megaupload from others, and what clear evidence is at hand, how you spend money is not evidence..
Despite the fact that the site was used for illegal content, I still think it’s a stupid move on the part of the feds because there’s plenty of legitimate content on Megaupload that users (some of them paying for their accounts) can no longer access because of the inditement. Shutting down Megaupload isn’t even a real solution to the problem due to the fact that there are dozens of other file sharing sites out there and shutting down one of them will make no difference in the long term.
What annoys me most of all about this is that the site was shut down because of the inditement before the site’s owners were proven guilty of any wrongdoing. I was of the impression that this was the kind of “guilty until proven innocent” attitude that people were trying to stop with SOPA and PIPA.
You can’t say that you can’t shut it down because some people aren’t using it as an illegal file share. It’s still a business that is breaking laws.
(I’m taking this next idea from GTA:VC but don’t think it’s any less relevant)
Say there is an ice cream van selling drugs, yet it still sells ice cream to children, should it be shut down?
It’s an extreme example, I know, but it just something to think about.
Its simple. The US Government is all about complete and utter control. Its beginning to exceed the British Government. The unbelievable amounts of money wasted fighting piracy could have been used to create better content and just let people consumer their media the way they want: In Netflix style instant, on demand, single site, high quality, subscription based formats.
This war will NEVER end. NEVER. An entire generation will NEVER pay for things they do not deem worth their money ( with regard to media ). And i think that is fine. In no other area of retail does something that is a piece of shit cost the same as something that is the best ever made. Like Skyrim vs generic EA sports title #57 or whatever. Or The Dark Knight vs Sucker Punch Blu Ray. They RIP PEOPLE OFF! I mean, in the UK they blatantly ignore trading standards rules that you can in fact return anything for a full refund if you are not satisfied. These things drive piracy and are irrelevant to people like me who will, at all costs, avoid paying a penny to anyone who does not deserve my cash. Example: ill walk home carrying my shopping in my hands before i pay 5p for carrier bag from a Bp petrol station.
It doesnt matter if you feel it’s a rip-off. If you dont like a service at an advertised price, dont get it. Dont steal it and then claim you havent done anything wrong. You break the law; accept the consequences. And on the subscription format point; there ARE subscription services which cater for gamers, and as you pointed out, films and TV shows. But people would rather steal than pay for them.
Youre right that a lot of this generation dont want to pay for things. This says some very fundamental truths about the maturity of a lot of internet users, who feel that anonymity gives them the right to behave illegally.
It comes down to people feeling theyre entitled to the world, even if they arent in the financial situation to acquire it. You may get away with it, but its still immature and sad.
While copyright infringement is illegal, it isn’t stealing or theft and isn’t classed as such, you play into the media industries hands when you do this. Don’t get me wrong, I produce media, I own the copyright to it and choose what I do with it, if someone downloads media without paying for it they aren’t stealing from me, depriving me of those goods, or stopping me from making money from those goods in the future. And only deprived from earnings they may or may not otherwise have taken, but that isn’t theft or stealing, it is copyright infringement.
A bigger problem I see is these people that use songs as songtracks on youtube videos without permission, aiming to give their own creative effects worth by infringing on the rights of other creatives – a mockery.
And if anyone is getting deprived of money if I download something illegally, then it is not a logistical company or the distributor as I bypassed their service, it is the creative people involved as I can’t bypass that service – so the only person hard done by is the creative people involved, everyone else is just looking to gain a share of a pie that they traditional got, and future models state that may not be the case from now on.
Thats all a good point, and I apologise for my inaccuracy. I would happily reward those that do the ‘creation’ as opposed to the more money driven ‘distribution’ if I could. But you can’t. You have to buy the package.
At the end of the day, a hell of a lot of people who infringe the copyright by torrenting instead of paying, could have payed. They just feel they shouldnt have to. Thats just a middle finger to the creators as it is to the studio bigwigs. If people want to keep on encouraging creativity and ideas, they have to keep financing the bigwigs too. Its an irritation, and it sucks, but in the end its only fair.
Agreed, and we do understand some people do download as I means of testing and sampling a product before they buy, and I don’t see much wrong in that. If you like something sooner or later you have to throw some money in that direction, otherwise you are actually harming yourself in getting more of the same in the future.
