"Mega" to Replace "Megaupload"
- Thread starter Gnosis
- Start date
- Status
- Jan 8, 2011
- 22,361
"Unfortunately we can't work with hosting companies based in the United States. (...) The US government is frequently seizing domains without offering service providers a hearing or due process." -- http://kim.com/mega/#/hosting
Hahaha
Hahaha
- Oct 23, 2012
- 12,527
Interseting,I don't think I would invest in it though.Poor Mr. Dotcom,I still feel bad that because he got busted he lost his #1 world ranking in Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 2.
ZOU1 said:
As it should be.
The uploader is to blame in instances of copyright infringement as far as I'm concerned.
Unless the site is willfully serving copyrighted material, they shouldn't take the fall if someone uploads something illegal. With the sheer amount of data they take in daily, it's an impossible task to keep on top of everything. Services like this generally depend on users to report illegal content on their site.
Receiving stolen goods is not a crime unless you were aware they were stolen.
- Apr 26, 2011
- 2,779
Illegally uploading content is one thing. Downloading (especially streaming) and viewing (not copying to DVD or CD and selling or giving away physical copies) is a non-tangible process that will probably eventually become a felony, which is completely ridiculous. If you are not physically touching an object that is the medium for the upload, or host of copyrighted material, how the heck can you be guilty of a crime without touching anyone, physically touching any copyrighted DVD/Blueray/CD or saying a word? Are we to be put in prison for pressing a button and viewing an initially copyrighted song or movie that someone else put online, and that someone else is hosting?
Edit: How do we know everything that DirecTV, or Dish Network broadcasts is 100% legit??????? Isn't clicking a remote to turn your TV and Satellite receiver on the same as a mouse click? Isn't viewing TV the same as streaming in that respect???
Better check your DirecTV movie and TV show recording archives, because if it comes to light that any of it was illegally broadcast, YOU ARE GOING DOWN; not USA, Lifetime, ESPN, ABC, and so on. And for those of you that simply turned on your TV and happened to have it on that channel for a few seconds......YOU ARE GUILTY TOO!
Edit: How do we know everything that DirecTV, or Dish Network broadcasts is 100% legit??????? Isn't clicking a remote to turn your TV and Satellite receiver on the same as a mouse click? Isn't viewing TV the same as streaming in that respect???
Better check your DirecTV movie and TV show recording archives, because if it comes to light that any of it was illegally broadcast, YOU ARE GOING DOWN; not USA, Lifetime, ESPN, ABC, and so on. And for those of you that simply turned on your TV and happened to have it on that channel for a few seconds......YOU ARE GUILTY TOO!
- Apr 26, 2011
- 2,779
While I am struggling with the notion that remotely viewing copyrighted material is a crime, I do wish the same mentality was used to justify punishing those types would implemented in dealing with meth heads and bath salt soakers; lock 'em up for 20 years and fine them a couple hundred thousand dollars, and don't put them in treatment programs.
- Apr 26, 2011
- 2,779
I think I must discontinue listening to music via Pandora.com, as there is no way they can prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that all of their broadcasted content is legit.
I shall burn all of my books too. Who knows what illegal acts some of the authors, editors and publishers engaged in to produce and distribute any given book we might have in our library. Now that I might have one of their books, I AM GUILTY.
I must also stop reading books inside the Barnes and Noble store because I did not pay for them, yet I get to read them. Oh my gosh!!!!!!! Call in the NSA.
I buy books at reduced prices and then read them. Is that illegal, or is it just cyber-illegal online????
When a used book is sold at a price that is well under 25% of its displayed sale price (printed on the cover), is that illegal since the bookstore did not contact the publisher, author and editor to ask permission to sell at a reduced price thought the book has only been out a few months, thus still under copyright???????
Happens all the time. Just sayin'. You all ready for the fecal storm that follows?
Edit: Youtube is a definite bust. There must be millions of people that have viewed video that infringes on copyrights. Does Barack H. or Tom Ridge have a list of those IP's? We all better hope and pray that everything that we viewed on Youtube was legit. We better hope the mods at Youtube pulled it off their site before we could incriminate ourselves by viewing content that someone else illegally uploaded, thereby making us criminals.
Will we be hiring attorneys every time we find a copyrighted item discounted and want to purchase it?
