This Service Could Dismantle Copyright Forever (Hands On With Kim Dotcom’s New Mega)

[lxskllr]

What's all the fuss about? I'll finally have somewhere to store my linux iso's

I have 16gb of GNU/Linux isos :^D

Edit:
I guess it's more like 14gb. I also have the Win8 release preview in there.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Neither are defensible, legally or ethically. So again, why is that a useful distinction?

Wow really? This is what's wrong with this country and why we're losing all our rights. GG.

 

[sixone]

Wow really? This is what's wrong with this country and why we're losing all our rights. GG.

You mean like the right to create something, and decide what happens to it?

I've always supported that right, and always will. Do you?

 

[ImpulsE69]

You mean like the right to create something, and decide what happens to it?

I've always supported that right, and always will. Do you?

Are you still deciding 30 years after you die? Oh wait....since you don't understand distinctions, that idea is lost on you. Lawyers use these distinctions in law against people all the time. If you can't see the reason this distinction is important, you are the naive one. It is NOT theft. Period.

I also (as stated above) believe once you've purchased an item (even if it's a license to use) you have the right to use that item for your own personal use however you see fit. Again, once people start going OMG pirates, the argument gets twisted because that's all narrow minded people think things are used for.

(No one) *** edit: most of us are not arguing the right or wrong of pirating, and for some reason, that's what you people keep coming back to as your only defense of COPYRIGHT is THEFT.

 

[sixone]

Are you still deciding 30 years after you die? Oh wait....since you don't understand distinctions, that idea is lost on you. Lawyers use these distinctions in law against people all the time. If you can't see the reason this distinction is important, you are the naive one. It is NOT theft. Period.

It is theft, and that's why US law prohibits it specifically. There are also moral and ethical issues that make it unacceptable.

I also (as stated above) believe once you've purchased an item (even if it's a license to use) you have the right to use that item for your own personal use however you see fit. Again, once people start going OMG pirates, the argument gets twisted because that's all narrow minded people think things are used for.

Irrelevant to my question. However, I do agree - if you've paid, you should be able to use it privately in any way you see fit.

(No one) *** edit: most of us are not arguing the right or wrong of pirating, and for some reason, that's what you people keep coming back to as your only defense of COPYRIGHT is THEFT.

The fact that the law treats it differently doesn't make it any less wrong than theft of tangible property. That's why it's not a useful distinction.

 

[imagoon]

"Theft"

Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[6] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985), that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'" The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law—certain exclusive rights—is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.[1]

This part is important. Theft has to deprive some one of control of an item. Copyright infringement does not.

It is not theft to buy a copy of CD X copy it 1000 times and then sell it in another country where you do not sell your product. It is copyright infringement. I didn't deprive you of the music. The end result is I deprived you of potential profits (real or imaginary) but technically I didn't deprive you of anything because you didn't offer your CD for sale in kluckkluckstan.

 

[sixone]

The end result is I deprived you of potential profits

Yeah, that's what I said several posts ago. So what?

 

[Doppel]

So the gov oversteps on Kim's ownership of a handgun and his response s to buy an RPG.

 

[imagoon]

Yeah, that's what I said several posts ago. So what?

Loss of potential profits is not a loss. There is no guarantee you would have made anything in the first place.

 

[actuarial]

Loss of potential profits is not a loss. There is no guarantee you would have made anything in the first place.

It is in many legal instances (ignoring copyright).

For example, if I'm in a car accident and miss time at work, there is still a case of lost wages, even though there was no guarantee that I would have continued to work during that time. In this case there is an extremely high probability I would have worked, but I had yet to work and receive those wages.

 

[88keys]

Copyright law needs to be reformed.

The way I see it when media is priced fairly and I don't have to jump through hoops to play games, listen to music, watch movies, etc. And when they stop trying to sue everybody for borrowing 3 notes from a song, or review under fair use. I will stop pirating stuff.

 

[88keys]

It is in many legal instances (ignoring copyright).

For example, if I'm in a car accident and miss time at work, there is still a case of lost wages, even though there was no guarantee that I would have continued to work during that time. In this case there is an extremely high probability I would have worked, but I had yet to work and receive those wages.

But they're making the leap that someone who would have pirated media is someone who would have purchased the media if the facilities were unavailable.

It is a huge fallacy because not everything you receive for free is something you would pay for.


90% of what I download is to try it once. If I like it, there is a good probability that I will buy it on blu ray in the future. But if I don't like it, it goes straight to the recycle bin.

 

[actuarial]

But they're making the leap that someone who would have pirated media is someone who would have purchased the media if the facilities were unavailable.

It is a huge fallacy because not everything you receive for free is something you would pay for.