Hi there,
I was reading comments here and you stick out whole time. Then i read this post and decided to respond to you cause in my opinion you are dead wrong in most of your arguments. I registered just to respond to you thinking it might do no good but i have to try and put out my 2 cents.
1st of you are saying “…a hell of a lot of people who infinge the copyright by torrenting instead of paying, could have payed…”
I ll give you my example. I torrented a movie cause i was interested in the fact is it worth watching cause you know what they say, “TIME IS MONEY”. Other day i went to see it in cinema with my friends. Then today i m seeing those 50 eur are added to the LOSS of the UNIVERSAL. I wouldn’t say it is a loss now is it? What about all the loss big holywood studios caused me for all the movies i payed but didnt like at all and i couldnt get my time or money back? From other people examples when someone downloads 500 movies he s just a freak and there is no loss there either now is it? I doubt he has the money to pay for 5 movies a month let alone 500. But ok add that to UNIVERSAL or whatever studios loss as well.
2nd i see movie as i see a book. Now bear with me on this one. As i was in school i didnt have money for new books so i would always buy old used ones or i would be given one by an older friend, same as in any other book i ever shared. People i know all share books in all areas cause they DONT have money to buy ALL the books by themselfs. Those who do buy them. Should i report them to FBI or Movies go in some different category of “intellectual”. Perhaps “DUMB AND DUMBER” has higher intellectual value than my physics book. That physics author wasnt complaining and he was living mediocre lifestyle as opossed to almost everyone in HOLLYWOOD. Nowdays we have internet and imagine what, books still sell, authors still earn, they are still shared online as well and look what AMAZON turned into, i ll be damned.
This acts are not for anyones jobs and all that crap they sell to you. It’s about Tom Cruise earning 20 mil per movie instead of 10. Well i think he earns too much now, they can take from him and create a new job opening how bout that? Maybe he should be living like that physics book author and world would be a better and happier place then. I only come to my 2nd point and there is so much more to this but i think i had enough.
Cheers to you my friend and take your head out of your you know what.
Sry for any mistakes in my english, it s my 3rd language that i learned from a borrowed book !
I ll add few more points just cant resist arguing this flawed logic.
I discovered world of animation and creating videos/movies trough torrents. At first i liked the fact i can manipulate a bit with videos etc. but that soon bored me and i left that hobby. My friend tho picked up on it pretty fast and fell in love with it. He now owns a “little” (very profitable) studio that has 10 licences of same new version program that we pirated then and COULDNT AFFORD IT at 16 years of age and price of 1200$ !! Yeah what a loss for that company, HUGE !
Few more points: Dont take newspaper from other people to take a look, go buy one yourself. Dont watch rented movie at your friends place, go back home and rent yourself, same copy….. goes on and on, apply it to everything and think about what makes movies and music so different.
Do you see a similarity in all these points? When you buy something noone should limit you what will you do with what you payed for. It s on their end to think how to ensure maximum profit and interest. Prohibition was/is never an answer. Take a look at NAPSTER panic and music. They earn like never before, games, software… Look at netflix for movies ! PEOPLE ARE PAYING and people want their freedom it s why we like paying for all kinds of crazy stuff.
I’m pissed at US Goverment and its crooked politicians even more on blind citizens whom you only need to yell JOBS and show TERRORIST in shape of anonymous and they ll even protest for you to take them down.
BYE
Its the society we live in that is the driver in all this, it all about GREED! People want things but don’t want to pay, or won’t pay if they have a choice, the riots showed us that, and the ones who didn’t riot are likely to have committed copyright theft. The government is fucked, our PM’s steal and take bribes for favours. The government goes to war in search of cheaper oil. The big companies exploit cheap labour from the 3rd world which is in my opinion a bigger crime, in the 3rd world they don’t get any rainfall because of pollution from the industrialised nations which impacts weather patterns. Maybe people could sue because clean air is being stolen? its all BULLSHIT, nobody sets a good example. You will never fix the pirating issue, it will carry on and on, people want things that are shoved in the face, and a free lunch tastes better than one you have paid for…
Hey guys! gonna do some shameless begging here. i’ve submitted a track to Reddit.com/r/300songs (a music project they’re doing with grooveshark). Voting finishes sunday so if you have a spare minute go and vote for my track and i will be eternally grateful. its in the January submissions thread and its by ‘Mr Py’ (me). Sorry to hijack you guys. thanks
This is for carbon unit iMattsmith.
