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

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SheHateMe

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2012
7,251
20
81
Now your arguments are just becoming plain old stupid.

People don't pirate things because they "don't care" about it, unless they're compulsive hoarders.

They mostly do it because they're selfish thieves.


How do you know why people pirate things? Everyone's reasoning is the same, huh?
 

sjwaste

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2000
8,757
12
81
The pricing isn't bad. I'm paying $100/yr for 100GB on dropbox. We use it for backups and direct upload of photos and videos from our phones. Pretty big deal since we had our first kid. At that price for 500GB, it'd be a no brainer to use it to back up everything else - music, digital software downloads, etc. I don't pirate anything at all and I'm interested in it.

The biggest thing that would hold me back is the risk of it being shut down because the US DOJ has it out for Kim Dotcom.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
How do you know why people pirate things? Everyone's reasoning is the same, huh?

Unless someone threatens to kill you or your family if you don't watch "Obscure Media 3" in the next two hours, there is no excuse to pirate.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,461
996
126
Distinction is here: I buy your artwork. I then copy it and sell copies in Kluckkluckstan where you don't sell.

When you come after me claiming I stole your art, I simply product the receipt saying I bought a copy, case would be dismissed. Add on to this that one is a criminal matter vs a civil matter.

Around and around the sun flower we go.

Your hypo is not theft but it is however civil copyright infringement and criminal infringement with punishment depending on how much you sold.
 
Last edited:

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,461
996
126
He's not saying it's the right thing to do, but rather the studios are run by dinosaurs that are stuck in the 80s. If they offered 1080p streaming on their website for each episode and charged a fee so people could watch it....I can assure you that piracy of that show would cut in half overnight.

Someone in Norway that has easy access to piracy...it's very tempting to download a 1080p copy illegally rather than wait a year to buy an entire seasons of DVD at a crap load of money only to find out the show sucks.

What studio's need to be is pretty damn easy. Steam their shows from their websites for a fee. They'd make a crap load of money.

And then people would justify their pirating actions by saying the charge to much.

Content providors expend a great amount of money. They like all businesses want to profit from their hardwork. They would likely charge more than a lot of you folks would be willing to spend, so you'd just continue pirating.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,461
996
126
Someone hires you to clean out your garage. When you're done, he refuses to pay you.

Is that theft?

Could be theft of service, but more than likely than not it is a contractual issue. Contractors/sub contractors have to deal with that all the time.
 

smakme7757

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2010
1,487
1
81
And then people would justify their pirating actions by saying the charge to much.

Content providors expend a great amount of money. They like all businesses want to profit from their hardwork. They would likely charge more than a lot of you folks would be willing to spend, so you'd just continue pirating.
So you, as a company, keep your current model which isn't working because you *think* they won't pay anyway?

A good example is the music industry. P2P file sharing of MP3 went down the toilet the day Apple made music the most available digital goods in the world - People pay!

If any company applied your logic to their business model they would be out of business in at least 5 years. The movie business lives purely because people enjoy going to the cinema and people still buy DVD/Blu-Ray. The cinema is also the No.1 reason why they don't want to put an effort into online distribution of the latest movies, but as we have seen in the last 5 years movies are becoming increasingly quicker to DVD/Blu-ray and to streaming services.

They won't admit it, but they know that the day of the cinema is coming to an end. The modern life in the western world is becoming increasingly more demanding, people work longer ours, pension age is increasing, families feel compelled to have their kids in as many teams as possible. Time is becoming more and more valuable and people find it much easier to go online than go to the cinema.

It doesn't matter how many people Hollywood put in jail, they will eventually have to go online and have a media distribution platform which doesn't discriminate by region. The internet is now entrenched in our daily lives and it's not going to go away anytime soon.

Piracy is also here to stay. Just like terrorism and drugs.

Time to spend the legal money on innovation Hollywood, you have no choice.
 
Last edited:

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
I've been listening to these bullshit arguments for 20 years.

Someone made that picture of a cheeseburger. He has the right to determine what happens to it. If he decides to sell it for $X then your valid choices are to pay $X, not have the picture, or work some other deal with the artist.

If you want it and take it without paying the $X lost to the artist is REAL cost.

Who says he has the right to determine what happens to it? Sure, it may seem morally that he does... but guess, what, he doesn't. This is evident by the pirating culture we live in. Beyond that, the $x lost to the artist is NOT real because he would never have had that money to begin with.

Pirates would be HAPPY to pay for content. If the content was quality and priced reasonably. Don't believe me? Look at all the studies out there that prove as much. You want to end piracy, get the studios to start pricing their products reasonably. Until then, pirating will never die. And I for one, am very happy of this fact. It is the one of the few effective methods for consumers to speak up.
 

sourceninja

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2005
8,805
65
91
Unless someone threatens to kill you or your family if you don't watch "Obscure Media 3" in the next two hours, there is no excuse to pirate.