I shall burn all of my books too. Who knows what illegal acts some of the authors, editors and publishers engaged in to produce and distribute any given book we might have in our library. Now that I might have one of their books, I AM GUILTY.
I must also stop reading books inside the Barnes and Noble store because I did not pay for them, yet I get to read them. Oh my gosh!!!!!!! Call in the NSA.
I buy books at reduced prices and then read them. Is that illegal, or is it just cyber-illegal online????
When a used book is sold at a price that is well under 25% of its displayed sale price (printed on the cover), is that illegal since the bookstore did not contact the publisher, author and editor to ask permission to sell at a reduced price thought the book has only been out a few months, thus still under copyright???????
Happens all the time. Just sayin'. You all ready for the fecal storm that follows?
Edit: Youtube is a definite bust. There must be millions of people that have viewed video that infringes on copyrights. Does Barack H. or Tom Ridge have a list of those IP's? We all better hope and pray that everything that we viewed on Youtube was legit. We better hope the mods at Youtube pulled it off their site before we could incriminate ourselves by viewing content that someone else illegally uploaded, thereby making us criminals.
Will we be hiring attorneys every time we find a copyrighted item discounted and want to purchase it?
- Apr 26, 2011
- 2,779
I think I will cancel my Netflix account. They have had some legal issues lately and I don't want to spend 5 years in Federal prison because they might have "slipped up" and violated copyright laws. I would not want to commit such a heinous crime as to view a movie that Netflix might be illegally offering, thus offending Tom Hanks.
treefrog'
New Member
- Oct 28, 2012
- 111
LOL
although shouldn't laugh this sh*t is real
the scary thing is the media companies aren't gonna give in they've got a hand in our policy makers pockets and a tongue in there ears. the MPAA, RIAA, ESA and there ilk rely on copyright to maintain there profit margins..they ain't gonna lay down any time soon.
what worries me is the lengths they will go to to maintain these margins - massive privacy infringements, DNS redirects, IP blocking, deep packet inspection and witch hunts are all just the beginning
where it ends....who knows
although shouldn't laugh this sh*t is real
the scary thing is the media companies aren't gonna give in they've got a hand in our policy makers pockets and a tongue in there ears. the MPAA, RIAA, ESA and there ilk rely on copyright to maintain there profit margins..they ain't gonna lay down any time soon.
what worries me is the lengths they will go to to maintain these margins - massive privacy infringements, DNS redirects, IP blocking, deep packet inspection and witch hunts are all just the beginning
where it ends....who knows
- Nov 5, 2011
- 5,855
Personally, I am for the complete liberalization of copyright throughout the world, whether from these copyrighted materials - I do not draw personal benefit in money.
So if I do not draw personal benefit (money), I should be able to legally use products that are labeled "copyright." - This seems to me fair and do not impede the progress.
ZOU, hahaha, you had me laughing crazy:
'I think I must discontinue listening to music via Pandora.com, as there is no way they can prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that all of their broadcasted content is legit.
I shall burn all of my books too. Who knows what illegal acts some of the authors, editors and publishers engaged in to produce and distribute any given book we might have in our library. Now that I might have one of their books, I AM GUILTY.
I must also stop reading books inside the Barnes and Noble store because I did not pay for them, yet I get to read them. Oh my gosh!!!!!!! Call in the NSA.
I buy books at reduced prices and then read them. Is that illegal, or is it just cyber-illegal online???? '
'We all better hope and pray that everything that we viewed on Youtube was legit. We better hope the mods at Youtube pulled it off their site before we could incriminate ourselves by viewing content that someone else illegally uploaded, thereby making us criminals.
Will we be hiring attorneys every time we find a copyrighted item discounted and want to purchase it?'
So if I do not draw personal benefit (money), I should be able to legally use products that are labeled "copyright." - This seems to me fair and do not impede the progress.
ZOU, hahaha, you had me laughing crazy:
'I think I must discontinue listening to music via Pandora.com, as there is no way they can prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that all of their broadcasted content is legit.
I shall burn all of my books too. Who knows what illegal acts some of the authors, editors and publishers engaged in to produce and distribute any given book we might have in our library. Now that I might have one of their books, I AM GUILTY.
I must also stop reading books inside the Barnes and Noble store because I did not pay for them, yet I get to read them. Oh my gosh!!!!!!! Call in the NSA.
I buy books at reduced prices and then read them. Is that illegal, or is it just cyber-illegal online???? '
'We all better hope and pray that everything that we viewed on Youtube was legit. We better hope the mods at Youtube pulled it off their site before we could incriminate ourselves by viewing content that someone else illegally uploaded, thereby making us criminals.
Will we be hiring attorneys every time we find a copyrighted item discounted and want to purchase it?'
Youtube is one of the best illegal download plateform.
i want free musics/videos? i go youtube, use some tools and download the stuff. ^^
i want free musics/videos? i go youtube, use some tools and download the stuff. ^^
- Apr 26, 2011
- 2,779
I guess when my girlfriend brings "Anger Management" over later to watch it with me and another couple, we will have to let her watch it by herself since she is the only one of the four of us that paid for it. If we view it without paying for it we are criminals.
I wonder how many of us have viewed a copyrighted movie that we did not pay for before online movies became available? I know all of us have, straight from a DVD that someone else rented or bought. What if a group of 10 people watch a movie that was rented????? Is that copyright infringement? How is that different from someone buying a DVD and posting it online for all to view. How is it a criminal act by the viewer to watch it when who ever posted the movie did not pay for or rent it? Isn't watching a DVD Hollywood motion picture that someone else bought or rented sinister?????? Are we all criminals if we don't give Wal-Mart another 13 dollars per person as a fee for others that are going to watch it with us, or who we might loan it to? I thought copyright infringement had to do with actual reproductions, whether for profit or not, NOT postings or showings for third parties. How is it the third party corrupt for watching??? How do we know whether the person that posted the movie online paid for it or not? We don't. Regardless, it is out of the viewers hands whether the copyrighted material was paid for in the first place, or if it is being illegally reproduced and distributed as multiple copies. Is Netflix the only place online that we can legally view "Dances with Wolves". Come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder how many of us have viewed a copyrighted movie that we did not pay for before online movies became available? I know all of us have, straight from a DVD that someone else rented or bought. What if a group of 10 people watch a movie that was rented????? Is that copyright infringement? How is that different from someone buying a DVD and posting it online for all to view. How is it a criminal act by the viewer to watch it when who ever posted the movie did not pay for or rent it? Isn't watching a DVD Hollywood motion picture that someone else bought or rented sinister?????? Are we all criminals if we don't give Wal-Mart another 13 dollars per person as a fee for others that are going to watch it with us, or who we might loan it to? I thought copyright infringement had to do with actual reproductions, whether for profit or not, NOT postings or showings for third parties. How is it the third party corrupt for watching??? How do we know whether the person that posted the movie online paid for it or not? We don't. Regardless, it is out of the viewers hands whether the copyrighted material was paid for in the first place, or if it is being illegally reproduced and distributed as multiple copies. Is Netflix the only place online that we can legally view "Dances with Wolves". Come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Apr 26, 2011
- 2,779
The honorable Jack Kennedy once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, as what you can do for your country"
I hardly think that he was referring to the Executive branch targeting remote movie viewers as to make up for inept Executive branch policing, as it pertains to not arresting and charging true copyright violators; that is, ones that reproduce for profit, or even reproduce copyrighted material to give it away within a physical storage medium, such as formerly formatted DVD's.
Remote movie viewers taking the fall to ask what they can do to make an incompetent Executive branch appear to be effective while they don't punish ACTUAL CRIMES?
There are enough laws on the books to make us all guilty of many things if the Executive (enforces laws) chose to enforce them. Rather than protect our children from predators near their schools, or punish cold blooded killers and armed robbers, or arrest some people planning to strap bombs to themselves, they would rather play cyber tag..........TAG, YOU'RE IT.
Did Congress ever get all the MLB players off of steroids?
That is just another pathetic example.
Take comfort in knowing that government is working hard to keep you from viewing ANY movie without paying a tax, fine, or paying double when you and your friend buy it to watch together.
Also, breath a little easier because we are fairly certain A-Rod does not inject testosterone or eat nandrolone any more. Hooray. Government to the rescue. Meanwhile, all the meth heads sit comfortably in State funded rehab and get to eat all the methodone they want for FREE!!!! They won't be arrested or detained, but YOU WILL for WATCHING "She is Just not That Into You" or some other joke of a production.