With all things open to interpretation, the resulting debates descend into never ending semantic quibbles. I find circumlocution and pleonasm tedious, and hard on the eyes. Perhaps… a simplistic approach?
There I am, sneaking into your house and stealing all your prized CD’s, which you paid for with your Saturday job cash. Or, there I am, sneaking into your house with a portable CD ripping box, to copy all your CD’s and leaving your collection in place, for you to continue enjoying.
So, we call an action of the first kind “Theft” and an action of the second kind “Copy”
They are different right? Why then should the law treat them the same? After all, in a case of “Copy”, I have not deprived you of anything. That’s great, I apparently haven’t deprived anyone of anything… everyone is happy… I know I am… I got loads of great music for free… and since it was free, I really have no need to buy it. Great! Time for a beer.
Wait a minute… Free? There are consequences aren’t there? This, everything is free idea must begin and end with someone, something – The artist perhaps?
I’m not talking about a few cassette tape copies though am I? – No one ever really believed that “Home taping was Killing Music”.
But since then, technology has moved on it’s possible for a whole targeted market of tens of thousands of people and music lovers to get their latest favourite groups CD for free – no cash – zip – nothing at all (sorry for the pleonasm) This will eventually have a negative effect on your favourite artists, it has to doesn’t it?
I’m old fashioned. I believe that people deserve to be paid for their efforts, and just because you can get away with obtaining free music, video’s, book’s, software etc, it doesn’t mean it is right.
If people are going to explore their creativity to it’s full potential, they deserve to be paid for it. The product of which, has an impact onmany people – like the artists support staff and all the people who benefit from wealth creation – all of us.
Sorry for the dumb scenario, but I felt it necessary for iMatt. This is not a pro Anti Piracy rant or a pro SOPA rant. I believe that all that will eventually sort itself out. I have never stolen copyrighted material, physically or otherwise. I pay my PPL and PRS licenses also, but I know lots of people who don’t and but should do. Like I said, I’m old fashioned.
Maybe I’m in the minority here.
I’ve downloaded stuff; a song here, an album there.
Then I’ve gone on to buy 2, 3, more albums of the same artist.
But then, I’ve been charged nearly £1 for a song by a dead artist. Who’s stealing there? The person who wrote and sang the song, is dead. Yet it still costs me money.
There will always be people who will want something for nothing. Always.
There will always be people who want something, and will give something in return.
Life balances.
Technology makes it easy for people to “steal”, “thieve”, “rob”, call it what you will; technology will move on and the cycle will begin again.
I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it happens.
In the end, if the artist doesn’t make money, they don’t make the art. In the end, the consumer loses out more than the artist. The artist still has the art.
You didn’t see the opening line then? – “With all things open to interpretation, the resulting debates descend into never ending semantic quibbles.” – What you have said has been said, at least a dozen times.
This was a simplsitic retort to iMattsmith’s simplistic claim earlier.
I made my point. From my position As I see it.
I think that any theft, no matter how small, is quite simply “theft” … There is no real need to dress it up any other way. If an artist offers me something as a sample then that is all well and good.
Be it Music, Film, Software on the internet, or clothes and hardware from shop… It’s all theft. That is the simple top and bottom of it. All theft is insidious and certainly isn’t victimless.
Semantics is what it is all about. You have your version, I have mine. The Lawyers get richer and politicians claim victories.
I give up any hope of debate in the face of the all-knowing Magic Robot.
I am not sure why you would say that? My opinion is just one of many opinions. I try only comment on things I have experienced. I try not to deal with anecdotal rubbish. For every Thesis you have to have an Antithesis and eventually, if you are lucky, a Synthesis. I thought it was a debate, you obviously think not. Sorry about that.