I 'pirate' as a form of format shifting. For example, I get shitty reception with my OTA tv, so I simply have a script find and download the shows I want to watch.

There is no loss of value here for anyone (unless you think commercials playing while I'm out of the room or being fast forwarded via a dvr are of value).

Honestly, I buy what I can buy when it makes sense to buy it (I'm not buying a tv show I can watch for free OVA). If media companies want to sell more products, they can focus on delivery methods that don't make me feel like a criminal and play on the devices I want to play them on. For example, I'd watch shows on hulu if I could watch them on a device without paying for plus. It makes no sense that a computer hooked up to my tv is FINE, but a xbox, tv, or roku is simply plus only.

I stopped pirating music when amazon and itunes showed up DRM free. I'll do the same when I can get shows reasonably priced, drm free, and in high def formats. Lastly, I feel it is my right to format shift. If a media company says otherwise, I don't give a shit. I don't consider downloading a dvd rip of something I own on VHS or a flac file of something I own on cassette or cd piracy. I'm not buying the same product over and over again simply because they think it should be illegal to format shift.
 
Last edited:

imagoon

Diamond Member
Feb 19, 2003
5,199
0
0
Your hypo is not theft but it is however civil copyright infringement and criminal infringement with punishment depending on how much you sold.

Uh yeah, that was my point. This was in reply to someone who cannot see the distinction between theft and infringement. I have tons of hypotheticals that show the difference. I suspect if I actually felt the need to, I could find the case law also.

Here is another one: You paint a picture and hang it up. You never intend to sell it but Bob comes in and photos it and starts selling it.

You wouldn't be able to accuse Bob of theft since the original is still at your house.
 

sourn

Senior member
Dec 26, 2012
577
1
0
Since you're such a big fan of theft, why not tell us all your home address? We can come over and help ourselves.

Ok sure, as long as you plan to only copy everything. Which means I get to keep the originals I'll have no problems with this.


Ya, faulty logic is faulty.


Please tell me why if I buy a dvd and it gets a little old scratch I got to buy another one. That should be considered theft! Can't back up it do to back up protection so piss off.

Also this whole content blah blah blah is bs. People that make quality products rake in a fortune (they're still setting records!). People use piracy as an excuse when their crap move, music, and/or game doesn't sell for crap because it is crap.
 
Last edited:

Murloc

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2008
5,382
65
91

fresh from today, pretty fitting.

Anyway sharing like it was done with megaupload means that people will post links all over the internet. That means the FBI can just access the files and thus prove that copyrighted content is on mega. So I guess they can take it down, but not prove kim knew about it.
 
Last edited:

smitbret

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2006
3,382
17
81
Also this whole content blah blah blah is bs. People that make quality products rake in a fortune (they're still setting records!). People use piracy as an excuse when their crap move, music, and/or game doesn't sell for crap because it is crap.

This is what makes it hard for me to be sympathetic. My pirating took a huge dive to very near 0 when I was finally able to instantly download DRM free tracks from Amazon for a reasonable price. Albums for $5? I pick up a couple a week. I won't pay for crap, though and I buy a lot less music than I did back in the 90s.
 

Sho'Nuff

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2007
6,211
121
106
I'm not much in the mood for this after the 1,000th time, but copyright infringement isn't theft. Saying otherwise is being willfully ignorant at best, or knowingly using incorrect terminology to influence opinion at worst.

Saying that digital copyright infringement is not theft is a bit like saying that someone who runs off with a bike his friend borrowed from a third party did not steal said bike.

That said, the legal analysis probably differs depending on which side of the infringement chain one is on.

For example if you are distributing copyrighted material illegally, you are infringing copyright through the distributive act, presumably because the content owner has not granted you the right to distribute the content (precisely because that is how content owner's make money). That said, it would be relatively hard to establish that illegal distribution is theft. The argument would have to rely on a position that the property that was stolen by the distributor was the copyright owner's right to distribute the copyrighted material. That would be a difficult position to establish except in rare circumstances, as theft (e.g., larceny) would likely require that the copyright owner establish that the distributor intended to permanently deprive the copyright owner of the right to distribute.

On the other hand, if you are downloading copyrighted material, an argument could be made that you are stealing the material being downloaded, as well as infringing the copyright on the material. Although it varies by state, larceny is often defined as (1) the unlawful taking and carrying away of someone else's property, (2) without the consent of the owner and (3) with the intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently.