90% of what I download is to try it once. If I like it, there is a good probability that I will buy it on blu ray in the future. But if I don't like it, it goes straight to the recycle bin.

To claim they have suffered a loss you only need to make the leap that at least one person who has pirated media would have purchase the media if the facilities were unavailable.

To claim they have not suffered a loss you would be making the leap that no person who pirated media would have bought it if the facilities were unavailable.

Which is the greater leap?

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Lol, what a surprise that the thread turned into the usual theft vs no theft argument
Anyone who doesnt understand the difference is completely devoid of logic

And also, if you are going to mention loss of profit as an argument, what do you think about the fact tons of great bands would have remained completely unknown if it werent for the internet?

I wont even argue about movies, because all the money comes from the theaters anyway (which is highway robbery nowadays), and when a movie is making 500 millions just from that, they dont really have my sympathy

 

[actuarial]

And also, if you are going to mention loss of profit as an argument, what do you think about the fact tons of great bands would have remained completely unknown if it werent for the internet?

What about it? Since some in the industry benefited from pirating music (and it's likely the bands discovered on the internet were actually giving their music away at the time and thus their music wasn't pirated) it's not legitimate to claim that other individuals lost?

Does everyone in the music industry just pool their money together and then spread it out?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Copyright law needs to be reformed.

You're right. It needs to be made a lot stricter.

 

[88keys]

To claim they have suffered a loss you only need to make the leap that at least one person who has pirated media would have purchase the media if the facilities were unavailable.

To claim they have not suffered a loss you would be making the leap that no person who pirated media would have bought it if the facilities were unavailable.

Which is the greater leap?

The greater leap is to presume that every illegal download could have been a purchase. And thats where they get their astronomical figures when they calculate losses due to piracy.

 

[88keys]

You're right. It needs to be made a lot stricter.

It is more than strict enough.
Why does it need to be stricter? Don't like fair use?

 

[Red Squirrel]

You're right. It needs to be made a lot stricter.

LMAO

Murder: 25 years (usually 10+ years after the fact, often let off easy if not convicted. ex: OJ Simpson)
Downloading too many library books: 35 years.
Download a couple songs, million dollar lawsuit
Run a service that people can potentially use for piracy: being extradited and treated like an international terrorist.

Copyright is way way way too strict. It's ridiculously strict. At worse you should be forced to pay what the work is worth. And not some arbitrary amount made up by the copyright holder. Jail time should not even be an option. A pirate is not a threat to society. Rapists, murderers, repeat burglars etc are.

In fact fair use needs to be brought back. Things are just too ridiculous now.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Come to think of it, is there a legal amount of a song or movie one is allowed to have possession of? What if a service, similar to torrents, ensured that nobody actually owns a full movie or full song. The bits would be scattered over a "raid 0" of many servers so you can only get the full thing by downloading all the bits from all the various sources. There would be some redundancy but it would be more like a raid 5 or raid 10. It would make the content harder to distribute as people going off line would break the whole torrent, but I wonder if this would work.

Of course they could just change that law in their favor as well.

 

[imagoon]

It is in many legal instances (ignoring copyright).

For example, if I'm in a car accident and miss time at work, there is still a case of lost wages, even though there was no guarantee that I would have continued to work during that time. In this case there is an extremely high probability I would have worked, but I had yet to work and receive those wages.

Well yes but there is the assumption that you would continue working if have been working etc. Also a car accident is a civil matter which makes the rules different. Even if it was criminal (IE the guy targeted you) the job losses still go to civil court.

Copyright used to be a civil issue but now there are criminal issues as well making it even more complex.

 

[Anonemous]

huh the site is up: https://mega.co.nz/ but DNS down or something.

http://154.53.224.130/#start

 

[smakme7757]

I signed up to see how the service is and so far it hasn't been working. No doubt to the immense amount of traffic the site is receiving.

I managed to sign up, but i can't log in and i haven't received my activation email. I guess it will arrive sometime tomorrow when the traffic dies down.

 

[Rangoric]

The greater leap is to presume that every illegal download could have been a purchase. And thats where they get their astronomical figures when they calculate losses due to piracy.

How is that a greater leap? Every download COULD have been a purchase. Each download doesn't automatically result in a purchase if you suddenly killed off piracy, however. It's just a possibility. Hence the word "could".

 

[GTaudiophile]

Kim speaks about Chris Dodd and the Orwellian state being create by Obama:

Back then, Dotcom "thought of myself as more American than Americans", he says. "I always had this attitude of can-do, and if you're successful you can show it, which is a very un-German thing, you know. And now, in hindsight, looking at this, the US has lost a lot of its flair for me. It's becoming such an aggressive state."