I mostly agree. In fairness I personal think iMattSmith raises some points regarding consumer rights in the media sector and pricing in regard to standards in media sales. Like how can they charge the same amount for a high quality big budget film on DVD and a no-budget independent and expect everyone to be happy with that, same goes for computer games. Should I be allowed to say, I don’t think that DVD is worth that money, I want a refund?
But we do see this happening now with self-publishing with books, music and video, the producers know it isn’t the best and will take a lower fee or take donations – the world is gladly changing.
And as I’ve stated it is deeply wrong to call this theft or stealing, it isn’t. It isn’t semantics or pedantic to debate this as such, it is just wrong. It is copyright infringement, and that doesn’t mean it is right, it just means that within the law and society, as a whole, it is classed as something different, you may not like that, and that is fine, go and change it, but that is the state of play. If you have a Radiohead CD, someone may break into your house and steal it, nobody is breaking into your house and copying it, they may download it and they are not depriving yourself of anything. The only person truly getting infringed upon is Radiohead, will they be arsed? Probably not, they are rich and talented, and understand that in today’s market it isn’t about a track floating in digital cyberspace it is about value for money. That is why they gave an album away in 2007 and said pay what you like, while at the same time sold a boxset for £40 with added value; the album on CD, two vinyl records, a CD with additional songs, photos, artwork and lyrics – knowing that they have a loyal fan base that would line up to pay for such a boxset. But how do Radiohead make real money now? How does any band make money today? Touring and live performance are real way to make money, the CD or downloads are now just a promotion for that. Yet this does bring questions up for the studio artist, that doesn’t want to tour and doesn’t see themselves as a performing seal, and crave fame or attention.
This is debate I mind myself talking more and more about, and I think maybe is does need looking at. What about other professions? A builder gets paid a set fee for fitting a door, while a creative person doesn’t get paid for making some music, if they sell that music then they may make some money down the road, but most don’t. Now what if the building profession said tomorrow, don’t pay me for fitting the door just give me £1 every time someone walks through that door, for the rest of the builders life and 70 years after his death- then I think we would all question that.
I don’t think we have an easy answer other than time limiting copyright to its original intention to pay the creative person, original copyright stated 42 years from publication, or the lifetime of the author plus 7 years, or whichever is longer – and I think that is more than fair. You got your own life plus 7 years, or your estate has 42 years if you die tomorrow after publishing today. But now, and it does differ, general copyright is the lifetime plus 70 years which is a long time, and doesn’t benefit society as a whole, which is a key concept of creative works, surely the world would be a better place if the Bob Marley collection was public domain by now, rather than funding the estate to market tacky headphones in his name?
And, F Scott Fitzgerald made $8k from ‘The Great Gatsby’, his daughter Gets $500k per year from that book – I’m sure he would be happy that she is getting rich from his work, but maybe the minds within society would be getting richer if anyone could download his work for free to an e-book.
I think it is fair that someone like David Bowie can become a every rich man, and when he sadly passes his estate is settled and the people he wanted to benefit will be comfortable, and they we get further rich with the work being remastered and sold to celebrate the work of the great man for 7 years after his death, and then the work should become public domain, but to state that his estate and the media industry can screw everyone for the next 70 years is benefiting the few and not the many. And I thin it needs changing as it doesn’t sit pretty for most people.
What about people who start companies then leave the shares to their families who leave them to their family etc? The descendants are able to profit from their ancestors work in perpetuity, or should they only be allowed a lifetime plus 7 too.
To be honest I would rather it was Bob Marley’s family who are profiting from his work rather than tacky advertising agencies and lazy so called musicians who can’t write their own work.
That is a fair point, if creative works were companies, and companies were creative works, but then it may raise bigger questions regarding share dealing in general.
I’d personally like to see nobody profit from an artists work after a limited time after their death, I may be old fashioned, but I see that as deeply respectful.
And to think if I did a quick google search for the lyrics of the song ‘One Love’ then copied and pasted them here I am then breaking the law regarding copyright infringement to the same extent as someone that downloaded latest Adele track for free, even if that artist has been dead for over 31 years.