I hardly think that he was referring to the Executive branch targeting remote movie viewers as to make up for inept Executive branch policing, as it pertains to not arresting and charging true copyright violators; that is, ones that reproduce for profit, or even reproduce copyrighted material to give it away within a physical storage medium, such as formerly formatted DVD's.
Remote movie viewers taking the fall to ask what they can do to make an incompetent Executive branch appear to be effective while they don't punish ACTUAL CRIMES?
There are enough laws on the books to make us all guilty of many things if the Executive (enforces laws) chose to enforce them. Rather than protect our children from predators near their schools, or punish cold blooded killers and armed robbers, or arrest some people planning to strap bombs to themselves, they would rather play cyber tag..........TAG, YOU'RE IT.
Did Congress ever get all the MLB players off of steroids?
That is just another pathetic example.
Take comfort in knowing that government is working hard to keep you from viewing ANY movie without paying a tax, fine, or paying double when you and your friend buy it to watch together.
Also, breath a little easier because we are fairly certain A-Rod does not inject testosterone or eat nandrolone any more. Hooray. Government to the rescue. Meanwhile, all the meth heads sit comfortably in State funded rehab and get to eat all the methodone they want for FREE!!!! They won't be arrested or detained, but YOU WILL for WATCHING "She is Just not That Into You" or some other joke of a production.
ZOU1 said:
Dish or Direct TV are services that you have paid for. That is a completely different situation.
I think it's a pretty safe bet that if you're going to a download site to obtain a movie or TV show, chances are pretty good that the origin is questionable, and you're very aware of what you're doing. You can claim ignorance of the fact all you want, but circumventing proper channels hints otherwise...
Downloading something that is copyrighted is most definitely theft. The argument that it isn't anything tangible just doesn't hold water. Does it take up space on your hard drive? Can you interact with it? Sure sounds like it's something to me! Digital content is still considered "goods" that the author/developer/whoever should have received money for. The fact that you have it without paying for it is what constitutes theft.
treefrog'
New Member
- Oct 28, 2012
- 111
HeffeD said:
playing devils advocate :666: here's another point of view...
"Calling it theft when they know it's not theft doesn't convince people to stop file sharing. It just makes them respect copyright law even less, since it's clearly completely out of touch with the times and the technology."
quote taken from - www.techdirt.com/articles/20120329/02304318285/nytimes-oped-explains-why-infringement-isnt-theft.shtml
the Human nature is to get things at the lowest cost possible. If people can get something free without risks or very low risks, they will take it, especially if many other people do it too.
What is the main excuse when someone steal goods in a store during a riot is caught by the police? "im not alone to do it, they do it too"
What is the main excuse when someone steal goods in a store during a riot is caught by the police? "im not alone to do it, they do it too"
- Apr 26, 2011
- 2,779
Many people are "paying" for Netflix, yet Netflix is hardly trustworthy. Netflix could easily put us all in a position to view material which has its copyrights infringed upon, and as I said before, Youtube is illegally hosting material all of the time whether they know it or not.
I can download just about any movie I want with three clicks if I choose to do so. How is that suspect? How does that make my intentions sinister, esp. when compared with others that are knowingly uploading and hosting illegal content which has had its copyrights infringed upon.
Those books I read at Barnes and Noble are copyright protected, and I don't pay for them, so what shall I charge myself with? Intent to read a book I did not pay for?????
Besides that, many things are not paid for by viewers or listener. That is why we have all the TV and Radio commercials. I watch movies on TV all the time that I do not pay for. I listen to nationally syndicated radio shows I do not pay for. I use freeware that I do not pay for. I listen to Pandora, which I DO NOT PAY FOR.
If you just want to go around saying "because it is illegal", fine. Just remember that it was "illegal" to be a Jew in Hitler's Germany, and it was illegal for millions of starving people to eat in Stalin's Russia. The Roman Catholic Church would burn you at the stake for reading or possessing certain books, thus making it illegal to possess such books. There were plenty of religo-political laws in medieval times under tyrannical Feudalist systems, and not much made sense then, did it?
I am looking at the big picture, not just the slop that Hollywood usually releases, and that some joker uploads and hosts so government can get MLB players off steroids just before they lock us all up on frivolous charges related to viewing a Tom Hanks movie online.
People are usually fined or arrested for disturbing the peace or doing actual harm to their peers/neighbors, not for watching a movie.
I can download a movie while sandboxed if it makes a Tzar feel better. That way it is quarantined in RAM and never burnt to the hard drive, so after I delete the contents of the sandbox what do I have? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. And even if I had SOMETHING, only the uploader of copyrighted material, and (or) the administrator of the site hosting it knows what that "something" would have been (whether or not it is a legit upload based on copyright laws)
EDIT: Furthermore, if someone has complete text of the ACTUAL laws in the Contiguous Lower 48 and Europe that are designed to discourage or endict/prosecute a person that views a motion picture online, reads a non-purchased book at Barnes and Noble, or watches a TV show online, I would really be interested to read it. Any and all laws pertinent to that would be a fascinating read at this juncture, esp. when compared with actual copyright infringement.
This is from www.copyright.gov: What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.
HMMMM. I don't see "viewing", "watched", "listened to", or "reading" in that definition.
The gist: So if I send money to an uploader or website administrator that is hosting the movie I am watching; it is then legit??? lol
Sounds like Dish Network or Netflix to me.
LOLOL
ZOU1 said:
Any copyright lawyer has a bookcase full of books several inches thick. You're not going to find these online.
ZOU1 said:
The term you are looking for is reproduced. In order for you to watch a movie, the images are reproduced on your monitor or TV, and the audio is reproduced through your speakers.
After making a living in the music industry, I became fairly familiar with copyrights. (We even had a staff copyright lawyer at the studio/production company I worked for)
I'm sorry you obviously don't agree with/understand the terms, but it's pretty straightforward to me.
- Apr 26, 2011
- 2,779
This issue, in itself, is not all that crucial to me other than where it ultimately leads us, which is to a point where few will believe that the means justified the end. If the Executive branch goes through with punishing people for viewing movies that have been at the theater, or music that is all over the radio, it will drift us towards a storm in which there is no turning back.
Personally I could not possibly care less about what the government generally does or does not do because no one in the private sector can control them anyway. At least until it becomes the roots of tyranny, not unlike carbon credits, property tax and so on, what is the big deal if prisons start filling up with people that view or listen to the aftermath of copyright infringers? I am not one to sweat laws; I speed every day and roll through a few stop signs, and there are thousands of laws on the books that rarely, if ever, get enforced. It is the "big picture" regarding the emergence of an out-of-control police state that uses the internet to rapidly expand restriction of basic freedoms. That concerns me more than if someone gets put in jail for watching "Jericho".
Once they start taxing the internet heavily, all of this kind of rhetoric will disappear and Hollywood will be hung out to dry with the rest.
FOUR steps of government:
1. We care
2. We are in your pocket
3. You are powerless and broke
4. We never fixed the original problem
No solutions, just more taxes. That is all any of this is about. Taxes and tyranny. That is always the way it ends when the Federal government acts like they care about individuals or HOLLYWOOD. All they care about is more revenue and a scapegoat (internet users) to help implement a new Federal internet tax.
- Apr 26, 2011
- 2,779
The "Law" might not matter anyway, depending on how a judge interprets it. We have seen Federal judges rule with complete disregard for the letter of the law in many instances, so it may not matter what the Legislative branch puts forth for the Executive branch to carry out.
In the end, lawyers get their fees and the government gets its new taxes. That is what it is all about regardless of what any law states, at least in most scenarios.
It is not that I don't "understand", it is that I have a problem with the plethora of potentially restrictive and costly scenarios that will arise after they heavily regulate the internet like they do everything else. You better believe that the UN has a part in it too. This kind of thing will set precedent. Even people that agree that viewers of illegally uploaded copyrighted material should be treated as criminals will not like the aftermath. Big government picks and chooses based on revenue, not rule of law and protecting and serving.
Follow the money.
In the end, lawyers get their fees and the government gets its new taxes. That is what it is all about regardless of what any law states, at least in most scenarios.
It is not that I don't "understand", it is that I have a problem with the plethora of potentially restrictive and costly scenarios that will arise after they heavily regulate the internet like they do everything else. You better believe that the UN has a part in it too. This kind of thing will set precedent. Even people that agree that viewers of illegally uploaded copyrighted material should be treated as criminals will not like the aftermath. Big government picks and chooses based on revenue, not rule of law and protecting and serving.
Follow the money.
- Status
Similar threads