In the case of digital content, a person who lawfully obtains a copy of copyrighted material ("licensee") generally has a license that gives them right to possess and use the material within the bounds of the license (which usually excludes the right to distribute). To be clear, the licensee does not own the licensed copy of the digital content, the copyright owner does. Don't like that fact? Don't buy a limited license to copyrighted content.

With the foregoing in mind, a person who downloads ("downloader" ) a copy of that content from the licensee is not obtaining the property of the licensee, because the licensee does not have rights beyond those extending to personal possession and use of the material. Rather, the downloader is acquiring the copyright owner's content without permission. That is, the downloader is unlawfully taking and carrying away the copyrighted digital content, without the consent of the copyright owner and with the intent to deprive the copyright owner of the downloaded copyrighted material ("in this case, a specific copy thereof) permanently.

Sorry man, its pretty hard to convincingly argue that, in the context of illegally downloaded digital content, that copyright infringement is not a form of theft. The fact that one might think they own content when they do not does not change the legal analysis. Ignorance of the law is no defense, as they say.

Of course, the above is not legal advice and is not intended in any way to be an exhaustive argument or analysis with respect to this topic. I'm not your lawyer, and you rely on anything posted here at your own risk.
 
Last edited:

Sho'Nuff

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2007
6,211
121
106
Uh yeah, that was my point. This was in reply to someone who cannot see the distinction between theft and infringement. I have tons of hypotheticals that show the difference. I suspect if I actually felt the need to, I could find the case law also.

Here is another one: You paint a picture and hang it up. You never intend to sell it but Bob comes in and photos it and starts selling it.

You wouldn't be able to accuse Bob of theft since the original is still at your house.

Yes, but that is not the hypothetical in question. In this case we are talking about a person distributing illegal copies of digital content that he/she doesn't own in the first place. The painting hypo (which relates to physical property) does not translate to a situation involving digital content, wherein one digital copy is indistinguishable from another and in which ownership of the particular copy from which numerous copies (e.g., photos) thereof was never transferred from the copyright owner in the first place.

E.g., in the painting hypo - you have ownership over the physical copy of the painting, and copyright over the painting itself. I would agree you are correct in that photographing the painting is not theft, but is copyright infringement.

Narrower and more relevant hypo - you don't create a physical painting. You use photoshop to create a digital file of painting. You license a copy of that digital file to your friend, which allows him to possess and use the digital file (e.g., display it) but not distribute it or copies of it. He puts the file up on a website that allows thousands of others to download the file without your permission. Did your friend commit theft? Arguably no. Did the downloaders? Arguably yes.
 
Last edited:

Sho'Nuff

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2007
6,211
121
106
Who says he has the right to determine what happens to it? Sure, it may seem morally that he does... but guess, what, he doesn't. This is evident by the pirating culture we live in. Beyond that, the $x lost to the artist is NOT real because he would never have had that money to begin with.

The fact that a large number of people are willing to ignore the law does not mean that the law does not apply and that a content owner does not have the right to control his/her property.

As to your lost profits argument, care to provide some economic analysis that goes beyond "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so its not stealing if I take it?" If that were true, no one would buy anything. Rather, we would live in a society where everyone would say "I wouldn't buy that! So I'll just take it and no one will be harmed."

But lets apply your rules for a day. Where do you park your car? I wouldn't buy it, so I'm just going to take it. And where is your house? I hate it and wouldn't pay for it, so I'm just going to kick you out and live in it. Ok with you?
 
Last edited:

brad310

Senior member
Nov 14, 2007
319
0
0
Content creators work to create content. That content has a price on it. Some of that price is paid to the creators, which is what enables them to make it, as opposed to, say, working at K-Mart.

Taking that content without paying for it absolutely is theft, every bit the same as if someone took dollar bills out of your wallet.
The things i want to buy, i buy. The things I would never buy in the first place...

Take for example, photoshop. now, im in the minority and purchased photoshop, because i use it professionally. On the other hand, lets say i wanted to listen to a song or watch a show that i was only moderately interested in...and never would buy in the first place. Since I never would have bought it anyway, its nothing like stealing.
 

darkewaffle

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
8,152
1
81
The things i want to buy, i buy. The things I would never buy in the first place...

Take for example, photoshop. now, im in the minority and purchased photoshop, because i use it professionally. On the other hand, lets say i wanted to listen to a song or watch a show that i was only moderately interested in...and never would buy in the first place. Since I never would have bought it anyway, its nothing like stealing.

The economic impact of piracy is arguable because you can't identify how many illegitimate downloads displace legitimate purchases, but it's not legally absolving in any way. Poor people are not allowed to simply take whatever they want because they couldn't buy it in the first place.
 

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,637
3,095
136
Forgive me for skipping way ahead, but i'm not reading the whole thread just to ask one question. Don't have time for that this morning.

Was this websites data wiped out for copyright violations?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |