So Kim Dotcom has announced that he will be starting up a website similar to Megaupload where users can share whatever content they wish.
In an attempt to avoid legal trouble he is making it where he will have no knowledge of what the users are making available on his website.
Do you think this step will insulate him from legal trouble? If not, will the legal trouble be justified?
Seeing as he has already had appologies from the New Zealand gov. over the handling of the investigation fiasco , that was led by the USA .... Its going to be a lot harder for them to dupe the New Zealanders to go after him again.
I'm not coming here to pick a side of he was right or he was wrong.
But
No matter how you slice it thousands & thousands of people have lost access to perfectly legal content belonging to them, because of the heavy handed way it was handled.
IMO there is no reason for those who are suppose to uphold the law, being allowed to break the laws to do so. Those who have legitimate claims I hope go after restitution based on what they lost & maybe how these cases are handled in the future will be more above board.
But I sure won't be holding my breath.
Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More
At 1/20/13 11:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote: So Kim Dotcom has announced that he will be starting up a website similar to Megaupload where users can share whatever content they wish.
In an attempt to avoid legal trouble he is making it where he will have no knowledge of what the users are making available on his website.
Do you think this step will insulate him from legal trouble? If not, will the legal trouble be justified?
It should, it's not the owner of the site that is sharing the files, it's the users. Attacking the site owner is just a cheap way to imitate justice.
if some one steals clothing and then donates it to charity, do you arrest the people running the charity because you can't track down the thief, or do you do just let it go?
ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.
At 1/20/13 03:20 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: It should, it's not the owner of the site that is sharing the files, it's the users. Attacking the site owner is just a cheap way to imitate justice.
So someone who builds a a warehouse with a dogfighting pen in it, called "dog fighting R Us" is safe so long as they don't have a key and don't officially know what's going on in there? When the expected dogfighting happens, that person who knowingly and intentionally supported it is clean because they can claim plausibile deniability?
if some one steals clothing and then donates it to charity, do you arrest the people running the charity because you can't track down the thief, or do you do just let it go?
No, but pawn shops can, and should, be held liable for "no questions asked" purchasing. Choosing to ignore illegal action doesn't shield you if you;re still actively supporting it.
At 1/20/13 03:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/20/13 03:20 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:So someone who builds a a warehouse with a dogfighting pen in it, called "dog fighting R Us" is safe so long as they don't have a key and don't officially know what's going on in there? When the expected dogfighting happens, that person who knowingly and intentionally supported it is clean because they can claim plausibile deniability?
The owner of that site hasn't expressed that the purpose of his site is software piracy. We don't know the extend he/she is going through to avoid legal trouble, maybe they are going to do what youtube does and remove copyright infringing content when asked to? maybe they are going to use their terms of service so hand the liability over to the users?
No, but pawn shops can, and should, be held liable for "no questions asked" purchasing. Choosing to ignore illegal action doesn't shield you if you;re still actively supporting it.
some people lie.
ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.
At 1/20/13 03:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
No, but pawn shops can, and should, be held liable for "no questions asked" purchasing. Choosing to ignore illegal action doesn't shield you if you;re still actively supporting it.
This just cannot be applied to the web.
You can't track every file on youtube or every comment on FB, combing it to see if someone posted something stolen. It's madness.
It's over, people can share things, the end. This is Drug Wae 2.0 where huge corporations dump money on legislators to try and pass insane laws that make them money while persecuting 99.99% of citizens.
The downsides of making piracy / sharing legal and unpoliced are infinitesimal compared to the upsides.
At 1/20/13 04:07 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: The owner of that site hasn't expressed that the purpose of his site is software piracy.
But he knows that a large percentage of the traffic will be pirated. Feigning a lack of knowledge is not a great defense. If Dotcom actually wanted to be legal as opposed to making a pro-piracy statement, he'd merely restart Megaupload and create a fairly strong copyright division that actively monitors for piracy and removes files as well as users who post them.
His new scheme is nothing other than thumbing his nose. It's hardly a good faith effort.
We don't know the extend he/she is going through to avoid legal trouble, maybe they are going to do what youtube does and remove copyright infringing content when asked to? maybe they are going to use their terms of service so hand the liability over to the users?
You can't just hand over liability like that. Like with the dogfighting ring example, if he has a place that is prime dogfighting location and he knows it will likely be used as such, him merely saying "do not use it for dogfighting" doesn;t completely shield hi, and as well it shouldn't. A half-hearted warning/shifting of liability should not be all that is needed to allow someone to profit off an illegal enterprise without any recourse.
some people lie.
Some people lie, yes. But not asking if willful blindness.
At 1/20/13 04:49 PM, poxpower wrote: This just cannot be applied to the web.
How? If Dotcom has good reason to believe that his site will be used for extensive illegal activity, merely saying "please don't be bad" is not enough. And, you can be damn sure that he knows his site will be used for piracy. He's a tech guy who is more than old enough to remember Napster, Kazaa, Morpheus, DC+ and so on. I seriously doubt he's smart enough to build this site and yet too dumb to realize how these sites have been used since their inception.
You can't track every file on youtube or every comment on FB, combing it to see if someone posted something stolen. It's madness.
Facebook, youtube, and other big sites have entire departments devoted to not only responding to copyright removal requests, but actively seeking out copyrighted material. The penalties for violating these rules on these sites can be severe (account deletion).
You cannot stop all piracy, but at least these sites make a darn good showing that they try to be compliant.
It's over, people can share things, the end. This is Drug Wae 2.0 where huge corporations dump money on legislators to try and pass insane laws that make them money while persecuting 99.99% of citizens.
How is attmepting to stop theft a persecution?
The downsides of making piracy / sharing legal and unpoliced are infinitesimal compared to the upsides.
Exactly how so?
Piracy isn't theft. You need to physically take away something to steal something. You cannot compare real life examples to internet piracy because you can't duplicate someone else's matter and take off with it IRL.
The Magaupload case is just like they had shut down post service because some people send illegal things over it. Then trial the people at the post office because they knew post service could be use to send drug, organ or whatever. Megaupload did not monitor what the people was uploading, but they where deleting and banning abuser on demand; the same way youtube and most website do.
The whole process again Megaupload is invalid. It's a case of political bullying and a display of power for the purpose of instigating fear more than anything else.
At 1/20/13 07:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
And, you can be damn sure that he knows his site will be used for piracy.
So?
Gun manufacturers can be damn sure their guns will be used for crimes.
Should they stop making them?
If I make alcohol, it's my job to make sure it's never sold to a drunk driver?
You see how this is fucking crazy right? How you have selectively decided that a webmaster / programmer providing a service can't be held responsible for what the users of his service does, except to a very limited extend, like if there was no way you could use their thing for anything other than illegal activities?
Facebook, youtube, and other big sites have entire departments devoted to not only responding to copyright removal requests, but actively seeking out copyrighted material.
And they don't succeed in doing it. They're throwing money out the window hand over first doing this.
You'd want them to be CRIMINALLY responsible on top of it all?
I can still find infinite copyrighted things on Youtube. Based on your logic, we should put every employee of theirs in jail right now.
You cannot stop all piracy, but at least these sites make a darn good showing that they try to be compliant.
The downsides of making piracy / sharing legal and unpoliced are infinitesimal compared to the upsides.Exactly how so?
Because we all get infinite things for free whereas the downside is a couple jobs are lost ( if that ).
At 1/20/13 11:17 PM, poxpower wrote: So?
Gun manufacturers can be damn sure their guns will be used for crimes.
The mere use of something for a crime isn't enough. Megaupload full on facilitates the crime. It provides the place, the customers, the bandwidth, AND profits off of all of it while taking little to no effort to ensure it isn't used for its likely purpose.
That's far closer to aiding and abetting than merely selling a gun.
Should they stop making them?
If I make alcohol, it's my job to make sure it's never sold to a drunk driver?
No, but bars are legally required to stop serving drinks if a person appears too intoxicated. They can be held liable for any bad thing that drunk person does if they give them just one drink past their visible limit.
You see how this is fucking crazy right? How you have selectively decided that a webmaster / programmer providing a service can't be held responsible for what the users of his service does, except to a very limited extend, like if there was no way you could use their thing for anything other than illegal activities?
The specific nature of hosting web-sharing places a resposnibility upon the host to esure that a crime that gravitates to such places is not done there. It is no different than a chop shop.
And they don't succeed in doing it. They're throwing money out the window hand over first doing this.
You'd want them to be CRIMINALLY responsible on top of it all?
They don't have to be perfect, or frankly all that good. All they have to do is make a good faith effort. After all, all things proided on facebook, all videos on youtube, and all files on megaupload are creating traffic for the benefit of facebook, youtube, and megaupload.
If megaupload made these sort of proactive measures the website might still even exist.
I can still find infinite copyrighted things on Youtube. Based on your logic, we should put every employee of theirs in jail right now.
Strawman. I did not say not, nor did I even come close.
Because we all get infinite things for free whereas the downside is a couple jobs are lost ( if that ).
So I should steal all of your stuff. I get free shit and you just lose a few things.
At 1/20/13 10:04 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Piracy isn't theft. You need to physically take away something to steal something. You cannot compare real life examples to internet piracy because you can't duplicate someone else's matter and take off with it IRL.
So you're a person who thinks riding in a taxi without paying is OK? Sneaking into a movie theater? Getting a haircut without paying? Theft of a sale is still theft.
At 1/21/13 12:45 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/20/13 10:04 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Piracy isn't theft. You need to physically take away something to steal something. You cannot compare real life examples to internet piracy because you can't duplicate someone else's matter and take off with it IRL.So you're a person who thinks riding in a taxi without paying is OK? Sneaking into a movie theater? Getting a haircut without paying? Theft of a sale is still theft.
It seems to me that he's saying that stealing a copy of a file that can be duplicated an infinite number of times for free isn't necessarily comparable to stealing something physical that costs money to produce individually. Yes, the content of the file most likely did cost money and hard work to create, but that is a one-time cost, not a cost that must be paid for each file illegally downloaded. The idea that a certain amount of money is lost for every file illegally downloaded is immediately flawed in that most of the people downloading would have never paid money for that file in the first place.
It's a far more complicated matter than "theft or not" and can't easily be compared to physical theft.
As for MEGA, I sincerely hope that Kim does not run into more legal trouble because of it, and I equally hope that it will become a powerful sharing tool with consistently working links. I think that encrypting the files so that he has no idea what they are is a cool idea (probably already an old idea for all I know, I don't know of such things) and it seems to me that it *should* protect him from legal trouble, but then again, his "enemies" are powerful.
It made more sense in my head.
Thank you Tremulos you expressed it well.
Camor your real life examples can be shown to actually cost something in comparison. So, poor examples.
At 1/21/13 12:45 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/20/13 11:17 PM, poxpower wrote: If I make alcohol, it's my job to make sure it's never sold to a drunk driver?No, but bars are legally required to stop serving drinks if a person appears too intoxicated. They can be held liable for any bad thing that drunk person does if they give them just one drink past their visible limit.
;;;;
As I've pointed out more than once, you do your very best to twist what someone's said ...Pox never said a fuckin word about bars... but you can't spin/twist an answer to his comment without doing htat.
Its lame dude & if thats what you gotta do to "win" the argument etc. that's fine if that's what makes you happy happy happy !
Just to borrow an expression from an actor (who I am deliberately not crediting)
"Don't piss down my back & tell me its raining"
I guess I've just commitedan illegal act I sure hope Wade & Tom don't end up in jail !
Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More
At 1/21/13 12:12 PM, morefngdbs wrote: As I've pointed out more than once, you do your very best to twist what someone's said ...Pox never said a fuckin word about bars... but you can't spin/twist an answer to his comment without doing htat.
WHen I read "If I make alcohol" I read it as making a drink, like a bartender would.
Again, merely making the alcohol is not enough. Providing the alcohol beyond the person's limit is.
Just to borrow an expression from an actor (who I am deliberately not crediting)
"Don't piss down my back & tell me its raining"
I guess I've just commitedan illegal act I sure hope Wade & Tom don't end up in jail !
And you talk about twisting...
At 1/21/13 12:39 PM, Camarohusky wrote:Just to borrow an expression from an actor (who I am deliberately not crediting)And you talk about twisting...
"Don't piss down my back & tell me its raining"
I guess I've just commitedan illegal act I sure hope Wade & Tom don't end up in jail !
;;;
Doin' my very best ~;)
Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More
At 1/21/13 12:45 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
The mere use of something for a crime isn't enough. Megaupload full on facilitates the crime.
That's far closer to aiding and abetting than merely selling a gun.
No, but bars are legally required to stop serving drinks if a person appears too intoxicated.
So?
?
Megaupload can't just be "Download Spider-Man.com". Why do you arbitrarily decide that they facilitate piracy TOOO much?
Because, at the end of the day, it's entirely YOUR opinion that the service they provide makes a crime "too easy" and for some reason they're 100% responsible for what their users do, a standard you'd never apply to almost anything else I'm sure.
They don't have to be perfect, or frankly all that good. All they have to do is make a good faith effort.
Again, entirely a matter of YOUR opinion as to what is "enough".
It would be easy for youtube to review every video. Just have each video be approved before it's uploaded.
Instead they have a "better ask for forgiveness" policy whereby they will allow piracy and stealing and only remove it once caught.
Why is that allowed in your opinion? They have millions of stolen videos on there right now that aren't being removed.
So I should steal all of your stuff. I get free shit and you just lose a few things.
Yes if you can come to my house and "steal" my stuff by making duplicates, GO AHEAD.
Copying files is not a new thing and companies have always been against it not because it's stealing, but because they don't want to lose money. Simple as that. They're just using their billions of dollars to pay shills in congress to pass laws that criminalize sharing and convince numbskulls that it's "stealing".
They're just stopping progress. OH LET'S NOT ALLOW CARS, CARS AS TOO MUCH BETTER THAN HORSES AND ALL THE HORSE BREEDERS WILL GO OUT OF BUSINESS BOO HOO.
At 1/21/13 01:30 PM, poxpower wrote: Megaupload can't just be "Download Spider-Man.com". Why do you arbitrarily decide that they facilitate piracy TOOO much?
Because they do more than merely provide a single piece of the crime puzzle. They facilitate the entire criminal transaction.
File sharing sites are known chop shops for stolen copies. It is up to the owner of such sites, due to their nature as chop shops, to do its best to discourage such criminal action. Megaupload has taken very little effort to do so.
Because, at the end of the day, it's entirely YOUR opinion that the service they provide makes a crime "too easy" and for some reason they're 100% responsible for what their users do, a standard you'd never apply to almost anything else I'm sure.
No, they're not 100% responsible for what the users do. They are responsible if they don't take any steps to ensure their website discourages piracy. Why such a high burden? Because file sharing sites, by their very nature, attract pirates. And by profitin goff a high volume of pirates Megaupload intertwines itself in the pirate transactions.
Again, entirely a matter of YOUR opinion as to what is "enough".
It would be easy for youtube to review every video. Just have each video be approved before it's uploaded.
That's not reasonable. That's far too expensive.
Instead they have a "better ask for forgiveness" policy whereby they will allow piracy and stealing and only remove it once caught.
A fairly robust one though. Huge numbers of youtube videos are pulled daily because of their policy.
Why is that allowed in your opinion? They have millions of stolen videos on there right now that aren't being removed.
It's not reasonable for youtube to screen every video, and not possible to stop all piracy, but unlike megaupload, youtube places a good deal of effort into trying.
Copying files is not a new thing and companies have always been against it not because it's stealing, but because they don't want to lose money.
Have you ever thought about HOW they lose money? They lose the sale.
Simple as that. They're just using their billions of dollars to pay shills in congress to pass laws that criminalize sharing and convince numbskulls that it's "stealing".
Let's say you start a business: Pox's Strawmen. You spend a ton of money designing your strawmen to look great and take slightly more effort than normal to tear apart. Now I jump in and copy your product and start giving it away for free. You haven't been stolen from?
They're just stopping progress. OH LET'S NOT ALLOW CARS, CARS AS TOO MUCH BETTER THAN HORSES AND ALL THE HORSE BREEDERS WILL GO OUT OF BUSINESS BOO HOO.
You're not very good at analogies. This is just an ingorant statment wrapped in a complete lack of understanding about how the real world works.
At 1/21/13 02:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Have you ever thought about HOW they lose money? They lose the sale.
Companies lose sales all the time if they aren't competitive enough or are pressured by companies with large economies of scale like Walmart. Is that stealing?
At 1/21/13 06:49 PM, Feoric wrote: Companies lose sales all the time if they aren't competitive enough or are pressured by companies with large economies of scale like Walmart. Is that stealing?
That doesn't compare.
In that case party A steals party B's sale because of Party A's advantage. This is called competition.
In piracy, party A steals party B's sale based on B's hard work, and B's advantage. This is called infringement, whether it be counterfietting, violation of a patent, a trademark, or copyright. Its taking away the benefit of hard work.
Here's another way to imagine it. You bust your butt daily at your job. Your boss swoops in and decides to take 20% of your income. That's merely a loss of sale of your service. SHould you rboss be able to take that income from you? Accordonig to the pro-piracy people, yes. You're not losing your work, just the money you would be making from it.
At 1/21/13 07:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Here's another way to imagine it. You bust your butt daily at your job. Your boss swoops in and decides to take 20% of your income. That's merely a loss of sale of your service. SHould you rboss be able to take that income from you? Accordonig to the pro-piracy people, yes. You're not losing your work, just the money you would be making from it.
That doesn't compare either, because piracy is facilitated through a service, whether it be freeware like torrents or p2p applications or file hosting companies like rapidshare. The boss would be taking money you've already made, piracy only steals in the sense that it's more competitive because you get the same product for free. The difference here is that every time something is pirated an accountant does not mark it down in a ledger under the liability column.
Also the new site is reported to incorporate some seriously heavy duty encryption to protect the sites owner as well as the users from say for instance an up and coming young Crown Prosecutor looking to make themselves a name at the cost of the innocent.
At 1/21/13 07:52 PM, Feoric wrote:
The difference here is that every time something is pirated an accountant does not mark it down in a ledger under the liability column.
It's the free market or so they say and so it is what it is which is a monumentally better product that people want at a price no consumer will dare to refuse.
It should let him off the hook. Hell, Megaupload should have never been taken down in the first place.
At 1/21/13 07:52 PM, Feoric wrote: That doesn't compare either, because piracy is facilitated through a service, whether it be freeware like torrents or p2p applications or file hosting companies like rapidshare. The boss would be taking money you've already made, piracy only steals in the sense that it's more competitive because you get the same product for free. The difference here is that every time something is pirated an accountant does not mark it down in a ledger under the liability column.
No. Piracy steals in the sense that someone is not getting paid for their hard work. By taking their hardwork and providing it for free, you are robbing them of the rewards for their hard work and thus lower the incentive for such work to be made.
It is no different than the boss docking the pay.
Kim Dotcom should have his assassins kill the people responsible for Raiding his shit.
Jesus Christ the one True God of Love and Peace.
At 1/21/13 02:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
No, they're not 100% responsible for what the users do. They are responsible if they don't take any steps to ensure their website discourages piracy.
Again, entirely up to your opinion how much they have to do.
It's like selling stacks of DVDs in stores. Who the fuck uses those for anything other than burning shit they download? Or how it used to be with cassette tapes.
I don't even think there's a teevo in Canada.
That's not reasonable. That's far too expensive.
Your opinion.
The movie/mysic industry clearly doesn't care if a huge site like Megaupload goes under so "too expensive" or "too hard" isn't their concern.
The truth is that none of these are real arguments or debates. What's really happening is that big business can't make a dime with Megaupload or Piratebay so they're looking to shut them down, whereas they can make bank with youtube and netflix so they keep them around.
Have you ever thought about HOW they lose money? They lose the sale.
No, I would have never bought any of those things ever at the price they demand.
They lose nothing. I just gain something which I pay for anyway through my internet connection. The internet costs me hundreds of dollars a year, far more money than I've ever spent on dumbass movies and music.
Now I jump in and copy your product and start giving it away for free. You haven't been stolen from?
No.
But that's purely a matter of opinion, as all intellectual property laws are.
The notion that you can "steal an idea" is not the same as stealing an actual object. Information and ideas are unlimited, even if they take time to create.
Suppose I buy a CD. Then I lend it it to a different friend every other week so they can make their own copies. Are we stealing from the artist? I'll make it more difficult: What if they don't make copies, but just listen to it? According to some people, the artist is now a victim of theft since although a purchase of the CD was made, it is being listened to/used by other people who did not buy their own.
What if I made, say, 10 copies just for myself. Am I "stealing" 10 additional purchases from the artist even though the copies are all for me and I'm not selling/distributing them to anyone?
By this logic, lending and borrowing are against the law because the amount of people using said product is greater than the number of people who made the purchase.
The real question is: Does society benefit more from allowing piracy to coexist legally with selling?
I would imagine: Yes. By a lot.
The reason it's illegal is that traditional media made a few people filthy rich and thus allowed them to use their power to get legislation that supported the continuation of their fortunes.
Just because the entertainment industry loses money from it doesn't mean society becomes worse.
When 3D printers become widely available, they will threaten to put a lot of people out of business, but they would be so convenient that the benefit to society far outweighs job losses.
Every time a new technology comes about, it puts some people out of business and it creates opportunities for others. Kim DotCom got filthy rich because of this new technology. The only reason they call it "theft" is because he took that money out of the pockets of rich greaseballs who think they're entitled to their fortune no matter what.
They aren't honest actors and this isn't a honest debate at the end of the day. The politicians legislating against piracy aren't interested in anything but who they're being paid by and right now they're being paid by media conglomerates.
Sad day.
At 1/21/13 02:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/21/13 01:30 PM, poxpower wrote: Why is that allowed in your opinion? They have millions of stolen videos on there right now that aren't being removed.It's not reasonable for youtube to screen every video, and not possible to stop all piracy, but unlike megaupload, youtube places a good deal of effort into trying.
;;;;
I'd like to pipe in with this true story , which happend in my home very recently , & IMo probably happens a lot.
I had Youtube on while playing a game the other day, I was just playing a tune, then lookin gat the suggested playlist & playing another. When my girlfrind ( am I supposed to say fiance, now that we are engaged ??) heard asong & said .." what was that, y so & so ?"
I looked & it was a new tune on a new CD so the next time we were in town she bought a copy.
I wonder how often that happens ?
You hear it, on the radio, or on the web & then go buy it ?
One time that was an advertising ploy, which is why if you aren't selling it & making copies to sell I see no problem with sites allowing you to hear/see it .
A bit off topic but I thought it was valid.
Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More