The odd thing I find is people are not unhappy with friends infringing copyright laws but they don’t like other people doing it. If a friend came around to your house and was listening to a Bob Marley CD and said, I really like this can you make me a copy of it, you wouldn’t get in their face and scream, f*ck off get your own copy I paid for this with hard graft, you may do that but then you wouldn’t have any friends, most sane people would say, sure I’ll just make you a copy now. Now that isn’t right, but it is social acceptable and nobody really questions it. But those same people may get angry with the Marley estate being deprived of funds because ‘other people’ feel they have a right to download music for nothing. I don’t know if it is because someone has paid for that Marley CD so they feel it is within their rights to make a copy, surely they don’t believe that, but maybe they feel that.
Let he who is without sin throw the first stone – if you have never downloaded media illegally, recorded media from a broadcast on TV or radio and held it for longer than 28 days, watched illegal content online, copied a CD, have a copied CD, copied music and lyics without permission, performed a song without rights, played a DVD to an audience, photocopied work from a book or used software without paying for it then I admire you deeply – but I know you have done some of those things, and everyone knows you are lying if you say otherwise – and they are all copyright infringement equally under the law. Now if we ain’t pointing the finger at people because they have a TV series they recorded on TV some 28 days later, then why point the finger at someone that downloaded the same series illegally? Myself and others, including the law or your land, both see this as the same act.
Yeah ask music industry how they recovered from NAPSTER? Pls check statistics. They recovered with record earnings.žž
BYE !!!!!
If they just handed out music for free i can guarantee you they would be earning more money than me and you (well dont know how much you earn but i ment average “normal” people). The amount of money they started chargin for concerts isnt normal and advertising is beyond this world. They can live on that alone.
Why i m saying this? Cause they are using MORE JOBS argument which is pathetic. Also you are all ranting there about creative stuff and how we should reward it etc…
I guess dear sir you have no clue how music industry operates. Creative ppl are usualy unknown people from which people with money steal creative ideas cause they can PROMOTE it with THEIR MONEY and get RETURN of their INVESTMENT. Has nothing to do with creativity but keep telling yourself that. Just pretty faces and TON OF MONEY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&sns=em
For everyone making the argument that the user base were “stealing”. Nuff’ said.
Piracy mostly exists because the retarded industries involved charge too much for a product that has de-valued in the face of massive growth of their respective industries. And they make it too difficult.
I’m happy to pay £5 a month if I can stream good quality movies. Same for music. If I get access to everything.
£5/month might seem like nothing for all the movies in the world. But the important point is that £5/m (or £60 per year) is SIGNIFICANTLY more than I spend normally, because I never buy movies or music albums. I’ve bought half a dozen CDs in my entire life, and even fewer movies.
If everyone pays a little, the content creators should be able to get more money overall.
The (old) people in these retarded US organisations fundamentally don’t understand copyright and see it as stealing. They only understand an archaic business model which is dying.
Every person paying €6 a month for a Megaupload account could be paying that money to a legitimate service, they just haven’t many any good enough.
Absolutely MCG – you are 100% right. Of course I have borrowed a mates album and copied it. Like you said, almost everyone has done it.
But… as I pointed out in the initial post to iMatt’ No one actually believed that home taping was killing music. The anti home taping movement thing came about as a consequence of the sudden boom in people buying Walkman’s and generic equivalent products, and the actuall level of piracy was miniscule compared to the digital equivalent of today. A 60 minute cassette tape is not the same as a 1TB hard drive full of movies and music.
I have been into music for a long time. I love it.
Growing up, the most important things to me, were my record player and my records. At 14 I probably owned at the most 10 or 12 albums. Not many is it?. Considering the cost of records at the time and the fact that my only income was a paper round It’s not surprising, and like most kids of the time, I had to rely on Birthdays and Christmas for stuff I wanted. I didn’t rush out and find alternative ways of owning the records I wanted. I waited until I had the cash to buy it, or until it was given as a gift. I had to consider almost everything I bought. I studied and read information about the bands in the music press etc. Nothing unusual about that though, most of us did.
When I eventually owned a cassette player recorder, I spent hours creating compilation tapes. We all did, it was the done thing. We used our own record collections as the library source.
Personally, I can probably recall a handful occasions where I asked a mate to make me a copy of an album. Cassettes were poor and hissy though, they got jammed up and sometimes snapped. They lacked art work and sleeve notes and lyrics. It was a poor substitute for the real thing. Not forgetting that everything in life is subjective – some people loved cassettes and probably never bought a single or an album. Personally, I wasn’t one of them.
Zoom into the future and things have changed beyond anything anyone could have predicted. In my business I work with all ages, from the school leavers to people working beyond retirement. The youngsters keep the oldies up to date and the oldies talk about the good old days – or bad, depending on your view point. A couple of years ago, I had a situation where I caught a young chap putting a 250GB hard drive into his bag, it was full of DIVX films, all recent releases. He asked me if I wanted to copy it. He was confused when I refused… he said “Why? It’s Free.” I said no it isn’t. He was even more confused when I told him that if I catch him flashing it around again in my business, he’ll be looking for alternative employment. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and let him off. He’s actually a good kid.
I would have reacted exactly the same had he been flogging fags, or trainers etc. This episode prompted me to start checking the computer use in the business. Guess what? there were lots of illegal downloading going on. People were using torrent sites, filling up hard drives and USB sticks with free material.
I had to address this with the staff – after all, I pay the bills, and the wages and provide a clean safe environment for people to work in. I have no problem with staff using the Internet at work as long as it isn’t abused, and by that I mean, I let people decide what they consider excessive use. But using company bandwidth and and company equipment to download from torrent sites is absolutely not on.
I hated having to deal with this as I had to impose rules, and treat people like children, and because some people believed what they were doing was harmless.
Not is it only not harmless, but its just downright disrespectful. This silly idea of anonymous theft allows people to believe they can have anything for free. Like blank discs, stationary and stamps, even something as stupid as filling up water bottles from the fountain to take home. All this stuff is small, but over a long period it has an eroding effect. It affects the business in ways most people fail to understand and this is my main issue with this “free” idea/culture. Copyright laws are what they are until they are changed. People making money after they are dead is part of a system that I have no control over.
As I also mentioned in the initial post to iMatt, I can see no resolution to this problem – It’s all a question of semantics. People will believe what they want to believe. I try to stay with the basics, and do what I think is right, but there is so much anecdotal evidence regarding this issue, I doubt if anyone actually has a grip on the situation. Lawyers no longer argue over what is right or what is wrong, they now argue over the meanings of words like, “Free” – “Theft” – “Copyright”
All fair points, and downloading in work, especially illegal content is outright disrespectful to yourself. And even if people are setting up downloads in thrie own time it is slowing your connection, all internet usage for everyone in the office is effected, not good.
Posting this because a don’t favour a horiffic looking front page to Gizmodo.
It pleases me that a.) people are so impassioned about this subject, and b.) people actually care about what our front page looks like! But very soon we’ll be truncating the featured comments on the homepage, so you won’t have to worry about your mammoth essays taking over the whole site.
Yes. sorry about that – I had no idea of the size until I posted the blab, as the text entry box is small. Perhaps the front page just needs to say – ‘Most recent comment By’ “Whatever Tag”
It’s time the music/film industry caught up with the times.
I really don’t understand how they fail to see that if websites like Megaupload can make such huge profit giving things away for free, by adverts & premium accounts, that they could be doing the same thing!
Nothing is stopping Music and film industries creating a service like this, with adverts and premium accounts with THEIR material, and hence making just as much profit.
This talk of lost revenue is nonsense, just because people are prepared to get something free, doesn’t mean they are prepared to buy it. It just baffles me how that ‘they’ fail to see that they can be making money by giving away their music and film for free!
Thats a fair point – I agree, technology is dictating how businesses sell their wares. But there is the situation we have now, and the situation we will end up with.
I subscribe to Spotify and I love using iPeng. Personally, I think it’s the deal of the century. Access to a mind blowing catalogue for a tenner a month. It’s the kind of thing I probably dreamed of 30 years ago that came true.
Many of the artists complain that it doesn’t create solid revenue, but It is a tool for exposure. I have actually discovered a lot of great stuff on Spotify and as a result, I have bought the records, instead of continuing to stream them. I want the bands I like to continue making music, and if I can support them, I will, every penny helps, for the hundreds of not so famous bands.
Totally agree. We know this, and the record companies and film makings know this, we like to buy things, we are consumers. 75% of music is sold on CD, good reason behind that, some may download the odd digital track legally or illegally, but if you are a big fan you buy the CD’s, and even search out the limited editions that you know will be worth something in the future.
Over the years I’ve brought Bladerunner about 7 times, I may be stupid, but loans to a friend don’t always come back, and new formats are better quality to have, so many different cuts of the film – but I’m happy to pay for this, and for Scott and others to get my money as it is a great film to watch again. But this makes me think about licensing of music and films which copyright is, when I first brought Bladerunner I own and used that license, if it comes out on Blu-ray I still own the license, so shouldn’t I be offered a HD upgrade at a reduced cost – I know this is a logistical nightmare. But if someone had the complete set of Queen tracks on audio cassette, don’t they already own a license of all those tracks, and rather than buy CD’s or MP3 tracks of what they already have don’t they have a genuine call to download that from a torrent for ease and time saving.
This argument that Downloading something does not take money out of any ones pocket is not entirely true at all. It is hard to know for certain if all the things you download were not available to pirate for free, whether you would buy them or not. If you really want something and you have to pay to get it, you could even use a credit card just to get that thing.
You of course may not buy as many things as you pirate – but I am confident that there is some lost sales in there. I know for a fact that I would of brought some games/movies and probably brought some big applications like Office 2007 years ago if I had no choice.
The next issue with this of course is, even if there were no detrimental effects to the content producers, is it still right to take what is not freely given? I am struggling on this point. The whole argument saying I will pay for what I can afford but not what I cant is the same, this is flaky as until we truly could not download something for free, we will not know exactly what we will not buy. Desire is a powerful motivator.
This goes for any pirated content, taking something that is not freely given which can be considered fair and not outrageous.
i must say this back forth discussion is very good a few things i like to say
first im not entirely clean i have done the odd download hear and their.
its on thing to download something and use it personally, this i can understand. theirs movies books etc that i want to watch but i would never pay dvd price to watch it because i know that the movie isn’t worth it (lots of those cheep horror gore filmes are prime examples)
its another thing to download 500 movies and a 1000 songs none of which you will watch and then try to resale the works for your own profit.
second i disliked the way the government use the creating jobs argument to support sopa and pipa, it was a real possible such an act could cut large numbers of jobs instead of preserving them.
third censorship is a very powerful tool in and of its self it bear no good or ill, unfortunately it is to oft used for wrongful ends. the worst in people come out when they have too much power. government position is vast power on its own i would rather not have ch a powerful tool firmly in their hands.
on an off note i honestly believe that governing is not something one should do because they want to do it, but because they think they are what their country needs. the closest analogy i can think of is when one man must hold off the enemy to retreat so the rest of the squad can live. you don’t volunteer because you want to, its not an honor but a solemn duty.
does roasting mega-video really do anything to stop piracy. i really think it does not by destroying mega-video they created a void. a void which a larger number of smaller company will fill. when one thinks of it that way they only made the problem worse. one company that you know where its at or a dozen that you got no idea what their name is. i read once you cull the wolf population you don’t hunt wolfs, you trap rabbits.
it doesn’t matter if they fried every single pirate site, user and up-loader out their if there demand someone will sup lie. lord knows im just mediocre when it come to computers but even i can (with a lot of word and a few headaches)figure out how to set up a file distributor that would use an email account.
if one half assed computer geek can figuer something like that our think what teams of people with proper skills and train could do.
also have you heard of the deep web and surface web? surface web is the stuff the internet browsers can find. the deep web is the stuff they cant and it is much larger. its hard to even get a good size estimate on it, let alone monitor it for copyrighted works. how hard would it be for some tech person to set up a site on the deep web? sure one couldn’t find it with a searcher engine but word of mouth travels.
its a fight that cant be won the government would have to disband the internet altogether, declare martial law,and jam the airways to completely stop it, and even then it would be stopped it would come back with the slighted crack in the wall the contains it.
im not pro piracy even if it was legal their is something fundamentally wrong with not giving an artist their due.
im not pro government for more reason then should be listed hear.
both sides in the extreme can cause great harm a balance must be struck and maintained . i throw my weight against the government because it is overpower and threats to disrupt the balance.