1 When they came for the Dotcoms I did nothing, for I was not a Dotcom...

2 I'm Oscar. Dotcom.

3
When did you write this, Andy?

Megaupload got shutdown on Thursday 1/19, not yesterday.

4 SOPA, the Make Sure Our Hollywood Donors Stay Filthy Rich Act

Maybe I'm being contrarian here, but that Megaupload arrest was disturbing

What happens when some douchebag uses SOPA to shut down this blog?

5 Like I've told my friends about SOPA - just enforce the existing copyright laws. If you want to stop piracy, you must get serious about going after these guys and putting them in prison.

6 dateline, baby

7
This really sucks.

the "mega" sites was a treasure trove of tv shows and movies and their DL speeds were fast.

8 >> Megaupload got shutdown on Thursday 1/19, not yesterday. My bad. I fix.

9 why do we need SOPA again? Seems like existing laws are working fine here.

I agree, this demonstrates why these laws are utterly unnecessary. They're only being offered because the government feels insufficiently involved in the internet and because big corporations feel threatened by the equal opportunities the internet offers. Crushing competitors with government interference is the new way of doing business, and SOPA is Exhibit A.

10 There are hundreds more mini-megauploads out there. They'll pop up twice as fast as the government will shut them down.

11

In a dramatic, digital-age stand-off that played like a scene from a Hollywood thriller,

Did anyone make it all the way through Live Free or Die Hard?

I didn't.

12 Maybe I'm being contrarian here, but that Megaupload arrest was disturbing

Disturbing in what way? Megaupload was a massive copyright violator that ripped off its customers. There's no hero being abused by the government here.

13 Related: why do we need SOPA again? Seems like existing laws are working fine here.

How else are they going to shut down conservative websites and blogs prior to the election?

14

This is actualy going to be an interesting test case.

Just where does US Jurisdiction end? Is US law now to be enforced worldwide? and if so, does that give the Precedent for OTHER countries laws to thus be enforced in America?

Like.. oh... Europes Hate Speech Laws?  Which I personaly have broken many many times online? Or ChiCom Law? or Russian Law?

OUr Government is being hyprcritical on this... and its going to come back an bite us US Citizens...

15
Thanks to Megaupload, I had no use for Netflix.

16 Megaupload's big charm was the fact that even without buying a gold package you could download file after file without a waiting period. That and how they didn't care what was on it, no matter how illegal or horrid. 4chan pervs loved it.

17 http://www.missioncontinues.org/welcomehomeheroes sorry to change subject however Parade starts at 12 we need members,volunteers,exposure,and donations please tell everyone you know and get them to website  http://www.missioncontinues.org/welcomehomeheroes

18 "Related: why do we need SOPA again? Seems like existing laws are working fine here."

Without SOPA the Feds needed an indictment before they could declare Mr. Dotcom "guilty until proven innocent" and tear down his website. With SOPA, the Feds will be able to declare someone guilty and tear down websites upon third party complaint. Saves the government the trouble of even investigating legitimacy of the claims before seizing property.

In this case, that would mean megaupload would have been shut down several years earlier, and all other online filesharing services would probably be shut down too.

Pay no heed to the Due Process Clause behind the curtain.

19
And no use for cable tv. Or my DVR.

And I didn't have to mess with commercials.

20

Police had to cut their way through electronic locks to a safe room, where they discovered Dotcom - also known as Kim Schmitz - with a firearm.

"I expect you to die, Mr. Bond Dotcom"

Apparently, Kim Dotcom is no Auric Goldfinger

21 Trust us Comrade, we are doing this for your own good!

22

just a reminder, intellectual property is a bullshit right that makes a mockery out of actual property rights

23 This is actualy going to be an interesting test case.

I think this is an international effort, like previous ones to shut down kiddie porn in former Soviet republics and the hacker boards.

24 just a reminder, intellectual property is a bullshit right that makes a mockery out of actual property rights

Damn right, screw writers and artists!

25 "Disturbing in what way? Megaupload was a massive copyright violator that ripped off its customers. There's no hero being abused by the government here."

No. Megaupload's customers were massive copyright violators. By your logic, every time someone is murdered with a handgun, the gun company should be prosecuted.

26

Disturbing in what way? Megaupload was a massive copyright violator that ripped off its customers. There's no hero being abused by the government here.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 21, 2012 04:29 PM

Disturbing in that Holder will go out of his jurisdiction without warrants to serve the financial interests of Big Hollywood, but won't touch Mexican druglords.

Justify it once, and that justification will be repeated against you

27

The interesting thing to me is who hasnt been charge

 

Swizz Beatz, a.k.a Kasseem Dean or Mr. Alicia Keys, was officially listed on MegauploadÂ’s website as its CEO prior to the siteÂ’s shutdown, but he hasnÂ’t been implicated in the lawsuit that led to the siteÂ’s takedown. In fact, the Atlanta-based rapperÂ’s role in the file-sharing website has come under scrutiny, as its power players seem to be based primarily in New Zealand. The indictment, which was handed down on January 5 and led to the shuttering of Megaupload on January 19, led to seven people being charged and four arrested, including the siteÂ’s founder, the oddly-named Kim Dotcom. But why didnÂ’t the feds go after the companyÂ’s purported CEO?

 

http://tinyurl.com/72w3bk9

28 Yes, all this will make sure we get better movies and music!

29 That dotcom guy is freaking funny. An internet meme's wet dream. Fat, rich, and German with a strange bubble bath fetish.

30

@24 yeah, writers and artists will starve to death without perpetual ownership of their works, even after they die

31 The real crime is that what Hollywood charges to watch bad remakes

Yeh, I know, I know ...

32 Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 21, 2012 04:33 PM (r4wIV)

Amen! Fuck 'em!

33 30

@24 yeah, writers and artists will starve to death without perpetual ownership of their works, even after they die

Posted by: Kinsella Fan at January 21, 2012 04:35 PM

The thing is, the writers are usually screwed out of THEIR rights by the major studios. Crocodile tears my friends

34
btw, does anyone realize we completely passed on the opportunity to mock the French for, once again, surrendering?

They surrendered in Afghansistan after four of their troops got killed by an Afghan "soldier."

Two things:
1. They're pussies.
2. I don't blame them. There is no good reason for any Westerner to die in Afghanistan.

35 Megaupload's customers were massive copyright violators.

More like you have a business in which people bring stolen stuff to put there to store and others buy it from there. Why, you just have a building, you're not to blame for all the product in it!

36
btw, Andy:

you get a "Heh" for the title

/nods

37 yeah, writers and artists will starve to death without perpetual ownership of their works, even after they die

That's what you think is going on here, when you download the latest movies and music? That you're only taking money from people who died long ago?

Are you serious?

38 People deserve the fruits of their intellectual labor just as much as that of their physical labor.

39 @37 well, you're defending a system that lets them retain ownership of their works for 70 years after their deaths. "Taking money" also seems like a weak argument to me...if I watch a movie that my friend owns instead of buying it myself, one could argue I'm taking money. Heck, by driving a car I'm taking money from cab drivers or even the horse and buggy industry!

40
The thing is, the writers are usually screwed out of THEIR rights by the major studios. Crocodile tears my friends

Posted by: kbdabear at January 21, 2012 04:37 PM (Y+DPZ)

I think I remember reading once that the top-tier musical artists make 20% off of albums sales, if they're lucky.

Granted, they're still getting rich from touring, but still...

41 and alleged megaviolator of copyright laws.

He was more a violator of copyright megalaws.

42 Bastard had it coming.

43 We know best, me and that should wash her hair Schultz chick.

44 429 Boss Mustang just went for 225K

45 oops wrong thread

46 dozens of New Zealand police backed by helicopters swarmed the barricaded mansion of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom to arrest him on Friday for Internet copyright theft.

I would have just firebombed the place.

47

The do-nothing congress has to pass something that increases govenment over-reach.

I like a do-nothing congress. We have enough laws.

48

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anywhere that a judge signed any order giving the government permission to shut down websites.

On whose authority are they acting?  Federal law enforcement officers can now just do this stuff on their own, because why now?  Because they have bigger guns?  What?

49 Wasserman-Schultz's doesn't look that bad. Considering she washes it in vats of horse semen.

50 Uhg, her hair I mean

51 The only time the Obama administration (or Bush for that matter) gets tough with the Chinese it's over music and movie piracy

It's ok if they nick some top secret weaponry off us, but it's an atrocity to pirate movies and music?

52 I would have just firebombed the place.

Posted by: Janet Reno at January 21, 2012 04:45 PM

And let it burn!

53

I think I remember reading once that the top-tier musical artists make 20% off of albums sales, if they're lucky.

Granted, they're still getting rich from touring, but still...

Posted by: ErikW at January 21, 2012 04:42 PM

The studios do everything they can to avoid paying them at all unless they're too big to fuck with.

54 429 Boss Mustang just went for 225K

Posted by: Vic at January 21, 2012 04:44 PM (YdQQY)

If I had that kind of coin to drop I'd make sure I had an extra 100k for tires so I could smoke 'em at stoplights.

55 49 Wasserman-Schultz's doesn't look that bad.

Considering she washes it in vats of horse semen.


Nope, she uses mine.

56

Swizz Beatz, a.k.a Kasseem Dean or Mr. Alicia Keys, was officially listed on MegauploadÂ’s website as its CEO prior to the siteÂ’s shutdown, but he hasnÂ’t been implicated in the lawsuit that led to the siteÂ’s takedown. In fact, the Atlanta-based rapperÂ’s role in the file-sharing website has come under scrutiny, as its power players seem to be based primarily in New Zealand. The indictment, which was handed down on January 5 and led to the shuttering of Megaupload on January 19, led to seven people being charged and four arrested, including the siteÂ’s founder, the oddly-named Kim Dotcom. But why didnÂ’t the feds go after the companyÂ’s purported CEO?

http://tinyurl.com/72w3bk9

Posted by: William Amos at January 21, 2012 04:34 PM (CrreU)

Here's an interesting story that was posted just today on Obama and Alicia Keys:

http://tinyurl.com/6lpzwug

So, question answered.

Most corrupt administration ever.

57 Yeah, very little money comes from album sales these days, even accounting for the fact that almost no one buys CDs anymore. Touring is where it's at.

58 "Taking money" also seems like a weak argument to me...

It wouldn't if you made your money from producing these works. Why is it okay to use the labor of some people without paying them, would you like people doing that to you?

59 51 The only time the Obama administration (or Bush for that matter) gets tough with the Chinese it's over music and movie piracy It's ok if they nick some top secret weaponry off us, but it's an atrocity to pirate movies and music? Posted by: kbdabear at January 21, 2012 04:46 PM (Y+DPZ) Not to mention selling organs from executed "criminals" on the black market: it's well documented they gun people down like dogs, with a bullet to the head, and immediately have a doctor slice the corpse open to steal kidneys, etc. A revolting practice by a disgusting government.

60 @58 well that's the problem with copyright in the first place, isn't it? Government creates a monopoly, which leads to profitable industries growing up around said monopoly. The fact that so many people depend upon it for their livelihood doesn't mean it was right for government to create that monopoly in the first place.

61 Posted by: kbdabear at January 21, 2012 04:46 PM (Y+DPZ)

Why are there no copyright issues when the NYT publishes classified documents?
Oh, wait, it is the public right to know!

62 just a reminder, intellectual property is a bullshit right that makes a mockery out of actual property rights

Damn right, screw writers and artists!

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 21, 2012 04:33 PM (r4wIV)

Sidebar:  Posting to this site means AoS owns the intellectual property rights to every word, including the scrunts, squeakholes, and fuck you's. 

63

And would one of you constitutional scholars explain to a poor, non-lawyer, where does it say anything about intellectual property in the constitution? 

I understand if somebody is stealing your cds and dvds, that's REAL property, but where do we draw the line on "intellectual" property? 

64 Posted by: Kinsella Fan at January 21, 2012 04:50 PM (nBXyX)

Perhaps I don't completely understand what you're saying here, but a copyright is not a monopoly. If I write a piece of music and copyright it, it isn't monopolizing the music industry. It just means that no one can profit from my intellectual labor except for me.

65

This is more bullshit of people wanting the government to do things for them that they could do themselves. Microsoft for example codes all of its software with different codes so they know who the real theif was if it turns up on another computer somewhere. Like guns all have different serial numbers.

The same could be done with music or movies. It wouldn't stop someone from making a low quality video or recording of another video but people don't buy that crap anyways.

66 >> And would one of you constitutional scholars explain to a poor, non-lawyer, where does it say anything about intellectual property in the constitution? Article I, Section 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

67 Sidebar:  Posting to this site means AoS owns the intellectual property rights to every word, including the scrunts, squeakholes, and fuck you's.  Posted by: Ace's Consigliere Fat Tony Vicinsa at January 21, 2012 04:51 PM (TkGkA) Yes, and the obscene profits empower Ace's exciting ewok lifestyle!

68 No. Megaupload's customers were massive copyright violators. By your logic, every time someone is murdered with a handgun, the gun company should be prosecuted.

Read the indictment, rather than remove files when notified of copyright infringement they just removed that link.

69

And would one of you constitutional scholars explain to a poor, non-lawyer, where does it say anything about intellectual property in the constitution? 

I understand if somebody is stealing your cds and dvds, that's REAL property, but where do we draw the line on "intellectual" property? 

Posted by: BurtTC at January 21, 2012 04:52 PM (Gc/Qi)

The part where it gives congress the power to make laws.

70

Sidebar:  Posting to this site means AoS owns the intellectual property rights to every word, including the scrunts, squeakholes, and fuck you's. 

Posted by: Ace's Consigliere Fat Tony Vicinsa at January 21, 2012 04:51 PM

Intellectual property? Do you know where you are?

71 @64 it's a monopoly because you're taking ownership of an idea, and having the threat of government force backing you up. If I break into your house and steal the paper your music is written on, then I've stolen your property, but if I upload a recording of the song to the internet, then I've haven't "stolen" anything.

72 Fox News, 1/12-1/14:

Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

73 Not to mention selling organs from executed "criminals" on the black market: it's well documented they gun people down like dogs, with a bullet to the head, and immediately have a doctor slice the corpse open to steal kidneys, etc.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 21, 2012 04:50 PM (niZvt)

At the point of death, the Chinese government is recognized as the clear owner of the corpse and all of its constituent parts.  You, however, can be held for libel.  We are forwarding this on to Brussels.

74 The studios do everything they can to avoid paying them at all unless they're too big to fuck with.

Posted by: kbdabear at January 21, 2012 04:48 PM (Y+DPZ)

Which takes us back to the idea of succesful self-publishing which nowadays is all to easy to do. There's a lot of bands who are utilizing the technology.

They don't necessarily rocket to stardom but they're doing well for themselves.

75

Intellectual property? Do you know where you are?

Posted by: kbdabear at January 21, 2012 04:55 PM (Y+DPZ)

Ugh....moronic intellectual property rights!

76 You can't stop the signal.

77 I bet you couldn't get a NZ police helicopter response raid if you located an Al-Qaeda HQ. Money talks

78 Bytes set me up!

79 Read the indictment, rather than remove files when notified of copyright infringement they just removed that link.

Posted by: DaveA at January 21, 2012 04:54 PM (XFxB5)

And SOPA raises individual links to the level of present content that the domain hosting the page is fully responsible for.  Funny that.  First links are worthless, then they are everything ... you just can't win.

80 Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anywhere that a judge signed any order giving the government permission to shut down websites.

Do they leave meth labs running after hauling off the cookers?

81 57 Yeah, very little money comes from album sales these days, even accounting for the fact that almost no one buys CDs anymore. Touring is where it's at.

Posted by: Little Lebowski Urban Acheiver at January 21, 2012 04:49 PM (wCik+)

Touring has always been where its at.  That's always been the major source of income for musicians.  Albums are the income source for the labels.

82 @66 "limited time" apparently means "100 years after the author dies, or until Disney lobbies for another extension". Don't get me wrong, I understand the appeal of copyright/IP/patents in some instances and would be happy with actually using the "limited time" idea

83 The reason copyrights extend 70 years after death is to protect their work not their earnings. Its so after you write Lord of the Rings, nobody can rip it off or write sequels without permission. Its to protect the art.

Just because there's nothing tangible in your hands doesn't mean nobody worked at it and it doesn't mean you somehow do not owe people for their work.

84 The answer to piracy is tyranny?

85 Two hours 'til the numbers start rolling in. As I just said on Twitter,  I find this underdog role equal parts enervating and unnerving. If it really is a 15 pt blowout, it potentially changes things. If Newt underperforms, it was all a big media/poll/blog bubble. We'll know soon enough.

86 Bytes set me up!

Posted by: Kim Dotcom at January 21, 2012 04:57 PM (/6j/A)

Thanks,  I'll try the veal & tip the waitress.

87 The studios do everything they can to avoid paying them at all unless they're too big to fuck with.

Posted by: kbdabear at January 21, 2012 04:48 PM (Y+DPZ)

There's a reason why Lars Ulrich was the frontman for the RIAA's last foray into law enforcement: He makes almost all of his money from residuals.  If you're a big band who has hit it big long ago, that's where your income stream is.

Really the record industry serves most artists as a marketing tool.  Even the albums are marketing for the concerts.  With the advent of iTunes, I think very few artists will care at all about protecting copyright. Either their song will become an internet meme and they get known for that or they're known among fans of their own genre.

In any case, there isn't a lot of money to be made other than through concerts.

A lot of big name artists are now either giving their albums away or "selling" them on the honor system.  The stunt of giving it away gets them some free publicity and even selling via the honor system probably nets them more than a record company could give them.

88 Sock off

89

Which takes us back to the idea of succesful self-publishing which nowadays is all to easy to do. There's a lot of bands who are utilizing the technology.

They don't necessarily rocket to stardom but they're doing well for themselves.

Posted by: ErikW at January 21, 2012 04:56 PM

SOPA is written to make it nearly impossible to self publish or self produce. The whole idea is to protect the bottom line of an industry turning out worse products every year.

90

Posted by: BurtTC at January 21, 2012 04:45 PM (Gc/Qi)

Interesting.... looks like the servers were in Virginia, which did put them inside US territory...

But the site is now back up, using Servers OUTSIDE US Territory...

But the question becomes... as THEY did not post the Illegal content... is it now their Job to enforce US law? is it their duty to take down content? or is that Law enforcments job to go through Due Process of law... and thus enforce the Copyright laws.

If a thief crosses my land to get do a crime, am I now Liable because I did not stop that thief?

91 The answer to piracy is tyranny?

That's why SOPA and PIPA are such a bad idea.

Artists who won't produce their own stuff online are asking to be ripped off. The old distribution system just doesn't have to be followed any longer. Own your work.

92 @83 I suppose you think Shakespeare ruined "The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet" by writing an authorized play based on it?

93

66 -

Thanks, I see there would be some wiggle room for anyone to argue the difference between "useful arts" and what passes for our entertainment industry, but I know when I'm beat.  Congress passes the laws, and it doesn't matter how useless or insipid the stuff is, if a record company asks for copyright, they're going to get it. 

94 @92 "unauthorized", naturally

95 SOPA is written to make it nearly impossible to self publish or self produce. The whole idea is to protect the bottom line of an industry turning out worse products every year.

Right, its to crush competition and give the government more influence over a huge economy they have virtually no power over.

96 84 The answer to piracy is tyranny?

Posted by: eman at January 21, 2012 04:59 PM

Only music & cinema piracy. We don't want to trample on the rights of those poor Somalis

97
SOPA is written to make it nearly impossible to self publish or self produce. The whole idea is to protect the bottom line of an industry turning out worse products every year.

Posted by: kbdabear at January 21, 2012 05:02 PM (Y+DPZ)

I didn't know that. I confess that I don't know a whole lot about SOPA.

If a band isn't signed with a label, how can the Act stop them from self-publishing original material? That doesn't make any sense.

98 I suppose you think Shakespeare ruined "The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet" by writing an auth orized play based on it?

I have no idea what the original was like, what the laws were at the time, how long it had been since the original was written, or whether any agreement was made between them.

In any case, just because someone might have done a good job ripping someone else off doesn't justify making it possible for everyone to.

is it now their Job to enforce US law?

No, just comply.

99 92 @83 I suppose you think Shakespeare ruined "The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet" by writing an authorized play based on it?

Posted by: Kinsella Fan at January 21, 2012 05:02 PM (nBXyX)

 

Shakespeare was a Romulan? I did not know that ...

100

A lot of big name artists are now either giving their albums away or "selling" them on the honor system. The stunt of giving it away gets them some free publicity and even selling via the honor system probably nets them more than a record company could give them.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 21, 2012 05:00 PM (73tyQ)

Yeah Radiohead was the first to do an online only album with the "Pay what you want" approach I believe.  And yeah some people are going to pay a penny, but others will pay what they think its actually worth.  And really its the same thing ace was saying about e-books.  You are getting money for something that doesn't have a physical presence.  No shipping costs, no production costs beyond the original recording.  No need to have a built in "destroyed copies" pricing on the product.

And then you can start offering actual cd's with some artwork or booklets or whatever to get people to buy them too after your initial sales have tapered off.  And you can produce those in smaller quantities on a need to fill basis.

101

If a thief crosses my land to get do a crime, am I now Liable because I did not stop that thief?

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 21, 2012 05:02 PM (lZBBB)

I don't know how the site worked but it sounded like they were knowingly selling stolen stuff.

102 Trying to remember the name of those digital bounty hunters, Right-something who were going after blogs over Fair Use issues and threatening to shut down anyone who repeated one sentence from the original articles ..

Anyway, they went bankrupt.

103 @99 Names sometimes get changed...Google it!

104 83 The reason copyrights extend 70 years after death is to protect their work not their earnings. Its so after you write Lord of the Rings, nobody can rip it off or write sequels without permission. Its to protect the art.

In the internet age, you aren't going to stop people from writing sequels if they want to. What about fanfic?

And which is the bigger tragedy:
A sequel to LOTR
A sequel to Gone with the Wind (which did happen)
A sequel to Hamlet (which sorta happened, parody sequels)

I'd say that sequels or parodies of Shakespeare are far worse, but we'd think it's retarded to extend copyrights for such old work.

If a piece of work has lasted 50 years beyond its creation, it is by default in the public domain just by virtue of having lasted 50 years.

105 No shipping costs, no production costs beyond the original recording. No need to have a built in "destroyed copies" pricing on the product.

Which is why I think its completely reasonable for books to cost 5 bucks or less in electronic form. My book is up for 1.99 because it cost me almost nothing to produce, so its nearly all profit. Low cost plus high profit = win, and more people need to work this out.

Plus that shelf space lasts as long as the internet. I never have to compete with another writer to get my book stocked.

106

80 -

I don't know, do they?  On whose authority did they raid the meth lab in the first place?  Some cop decides your house is a meth lab, does he then have a right to kick down your door, haul you off to jail, and make your wife, kids and dog sleep on the curb? 

Again, on whose authority?  Cops don't decide these things, judges do. Did a judge sign an order, that's all I want to know. 

107

Hmmm... and... the government just seized a lot of LEGAL content as well... and shut down access to peoples OWN data...

As we are supposed to be save in our 'persons and papers'... this could get interesting...

108 Parody is protected and allowed under copyright law (there's a hilarious National Lampoon parody of LOTR called Bored of the Rings out. I recommend it). The Gone With the Wind sequel was done with permission of the writer's estate and officially recognized.

109 102 Trying to remember the name of those digital bounty hunters, Right-something who were going after blogs over Fair Use issues and threatening to shut down anyone who repeated one sentence from the original articles ..

Anyway, they went bankrupt.

Posted by: kbdabear at January 21, 2012 05:09 PM (Y+DPZ)

Righthaven.

110 And yeah some people are going to pay a penny, but others will pay what they think its actually worth. 

Posted by: buzzion at January 21, 2012 05:08 PM (GULKT)

Musical albums are actually worth that ... a few pennies.  When the market finally normalizes, music will sell for around a cent a song.  The producers will make tons of money, as people will download the same song over and over, not caring because it only costs a cent.  People did this with video rentals, ending up renting the same video over and again (and never even bothering to try and copy the video!).

People do what is the easiest and most honest, in general.  When prices for music reach a sensible point, people will much prefer to do it all honestly.  But, as prices are orders of magnitude greater than they should be expect major problems policing a product that takes up only hundredths of a penny's worth of space, can be copied instantly and sent anywhere secretly by anyone.

111 The Gone With the Wind sequel was done with permission of the writer's estate and officially recognized.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 21, 2012 05:12 PM (r4wIV)

It's really hard to make the argument that "the writer's estate" is entitled to the work product they didn't produce.  Nice work if you can be born to it.

112 If a piece of work has lasted 50 years beyond its creation, it is by default in the public domain just by virtue of having lasted 50 years.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 21, 2012 05:10 PM (73tyQ)

Lampoons... Bored of the Rings..... from  the 70's...

Who can forget Frito, being chased by the Pig Riders?

113 Some cop decides your house is a meth lab, does he then have a right to kick down your door, haul you off to jail, and make your wife, kids and dog sleep on the curb?

If he has probable cause, he can get a raid together and search the place, but they usually get a judge's paper just to make sure the case sticks. And yes, they can shut your house down if its a criminal business. Breaking the law is bad. It has consequences.

114 Imagine how the food industry would react if somebody invented the replicator. New tech is pushing out the old, but not without a fight. Artists are stupid if they continue to use the old system.

115 And Saving Ryan's Privates,  man that was a funny--what?

116 103 @99 Names sometimes get changed...Google it!   "The Lion King II: Simba's Pride"   Profuse apologizings .....

117 It's really hard to make the argument that "the writer's estate" is entitled to the work product they didn't produce.

That's how the law works, to help protect art and the artist who made it. The principle is that art is valuable to society and should be protected. That's why the founding fathers put the copyright protections in the constitution to begin with.

118 My beef is that a lot of older product cannot be legally obtained in a way that profits the company, specifically shows that aren't in syndication or on DVD. Or Video Games that are not sold new anymore. I feel no guilt at all downloading something I couldn't obtain if I wanted to pay for it. Which I would, actually. It's just not available. I understand companies reserve the right to remake or re-release products, but it can be annoying.

 Also annoying is the push by Video Game companies to push back against used shops like Gamestop. That sets a terrible precedent. Used games cut into new game sales, but it's minimal. I buy games used that I'd never pay full price for. Being able to sell things you buy has been around...forever. I wonder why that hasn't become a bigger issue to tech geeks than copyright infringement laws?

119

113 -

I know, but what I'm asking is, when the feds shut down these websites for all the horrible things they were doing, did a judge sign an order or not? 

120 Artists are stupid if they continue to use the old system.

Yeah, and copyright laws have to change to match the new realities of the internet. The old systems don't work any more, so they have to give way and find a way to protect art and the artist despite how things are now.

But there's no defending a gigantic clearing house of copyrighted material, especially since they were ripping off people who paid money to sign up to the site. These weren't good people no matter how much you liked to use the site.

121 @118 remember, copyright exists to "protect art". The best protection for art I can think of is to make sure it's unavailable!

122 Lampoons... Bored of the Rings..... from  the 70's... Who can forget Frito, being chased by the Pig Riders? Posted by: Romeo13 at January 21, 2012 05:14 PM (lZBBB) You refer to the Farting Porkers?

123

re: GameStop:  The more attractive price points mean that I'll try games that I would never pay full sticker for.  That I can get some money for them if they're short or they suck, that also makes me more likely to try something.

 

I totally buy more games than I ever did. My kids, even moreso.

124

That's how the law works, to help protect art and the artist who made it. The principle is that art is valuable to society and should be protected.

But that's why a limited time makes perfect sense.  The current lengths of time are absurd.  Why 70 years after death?  Why not 500?

That's why the founding fathers put the copyright protections in the constitution to begin with.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 21, 2012 05:16 PM (r4wIV)

Well, they actually didn't.  They put in patent protections.

The "useful Arts".

125 Copyright laws are the foundation of our civilization.  People who violate them should be flogged.  Let me at 'em!  Grrrr...

126 83 The reason copyrights extend 70 years after death is to protect their work not their earnings. Its so after you write Lord of the Rings, nobody can rip it off or write sequels without permission. Its to protect the art.

Just because there's nothing tangible in your hands doesn't mean nobody worked at it and it doesn't mean you somehow do not owe people for their work.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 21, 2012 04:59 PM (r4wIV)

The purpose of copyright law was always to protect the creator, not "the art".  And this "70 years after the death of the creator" bullshit is fairly recent.  It only came about in 1978, due to emergency lobbying on the part of movie and music companies for whom the copyrights on their products were beginning to expire.

Prior to that, for many years, works were protected under copyright for 28 years after their creation, with an option for a one-time renewal for another 28 years.  56 total years under copyright protection was an extremely reasonable length of time for a creator or owner to make all the money he or she could from a particular work before it fell into the public domain.  But in the '70s, near the half-century mark past the dawn of sound films and popular music, the media conglomerates realized that their copyrights would begin expiring soon and so made the successful push for Congress to change copyright law in their favor.

In the 1990s there was more screwing with the laws to extend copyrights even further.  And there will undoubtedly be further efforts to extend them even further than that.  The concept of "public domain" will become a thing of the past, because somebody out there will always want to squeeze a few bucks out of something created a century before he was born.

Copyright protection was never meant to be extended for any work forever, but that's what the media companies and the congressmen they own have effectively accomplished by their endless moving of the goalposts.  SOPA/PIPA is only the latest and most arrogant expression of their desires.

127 My beef is that a lot of older product cannot be legally obtained in a way that profits the company, specifically shows that aren't in syndication or on DVD.

I agree completely, and that needs to be addressed in copyright law. Is it really theft when I download a record nobody has put out for 30 years and there's no other way to buy it? Is it really copyright violation to get a digital copy of something no longer in circulation anywhere?

There's a concept called "public domain" which holds that anything over a certain age or ubiquity can be used by anyone because its such a part of culture and history no one really owns it any more. Shakespeare, for example. That has to be extended to include "lost" works of this sort.

128

The "useful Arts".

Posted by: AmishDude at January 21, 2012 05:19 PM (73tyQ)

That's going to leave a mark.

129 The best protection for art I can think of is to make sure it's unavailable!

Posted by: Kinsella Fan at January 21, 2012 05:18 PM (nBXyX)

I know, right?

130 The purpose of copyright law was always to protect the creator, not "the art".

In America, but elsewhere (like France) copyright protections of art are so strong you cannot alter anything deemed art no matter how old it is. If you bought the Mona Lisa, you couldn't draw a moustache on it, for instance. If you think about it, that's not such a horrible thing.

131

In America, but elsewhere (like France) copyright protections of art are so strong you cannot alter anything deemed art no matter how old it is.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 21, 2012 05:22 PM (r4wIV)

The French have a language police, too.

132 Sure, France is often silly but that doesn't make every possible thing they do silly and wrong. They make great food, for instance

133 They make great food, for instance

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 21, 2012 05:24 PM (r4wIV)

French fries ... which is funny because the French preferred starvation to potatoes.

134 @71 it's a monopoly because you're taking ownership of an idea, and having the threat of government force backing you up. If I break into your house and steal the paper your music is written on, then I've stolen your property, but if I upload a recording of the song to the internet, then I've haven't "stolen" anything.

The government exists largely to ensure our rights. If I write a piece of music, I am the owner of that music. I should be free to sell that music to anyone who wants to listen to it. Distributing my music publicly would be illegal.

Now, many musicians don't mind if their stuff is up on Youtube. But that's their call.

135 They basically caught them on gotchas (like emails of the dudes boasting about piracy, and them occasionally downloading stuff themselves), most importantly because they were stupid enough to have a server in VA. If not the gotcha stuff, there is no difference between the "Mega Conspiracy" and "Youtube conspiracy". They complied with every DMCA takedown notice, as far as i've seen. How about taking Facebook down for having gazillions of copyrighted images on their servers? Fuck the fed.

136

126 -

You know, there are countless old movies that no longer exist because the only copies were stuck in a storage room somewhere on these studio lots.  They never bothered to preserve them because they really had no use for them after they were shown in theaters.

I'm not trying to make any larger point here, just demonstrating how copyright protection had the opposite effect of its intent, if the intent was to promote art.   

137 @134 you should be free to sell your music to anyone who wants to buy it, and you would still be allowed to do that even without copyright

138 So all Hollywood needs to do is pick their next target, like, say, Fileserve, then create an account, upload several hundred movies, and move to shut them down.  The fact that I lose all my backed up files and photographs...well, collateral damage, baby.
Can ANY file storage company defend themselves from this sort of attack?

139 In America, but elsewhere (like France) copyright protections of art are so strong you cannot alter anything deemed art no matter how old it is. If you bought the Mona Lisa, you couldn't draw a moustache on it, for instance. If you think about it, that's not such a horrible thing. Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 21, 2012 05:22 PM (r4wIV) Changing the art and selling it are two different things. Creators should own and profit from their work. When they enter into contracts with others, they surrender some of their ownership. The key to success in the future is to sell your work all on your own and charge so little for it that piracy would just be silly.

140

67 Sidebar:  Posting to this site means AoS owns the intellectual property rights to every word, including the scrunts, squeakholes, and fuck you's. 

Posted by: Ace's Consigliere Fat Tony Vicinsa at January 21, 2012 04:51 PM (TkGkA)

well i'm not sure about that. but dlisted dot com has been using the word FAP alot lately. and i do believe the Morons invented that word the way they are using it.

141 I agree completely, and that needs to be addressed in copyright law. Is it really theft when I download a record nobody has put out for 30 years and there's no other way to buy it? Is it really copyright violation to get a digital copy of something no longer in circulation anywhere?

That was the idea of the 28/28 system.  Also, I think failing to fight violation of your copyright used to mean you lost the protection.

142 @136 "It's a Wonderful Life" became popular only after it fell into the public domain and thus could be shown very cheaply. Now, of course, it has somewhere fallen under copyright again.

143 I don't see how misuse of old films demonstrates that copyright doesn't promote art, but its a shame those old films are being lost. There are several rather large businesses and operations restoring and protecting old film, however.

144 @136 "It's a Wonderful Life" became popular only after it fell into the public domain and thus could be shown very cheaply. Now, of course, it has somewhere fallen under copyright again.

Posted by: Kinsella Fan at January 21, 2012 05:29 PM (nBXyX)

That's okay.  No one's going to suffer much from not seeing that, again.  Now, what they did with A Christmas Story was barbaric!

145 137 @134 you should be free to sell your music to anyone who wants to buy it, and you would still be allowed to do that even without copyright

Yeah, but without that copyright everyone else is free to sell my music, too.

I don't understand this aversion to copyright laws. They're there to protect property. There may be legitimate concerns about the constitutionality of extending these copyrights past a certain date, but I'm tired of seeing people bitch on the Internet about intellectual property rights.

146 Only 30 minutes until the Big Govt streaming SC coverage begins...90 minutes until the numbers start coming in...

147 @145 well, instead of using the government to crush your competitors, you should work on a way to market your music in such a way that you still are able to profit from it

148 The industry cares not one tiny rat's ass about the artists. They want their plantations protected by Federal troops. The Goddess Irony never sleeps.

149 Packers Off Coord Philbin is Dolphins new head coach. Sounds like he took a swipe at his old team.

150 heh heh Atsa nice!

151

143 -

I'm saying there are countless films that no longer exist.  If others had had the option of retaining and preserving their own copies back when they were new and pristine, they would exist now.  But they don't because the copyrighted owner, the studio, never bothered to preserve them. 

Again, no larger point, just stating the fact. 

152 Christopher, I mostly agree with you on this.

 There's also services the net offers that companies don't... such as subtitled versions of animes that were dubbed. Or translated games that never came to the U.S. Or unreleased songs that never appeared on any records.

 As it is, I heard a news item lately that interested me. And yeah, I'm outing myself as a gamer geek. The U.K Sonic the Hedgehog comic has been out of print for over a decade. It lasted about 180 issues, but it isn't even sold in reprints. So naturally, there are copies online available. One site was recently asked to take down the STC books because they are planning to "re-release" them. If it's true, that's entirely reasonable to me. It would have been been harsh to force them offline when they were out of circulation completely. There's also a fan continuation of the book online. It makes no money, it's just fun. Where does that stand in terms of copyrights?

 This extends to things like fan games as well, I guess. Some companies have no issue with them (Sega, Nintendo etc). Other companies shut them down with the quickness(Square Enix).

153 Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

154 You know, there are countless old movies that no longer exist because the only copies were stuck in a storage room somewhere on these studio lots.  They never bothered to preserve them because they really had no use for them after they were shown in theaters.

Exactly.  The studios have fought to endlessly extend copyright protection for old movies such as silents, early sound pictures, cartoons and short subjects, etc. that they have no intent of ever releasing to the public again.  They see little to no commercial value in trying to sell such films and don't think they're worth the expense of preservation.  But they'll keep a grip on them until they crumble into powder inside their canisters.

155

Packers Off Coord Philbin is Dolphins new head coach.

10-1 Matt Flynn's wearing an uglier shade of green next year.

156 147 @145 well, instead of using the government to crush your competitors, you should work on a way to market your music in such a way that you still are able to profit from it

Or how about we not steal other people's shit, hmm? Why should anyone have to find an alternate way to make money to make up for the fact that his shit is being stolen, as though law enforcement shouldn't step in to enforce the fucking law?

Believe it or not, government does have a few legitimate functions. Protecting rights - including property rights - is one of them.

157

So... should I assume, since no one here answered my question, that this shutdown occurred at the behest of some law enforcement agency, and not on a judge's order? 

If so, is everyone ok with that?  I mean, we're talking about a website here, not a meth lab.  Nothing was at risk of being blown up. 

158 Can ANY file storage company defend themselves from this sort of attack? Posted by: Nemo from Erewon at January 21, 2012 05:27 PM (lsTaT) They can bribe RIAA and MPAA, like all the good guys do. Play by the rules, or our dawg Holder sinks it's sharpened teeth in your testicles, even if you're some German fatass residing in New Zealand.

159 Hey, Mac.. bend over, I got a mega-upload for ya.

160

You should have seen the gigantic electronic chastity belt I had to break through to nail Kim Commando.

She was worth it..

161 Insty has a cool side by side look at Rick S. and McLovin.

162 Is Kim Commando hot? I never saw a pic of her, just listened to her boring show.

163 Has anybody mentioned that the DOJ is more interested in protecting episodes of Murder, She Wrote than our nation's military and State Dept secrets?

164 Has anybody mentioned that the DOJ is more interested in protecting episodes of Murder, She Wrote than our nation's military and State Dept secrets? Posted by: soothie at January 21, 2012 05:39 PM (oB2II) Is it always necessary to point out the obvious?

165 I'll miss being able to use megaupload to host my own songs, actually.

166

Standard MO for the Dims.

1. Ignore current law. Example: if Napster had been shut down the day after it went live (as it should have been), then this whole issue could have been nipped in the bud.

2. Propose new legislation to address "the Problem" which arose because of their intial failure to enforce current law. BTW, never repeal the old law or even mention it.

3. Profit! Gain a talking point: "See, we're doing something!" They get reelected by the uninformed idiots in their districts, and increase their power to ensare other innocent sites through legislation so poorly written that no one can tell who's actually violating the law.

Rinse and repeat.

167 Alls megaupload needs to do is transfer all their files to wikileaks and all is good.

168
By now, people who use the Internet seriously, and even plenty who don't, are aware of the arrest of six-foot-seven, 300-pound Kim Dotcom, an outsize figure in the business of facilitating Internet downloads.

The problem with his company, Megauploads, according to the US Justice Department and the FBI that carried out the arrest, is that his brainchild allowed users to traffic in "stolen" – copyrighted – entertainment on which no royalties had been paid.

As Kurt Nimmo and Alex Jones, of Infowars fame, pointed out in an article posted today entitled "The Great Internet Wars Have Begun," we wake up to an entirely new Internet era this weekend.

Yes, a war has been joined and human history shall never be the same. For one thing, the outcome is NOT certain – and the elite that seeks to control and constrain the Internet may yet end up taking a step back – at least in these early rounds, anyway.

Without fanfare (perhaps for good reason) the US's FBI alone operates in something like 100 jurisdictions around the world now. These days, almost every country has elaborate agreements in place guaranteeing that it will turn over other countries' citizens for arrest.

What this has done, in point of fact, is put Western law enforcement agencies into bed with some of the most loathsome dictators and regimes in the world. If, say, China wants the return of a "criminal" (a dissident), the host country is almost duty-bound to comply.

This just happened in Canada a few months ago, where Canadian authorities shipped a freedom activist back to China because the treaties called for the cooperation.

These treaties are no accident. They've been worked out painstakingly over the past 50 years or so. It is apparently the elites that wants this seamless web of treaties in force so that it can pursue a one-world government without the inconvenience of activists who might offer alternative points of view.

This is one reason, I would think, why Kim Dotcom was arrested by 70 agents in New Zealand the other day over a copyright infringement and how Western law enforcement had the wherewithal to confiscate and otherwise destroy a world-spanning company in a single 24-hour period.

It's not right, of course. The US Justice Department virtually destroyed a company based on a judicial theory that may prove untenable in court. The idea that a vendor – Megaupload – is responsible for its users is inherently questionable. Are car companies responsible for their drivers? Are lawnmower builders responsible for the state of their clients front yards?

Nonetheless, Kim Dotcom sits in prison (unless he has already been bailed out) and Western media has been gleefully listing the expensive cars that were confiscated from him and how he was removed – by force – from his "panic room" in his large, rented mansion.

Where is it written that Hollywood has the right to utilize the full force of the US Justice Dept. to destroy someone's corporation and personal life in ADVANCE of any sort of trial, or even a HEARING?

It seems almost like a kind of thuggery. And the motion picture industry's brand new, glittery spokesman Chris Dodd didn't do himself any favors with this quote (via Fox) regarding the larger copyright situation:

"Candidly, those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake ... I would caution people – don't make the assumption that because the quote 'Hollywood community' has been historically supportive of Democrats, which they have, don't make the false assumptions this year that because we did it in years past, we will do it this year... These issues before us – this is the only issue that goes right to the heart of this industry".

Dodd couldn't have been more clear. Like an old-style Mafia don, he's warning politicians that if they want donations they have to do his bidding. This is not just a stupid statement; it probably expresses a number of potential illegalities. Nonetheless, he is quoted as having said it.

But, of course, at root it is not HOLLYWOOD that has declared war but Hollywood's masters, that wants to create a New World Order and is determined to tame the Internet in order to do so.

Hollywood is merely a spinner of memes – a purveyor of the elite's dominant social themes. But it is the Internet that is blowing them up as fast as they can be produced. This is something that cannot be tolerated.

The trouble – and it IS a problem – is that history shows us that copyright and even patent law are clumsy instruments with which to combat the truth-telling of a particular information facility. People generally – in groups – tend to use a technology to its fullest extent.

169 Now, many musicians don't mind if their stuff is up on Youtube. But that's their call.
Posted by: Little Lebowski Urban Acheiver at January 21, 2012 05:25 PM

It's always the company like Warner, BMI, etc who are quick with the takedown orders. Rarely hear the artist themselves bitch.

I'm not going to cry because the deep pocketed gatekeepers lose a few bucks which they pocket 90 percent of the money off the work of the artists.

Besides, a load of that money goes to Obama and the Democrats anyway

170 you must get serious about going after these guys and putting them in prison.

Yeah, i keep wondering why no one in gubmint seems able to deal with online copyright infringement as is, kind of reminds me of the illegal immigrant nonsense, everyone knows it's happening and everyone knows where it's happening but they don't do anything about it, then all of a sudden they pull this draconian SOPA crap, something stinks big time.

171 Is Kim Commando hot? I never saw a pic of her, just listened to her boring show.

Posted by: USS Diversity at January 21, 2012 05:37 PM (PddVe)

I think she's cute.

Kinda has an 80's type of look about her.

172 And yet somehow, Youtube goes on.

173 Chicks dig Romney's 14-inch part

174 160 You should have seen the gigantic electronic chastity belt I had to break through to nail Kim Commando. She was worth it.. Posted by: Mr. Wonderful at January 21, 2012 05:36 PM (Ha1Xm) Speaking of which, you owe me a new Sybian, jerk!

175

you must get serious about going after these guys and putting them in prison.

Better idea, let's get serious about 21st century copyright reform.

I know I know... racist antidisneyite.

176 And yet somehow, Youtube goes on. Posted by: Darth Randall at January 21, 2012 05:43 PM (O/onO) Youbet

177 Youbastard.

178 Are the four arrested still in custody or were they granted bail? I can't see them waiving extradition. They will fight it. And I don't think Kiwi land will be that cooperative.

Yes, they know what their storage lockers are used for.  But the damages to the industry is being waaayyyy overinflated in that they assume people will actually pay a lot of money for the crap they are downloading.  I think most people will not buy it at all.

And as someone already pointed out, megaupload is just one of many similar companies. Are they going to indict them all? With mega out of business, it just creates a vacumn for more uploaders to go in business.

179

It's always the company like Warner, BMI, etc who are quick with the takedown orders. Rarely hear the artist themselves bitch.

Before the RIAA came along mankind did not know music.

180 @147 Kinsella- How exactly do they profitably market their content that competes with "free"? Think that a copyright holder is charging too much? Don't buy it. That's how the free market works. It breaks down completely when property rights- intellectual or otherwise- aren't protected.

181 #127

Digital distribution has lead to a great deal of change in this area, although there is still far to go.

A huge complaint from film preservationists in decades past was that studios would not got to the expense of producing costly new prints of old films that held little profit potential. Meanwhile, the original prints mouldered in studio vaults, many to the point of complete loss.

Offers were made to foot the cost of the preservation but there were concerns over copyright maintenance and a lot of stonewalling to avoid the whole issue. But when digital distribution came along it meant there was a vastly cheaper way to preserve old movies and even make it viable to put them on the market again.

Emulation of long dead software platforms is doing the same for games. Selling old NES hits to Wii owners as downloads has been a nice addition to Nintendo's bottom line. Every current game platform has a substantial range of old games available in retail collections or via download.

The same is now happening for out of print books revived on the Kindle and other e-reader platforms.

Digital distribution changes the market a good deal. It would make sense if lengthy copyright terms were tied to a responsibility to keep the protected work actively available to the market. It doesn't bother me if Disney still owns Fantasia a century from now, so long as they make it readily available for viewing on a widely available platform. In the post-celluloid era there is no excuse for anything to be unavailable for purchase.

182 " These days, almost every country has elaborate agreements in place guaranteeing that it will turn over other countries' citizens for arrest."

Right. That's why 10 years later, the UK still hasn't extradited Gary McKinnon.

183 @180 at one point in time, JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings was pirated by an American publisher and sold as a cheap paperback. Thanks somewhat to a word-of-mouth campaign, Tolkien had convinced a lot of his American readers not to buy the pirated edition.

184 182 Not to US,we still have the barbaric death penalty after all.

185

There's a concept called "public domain" which holds that anything over a certain age or ubiquity can be used by anyone because its such a part of culture and history no one really owns it any more. Shakespeare, for example. That has to be extended to include "lost" works of this sort.

There's also a concept, pioneered by folks like Disney, they should be able to buy exclusive rights to pretty much whatever they want, even re-copyright things that have fallen into the public domain.

186

178 -

I think they claimed something like half a billion in damages.  And 175 mil in profits for the company... most of which was from advert revenue, not subscriptions.  Indeed, nobody paid a dime for content, it was all about access.  They might have a hard time winning a court case here.

 

187 The genie is out of the bottle.

188

If a band isn't signed with a label, how can the Act stop them from self-publishing original material? That doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: ErikW at January 21, 2012 05:06 PM (P4wik)

you are beginning to understand this law!

189 #172

YouTube exists solely because it was acquired early on by a massively profitable company that is certain there is money to be made on it but haven't gotten there yet. Meanwhile, it is one of those expenses that Google figures is worthwhile in the big picture sense.

If YouTube had continued as a standalone operation it would be long gone.

190 I find how they market programs frustrating. It's a small world. If a popular show airs in the UK, why do I have to wait 6 mos to a year if not more, to see it?  I've noticed also that after UK shows finish airing, they are out on DVD a month later. So, you can buy and see the show if you have a dvd player for that region. Even that isn't' necessary since there is software to strip the region and allow you to copy and play the copy or you can play via your computer.

191

39 Heck, by driving a car I'm taking money from cab drivers

whoa!!! 

yeah, pay my meter biotches

192 @183- And? Are you suggesting that people won't engage in piracy if asked nicely?

193

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

i lost my medXX hash

damn!!!

194 BurtTC,
They indicted the owners so they shut the biz.  Doesn't indictment involve a judge?  Don't they always close an illegal biz?

195 What I really want to know about movies is ... what the f#ck is up with the "credits" thing?  What other pursuit or product lists everyone that worked on it?  It's crazy and silly.  The sign of an industry too taken with themselves.

I know lots of people like the credits, but they just don't make any sense.  The stars and director ... maybe one of the actual producers, but that's it and just for passing interest.

And this is the same industry that is going to be helping to craft legislation that tramples over any and every right that stands in the way of their having the government adopt the protection of their dreck as its main and sole task ...

196 @192 no, merely that, in the absence of copyright protections, content producers will still figure out a way to make money.

197 The copyright period gets extended every time it is about to expire on Mickey Mouse (Thanks Walt).

198

Wow!  Just heard DWS talk on FOXNews.

The stupid is stong in that one.

199 Bummer about your hash, ncj, the new one is kinda ghey. 

200 It's always the company like Warner, BMI, etc who are quick with the takedown orders. Rarely hear the artist themselves bitch.

Story about this: at my previous job, I did programming on a very popular video game which ships with licensed music for the soundtrack (as opposed to original compositions).  We wanted to include a song from a certain major-label band.  The band turned out to be big fans of the game and wanted us to use it for free as long as we spelled their names right.  Then their record company stepped in and demanded roughly half of our entire development budget.  The song didn't get used.

tl;dr: record companies suck.

201 It's not just having these illegal files stored on servers. You have to be able to find where they are stored. So, they are trying to shut down websites that are nothing but search engines or small blogs that post links to the files. Again, shot them down, some will stay dark while others will just find a new host. 

But how do you shut down a company in Russia or China?

202 >>187 The genie is out of the bottle.

The elites actually have a limited playbook when it comes to influencing the larger society, though that is not intended to downplay its power. The elites use fear-based promotions that are designed to frighten middle classes into giving up wealth and power to specially prepared globalist institutions like the UN, IMF, etc.

The other "tools" in the toolkit include war and a pervasive societal matrix of sociopolitical, economic, religious and military elements. The matrix itself was seamless in the late 20th century – for most Western citizens anyway – and allowed the power elite to advance its fear-based promotions without fear of contradiction.

Say, for instance, the elites wanted to promote global warming – in order to create a kind of "carbon currency" that they could control and trade at will. In order to do this, the elites would have to proclaim the threat, back it up with scientific studies and then legislate a response to the supposed threat.

This is something that actually took place. The elites used their control of the scientific establishment to proclaim a phony hypothesis and then planted specially placed "scientists" at critical choke points to further control the dialogue.

It turns out that it doesn't take very many people to control a given conversation or promote a certain campaign. In this case, by generating a cadre of global warming sycophants and putting them in charge of one of only a few "global warming" scientific journals, the elites could virtually create a scientific consensus where none existed.

Once the elites had manufactured a phony global warming meme via "peer approved" articles in complaisant journals, the elite-controlled media was turned loose to trumpet the supposed findings. And once the articles were written, elite-controlled UN agencies created white papers from them that could be used as calls-for-action.

These white papers were in turn picked up by elite-funded NGOs that began to foment full-fledged socio-political campaigns to "crack down" on global warming "polluters." Vast UN conferences filled by elite-proxies (hand-picked politicians) were organized as well to agitate for worldwide legislation to "control" global warming.

Of course, all of this takes a phenomenal amount of money, but money is no object to the elite that controls more than 100 central banks around the world and funds their campaign for a New World Order by printing endless amounts of money-from-nothing.

The entire process amounts to a vast echo chamber in which each element of the Elites controlled promotional mechanism plays a given part. There is a scientific consensus that then creates "news" for the media, which in turn galvanizes "action" on the part of specially selected politicians.

And gradually a "consensus" is reached, laws are written and public education textbooks promote the necessity of this directed history to a new generation of tots who have no idea of how manipulated they are – or their world.

Every part of this painstakingly created matrix has been virtually shattered in the 21st century. Again, we can see the result by observing the global warming meme itself. Not only was it put in doubt by the Internet – the one avenue of communication that the elites do not control – but it was virtually blown up by email leaks.

These email leaks are among the most extraordinary in human history. And, no, that's not too strong a statement! They show quite clearly how a tiny group of rogue scientific operatives can virtually control an entire academic dialogue over time simply by the proper positioning.

The ramifications of these emails have yet to be felt because the mainstream media has refused to place them in their proper context. But they are among the most incendiary communications ever leaked, as a proper reading of them will confirm virtually everything I have just discussed above.

Again, it is the Internet that made the difference. The Internet is what the elites need to destroy – or at least control – as soon as possible. Without control of the Internet, tens of trillions of sunk costs in building this vast matrix of complaisant scientists, academics, media moguls and corporate, military and religious chiefs is rendered virtually useless.

203 hi, chemjeff!!! 

204 Would you work for free?

Posted by: chemjeff at January 21, 2012 06:03 PM (7FadD)

What's that you say?

205 196 @192 no, merely that, in the absence of copyright protections, content producers will still figure out a way to make money.

I'm not sure exactly what you've been trying to say. Just because some people will find ways to overcome piracy, they're still losing revenue they would otherwise be making because fucksticks on the Internet are breaking the law and stealing other people's property.

We've used the music example, so let's switch to literature. I write a book. It is my intellectual property. Copyrighting my property ensures that no one else can profit from it. A copyright is not a monopoly. Someone else is free to write their own book and let it compete in a free market with mine.

When someone steals someone else's property, they should arrested and prosecuted.

206 @196- Again. How? What way allows them to compete with free? Ads? Nope- someone will just strip the ads and distribute that. The honor system? That's what we have now, but too many people feel entitled to free content merely because it's being delivered digitally.

207 Recently, a few big companies got into trouble for issuing take down demands on stuff they did not own.

208

There was some now-famous rapper who, some years ago, decided he didn't need the big record companies. He cut his own CD and started selling them out of the trunk of his car.

His name escapes me, but he was a pioneer of sorts, even though he knew that his "music" (that's not music: it's bagpipes rap) could be copied and distributed by anyone who bought one of his CD's. Today, artists have bypassed the CD production step and stayed all digital. Hell, I've even toyed with the idea of putting one of my little compostitions on BandCamp.com.

I only need a million people to buy just one song...

Anyway, technology and the rampant corruption of the music industry has resulted in a true leveling of the playing field. The business model of the big record companies was destroyed by their own incompetance. In short, their own lust for power withing the industry was their undoing. The tradeoff is that with this technology, artists only make a fraction of what they once did, since anyone can (and often do) make digital copies of any song.

209

195 What I really want to know about movies is ... what the f#ck is up with the "credits" thing?

They've gotten ridiculously long and detailed. ....I assumed it was the result of some sort of union thing. ....It sounds like something that a union boss would think of: "We demand to have billing!" .....or some such thing.

210 no, they just won't produce the content.

Would you work for free?

Posted by: chemjeff at January 21, 2012 06:03 PM (7FadD)

When did TV ever charge?  When do ANY of the biggest web companies charge for their stuff?

Artists and labels will make more money selling songs for pennies.  But, if they continue to try and squeeze the market for 100 times the actual value, then they will suffer piracy of the easiest thing in the world to pirate. 

211 cvmikesisakMichael Sisak   Source confirms to CV that Paterno gravely ill. Sue Paterno telephoned member of staff, summoned person to hospital to say goodbye to Joe.

oshua Treviño   What? RT @cvmikesisak: BREAKING: Penn State coach Joe Paterno near death, family summoning close friends to hospital for final goodbyes.

212 Posted by: sickinmass at January 21, 2012 06:03 PM (bcNec)

Helluva post, SiM, once again I am awed.  If you were here I would totally share my cookies & beer with you.

213 What way allows them to compete with free?

Make it cheap and convenient to do the right thing, and a large majority of people will.  iTunes and Amazon MP3 have done an excellent job competing with free (and both sell you fully DRM-free copyable files).

214 210 In old movies,when the credits were in the beginning,they were relatively short and only credit the key people.Now,everyone down to the guy who delivers the bagels gets a credit.

215 If you read the indictment, some guy in Viet Nam made $55,000 illegally  uploading mostly porn.

In fact, didn't the porn producers recently sue megavidoe and lose?

216 212 Wouldn't be surprised if the Sandusky thing speeded this outcome.

217
Did Rummy bake teh coooookies, Peaches?

218

215 210 .....Now,everyone down to the guy who delivers the bagels gets a credit. 

That's right! It's only fair, because...well, because.

219 I'm in favor of protecting IP,I don't like the idea of companies pulling stuff ut of the public domain back under copyright though.

220 @214- Netflix and iTunes didn't exactly stop piracy though, did they? On this very thread we have people who take the piracy route even with relatively cheap and easy access available through legitimate means. As long as "free" remains available via piracy and lack of copyright enforcement, a significant number will pick free over not free.

221 Yeah, movie credits have gotten ridiculous, they're so long at this point they could play the whole soundtrack of a flick over them, keep expecting to see " Jimmy Keznik - homeless guy who occasionally wandered onto the set" or something similar listed.

222 Did Rummy bake teh coooookies, Peaches?

Posted by: sickinmass at January 21, 2012 06:12 PM (bcNec)

They are the store-boughts.  _{hangs head in shame}  I don't make my own beer, either.

223 Hey! We deserve to be in the credits too! .....Try getting by without duct tape. You can't make a movie without duct tape.

224 Didnt LouieCK make a video of his recent concert available for downloading from his own website for 5 bucks? I think he made 5 million dollars.

225 224 They often like to force you to sith through them too for soome clip right at the end.Well,those Marvel movies do,anyway.

226 Yeah, movie credits have gotten ridiculous, they're so long at this point they could play the whole soundtrack of a flick over them, keep expecting to see " Jimmy Keznik - homeless guy who occasionally wandered onto the set" or something similar listed.

Posted by: booger at January 21, 2012 06:15 PM (EjNp5)

SOPA:  Co-sponsored by:

Jimmy Keznik - useless Congress critter who occasionally wandered onto the floor

227

Whats interesting is that a lot of countries already blocked this site... places like China, and Saudi Arabia... Iran... Indonesia... all those countries which are SOOOO on the side of Freedom of Speech...

And now? the US...

228 What is it called, when they put that little bit of footage at the end of the credits? ......I've heard it called something, a "cupcake", or something like that. It's sort of a teaser, an addendum.

229

Whats interesting is that a lot of countries already blocked this site... places like China, and Saudi Arabia... Iran... Indonesia... all those countries which are SOOOO on the side of Freedom of Speech...

And now? the US...

Posted by: Romeo13 at January 21, 2012 06:19 PM (lZBBB)

Hmmmmmm.  I do feel a bit more at home, these days.

230 We've used the music example, so let's switch to literature. I write a book. It is my intellectual property. Copyrighting my property ensures that no one else can profit from it. A copyright is not a monopoly. Someone else is free to write their own book and let it compete in a free market with mine. When someone steals someone else's property, they should arrested and prosecuted. Posted by: Little Lebowski Urban Acheiver at January 21, 2012 06:04 PM (wCik+) In your world, book publishers would have the power to bulldoze libraries and sow them with salt because they allow people to use the copying machine. Don't you realize how insanely fascistic you sound? Guess not.

231

228 224 They often like to force you to sith through them too for soome clip right at the end.Well,those Marvel movies do,anyway. 

Yeah, that. What is it called when they do that?

232 Megaupload.com? Never heard of it.

233 Yeah, that. What is it called when they do that?

"The money shot".

Wait, no, that's a different kind of movie.

234

Don't tell me you're one of those "everything should be free" hippy-dippies.

If perchance you were referring to my observation, then the answer is a definitive no. Artists are entitled to be paid for their efforts just as anyone else who puts in the time to build something.

I don't play for free, unless it's for a bona-fide charity or a fundraiser for someone I know who's sick and has no health insurance (which is just all the musicians I know).

I was merely observing that the tradeoff in the democratization of music distribution due to today's technology was a pay cut for the artist. The mechanism that was formerly in place has been rendered pretty much obsolete, partly due to greed, and partly due to technology itself.

I play live shows only, so I really don't have a dog in this hunt.

235 In your world, book publishers would have the power to bulldoze libraries and sow them with salt because they allow people to use the copying machine. Don't you realize how insanely fascistic you sound? Guess not.

Posted by: Juicer at January 21, 2012 06:21 PM (d4Fqq)

Libraries are racist against the illiterate, condescending to the semi-literate and burdensome to the literate.  They are evil.  We'll tell you what books to read.

236 @214- Netflix and iTunes didn't exactly stop piracy though, did they?

No, and the invention of police didn't end crime, either.  A large majority of the public does things the right way now.  Trying to go further is futile.

237 Is the big movie this year really a silent flix? Talk about gimmicks used to fill a lack of creativity!

238 RIP MU. It's been at least 5 years since I've purchased any music, movies, TV shows, books, comics or magazines. Probably never will buy entertainment again. Of course, I'm not alone. That's the best revenge against the sanctimonious creeps who are defending the Mega bust. It must drive them crazy.

239 @220 chemjeff- It's nothing more than the entitlement mentality on display. Blaming record companies or Hollywood is simply an excuse for what they know is indefensible behavior. Once someone gets used to "free" stuff, they often feel that they're entitled to it and invent justifications for why. It's no different than the welfare cheat who tells himself it's OK because hey- if the government has money for (insert spending they disagree with here), then they should get a piece too.

240 Holy crap! Anybody watching the BJ auction still around here? $350K for a barn find Mustang. SCOAMF isn't going to be happy when he hears somebody still has money.

241 iTunes gives the market what it wants, most people are fine with paying 99 cents for a song they like, but when they're faced with either buying a cd for $12.99 when they only want a tune or two or dl'ing that tune or two for free  most will go the arr matey route. And pricing problems are nothing new, i remember way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth Tom Petty got into a big hullabaloo with his record company over the price of his cd, he wanted $8 and they wanted $15 or something.

242 $350K for a barn find Mustang.

What was special about it?

243 Sorry, Waterhouse, I don't know. I'm fixing dinner and only started paying attention when the talking head sounded like he was a little too excited. Presumably it's matching everything and all original, even if in rough shape. Second highest sale of the day so far.

244 Sterling Archer:  Don't go into mourning. There are numerous companies out there just like MU.

245 One man's internet pirate is another man's freedom fighter.

The entertainment industry has used their ability to buy politicians to pervert the idea of copyrights into a perpetual gravy train for themselves and now they are getting some non-violent pushback from consumers where it hurts, in the pocketbook. The civil disobedience aspect of the situation is actually encouraging.

246

What was special about it?

Only 44k miles, virtually a museum piece. But 350 large? Life must be good...

247 Even if it were free, most of the media product isn't worth watching/listening to, much less paying for.

248 Helluva post, SiM, once again I am awed.  If you were here I would totally share my cookies & beer with you.

Posted by: Peaches at January 21, 2012 06:08 PM (W2yGO)

Or you could share them with the person that actually wrote what SiM posted.

Ironic, considering the thread topic.....

249 I'd be a lot more sympathetic to copyright holders if they weren't simultaneously destroying public domain and fair use. And why should Mickey Mouse retain copyright when Mark Twain doesn't?

250 Holy crap, Tami, are you saying that SiM does not write his own material?  Head exploding!!!

251 253 Holy crap, Tami, are you saying that SiM does not write his own material?  Head exploding!!!

Posted by: Peaches at January 21, 2012 07:01 PM (W2yGO)

He does that often with no attribution to the person or site he gets it from.

This particular one is from The Daily Bell. 

http://tinyurl.com/6vapgk8

252 243 Holy crap! Anybody watching the BJ auction still around here? ooh, where?!

253 Note to self..

h/t sources

254 Sorry to not share your joy...


Because today, yes today,  Piss Dodd, Bawney Frank, Eric "Dick" Holder and the JEF still remain on the wrong side of razor wire.

Let's get the more dangerous criminals off the streets, first, o.k.? Then prison rape jokes all around. Cause they never get old.  

 

255 MU doesn't have a body count.

256 (unless you believe life begins at sperm...then it is the murderer of a holocaust to the holocaust power)

257 Dotcom has hired Bob Bennett as one of his attys.

258 SOPA?  NOPA!

259 152 Christopher, I mostly agree with you on this.

 There's also services the net offers that companies don't... such as subtitled versions of animes that were dubbed. Or translated games that never came to the U.S. Or unreleased songs that never appeared on any records.

Actually, the Japanese have taken an interesting approach to piracy in this regard.  Based on treaties and such, the copyrights of both our nations are usually enforced, so it's illegal to snag a fansubbed show if they file a complaint.  Their studios initially went after fansubbers when they initially exploded onto the net; but they quickly realized that they could co-opt the fansubs.  They're basically using it as free market testing.  If a show does well being released by the fansubbers, they'll have their American divisions release a DVD of the show; if it doesn't, they usually just drop it.  They'll leave the fansubbers alone as long as the fansubbers stop distributing the show when it is licensed for American release.  In return, most fansub groups honor the unspoken "stop when we say to" agreement.

260 In your world, book publishers would have the power to bulldoze libraries and sow them with salt because they allow people to use the copying machine. Don't you realize how insanely fascistic you sound?

You're getting straw all over the place.

Incidentally, Disney is insane in its attempts to control its product. By this point, Mickey Mouse should be public domain due to its ubiquity and age, but they've abused the system to retain power over what is essentially a shared American product.

But the abuse of power does not argue against that power, only the abusers.

261 As was stated in the OP, these laws have nothing really to do with getting these folks. There are laws on the books to go after them.

The same thing as the Dodd Frank bill, it really has nothing to do with getting the bad guys, it is always about control.

Heck, Corzine stole 1.2 Billion from customers, is he in jail right now? Pfft, control baby, control.

262 In your world, book publishers would have the power to bulldoze libraries and sow them with salt because they allow people to use the copying machine. Don't you realize how insanely fascistic you sound? Guess not.

Posted by: Juicer at January 21, 2012 06:21 PM (d4Fqq)

Yes, because anyone who thinks that copyright laws should be enforced are fascists. Obviously.

263

Incidentally, Disney is insane in its attempts to control its product. By this point, Mickey Mouse should be public domain due to its ubiquity and age, but they've abused the system to retain power over what is essentially a shared American product.

But the abuse of power does not argue against that power, only the abusers.

Jackass what do the hell do you think they did? They bought off Washington. Them and a bunch of others.

Abuse of their power? What legitimate power did they abuse, the power to pay off Washington to keep changing the fucking laws, taking a period of time that was always suppose to be temporary, and making it longer and longer and longer and longer into infinity, indefinitely?

And when not that, there's other tricks too. The Government banned the old Freon just when Dow's patent was running out. They hold a spiffy new one on the replacement.

Recently it has been in the news, I haven't dug into the details, but they passed a bill and a law went into effect regarding 're-copyrighting' materials who's copyrights have lapsed.

You know people copyright diseases? If you want to research them, you have to pay. One guy had to sue, because a doctor was granted a copyright on the guy's DNA sequence.

There are whole companies now that specialize in 'defensive copyrights'. Copyrights you use to counter-sue people who sue you over copyright infringement - things so fucking basic, hardly anyone could be in business and not be violating them. But they own the rights to the concept of 'an adjustable platform on a spindle base with 4' wheels used for sitting' so you gotta fucking pay, or sit on the floor.

Oh for god's sake, yes - respect the law! Rule of law. Respect those laws written out of convience and corruption, to eliminate competition, rig markets, tamp down upstarts, and serve as a real and meaningful class barrier.

264 Burn him

265

It's no different than the welfare cheat who tells himself it's OK because hey- if the government has money for (insert spending they disagree with here), then they should get a piece too.

Who is John Galt?

266

Whats interesting is that a lot of countries already blocked this site... places like China, and Saudi Arabia... Iran... Indonesia... all those countries which are SOOOO on the side of Freedom of Speech...

And now? the US...

For the second time in my life, I am proud of my country.

267

Didnt LouieCK make a video of his recent concert available for downloading from his own website for 5 bucks? I think he made 5 million dollars.

------

I was merely observing that the tradeoff in the democratization of music distribution due to today's technology was a pay cut for the artist. The mechanism that was formerly in place has been rendered pretty much obsolete, partly due to greed, and partly due to technology itself.

I do not think it has. In the aggregate, the pay went down, because now so many more people who will never reach the top level can still manage to make a living doing it, all the same.

268 Doh. I always do that.

269

So... should I assume, since no one here answered my question, that this shutdown occurred at the behest of some law enforcement agency, and not on a judge's order? 

If so, is everyone ok with that?  I mean, we're talking about a website here, not a meth lab.  Nothing was at risk of being blown up. 

You know, I'm kind of picking up on an alarming hint of racism in that post there, buddy.

It almost sounds like your some rabid 1990's republican Bund type, or something.

270 Bank of America launders much more money (to Mexican Narcocartels) than MU is accused of laundering. But because they are big donors to Obama and the DNC (kinda like the entertainment industry), they get a government ordered taxpayer bailout. MU (and their users - eg. pirates and -> others who use MU to share their own creations) on the other hand get(s) screwed because some Rupert Murdoch type has to settle for a 500 ft yacht instead of a 510 ft yacht. Anyone who supports the shutdown of MU should have been a blowjob instead of a pregnancy.

271 The question is not "why do we need SOPA," the question is why do THEY want SOPA?

SOPA is the camel's nose under the tent into uncharted waters that THEY so boldly, so desperately, so dying to come in their pants for: Internet Regulation.

And since now that Chris Dodd has made the transition to Hollywood as head of MPAA now that his Senate career is over, it's all about cronyism now, both crony capitalism and crony socialism, yeah baby! It's not about what you know in this game, it's about who you know, don't ya know?

272 I guess Griz is still at large

273

How did the US get a foreign country to arrest one  of its own ciizens for owning a website? (SOPA is bad, but when the US forces another nation to arrest one of their own citizens for owning a download site, that's good?)

 Where the hell's William F. Buckley when ya need him...

274 How? By treaty and providing them with evidence that Mega knew their website was being used for copyright infringement and actively promoted such use by financially rewarding people who did it, that's how. The indictment quoted emails between the defendants discussing this. Though they are guilty as hell, I'd be surprised if the Kiwis don't through a lot of roadblocks in the actual extradition.

275 A number of other companies have begun suspending accounts or will no longer do business in the US.

276 Jackass what do the hell do you think they did?

What a winning personality you have. Do you find this approach convinces people?