Feds Shut Down Megaupload.com

[Assume Nothing]

Are people still honestly trying to claim that piracy isn't theft?

 

It depends how you define theft. I personally don't see them as equivalents.

[Kimberly]

Are people still honestly trying to claim that piracy isn't theft?

 

It depends how you define theft. I personally don't see them as equivalents.

 

"In common usage, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."

[Range_This11]

What I'm saying is that, as long as it's tangible (ie it's something you can physically hold/possess,) then it doesn't matter if it's a CD, a book, a table, a car, a block of land, a pet, a computer. They're all property that can be possessed, traded, and stolen.

 

The law disagrees.

 

Just because it's the law does not mean that it can change what something is or isn't. There's many laws that don't make sense.

Completely contradicting my earlier convictions on contextually irrelevant quotes, here's a little nugget:

 

"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."

-Martin Luther King, Jr.,"Letter from Birmingham Jail" 1963

 

So, who's ready to go to jail for the law that they feel is so wrong? :P

[Furah]

What I'm saying is that, as long as it's tangible (ie it's something you can physically hold/possess,) then it doesn't matter if it's a CD, a book, a table, a car, a block of land, a pet, a computer. They're all property that can be possessed, traded, and stolen.

 

The law disagrees.

 

Just because it's the law does not mean that it can change what something is or isn't. There's many laws that don't make sense.

Completely contradicting my earlier convictions on contextually irrelevant quotes, here's a little nugget:

 

"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."

-Martin Luther King, Jr.,"Letter from Birmingham Jail" 1963

 

So, who's ready to go to jail for the law that they feel is so wrong? :P

 

I'm not ready to go to gaol for theft, but I would for copyright infringement.

[Furah]

MegaUpload User Data Soon to be Destroyed

http://torrentfreak....stroyed-120130/

 

MegaUpload has received a letter from the US Attorney informing the company that data uploaded by its users may be destroyed before the end of the week. The looming wipe-out is the result of MegaUpload's lack of funds to pay for the servers. Behind the scenes, MegaUpload is hoping to convince the US Government that it's in the best interest of everyone involved to allow users to access their data, at least temporarily.

 

 

In the wake of the MegaUpload shutdown many of the site's users have complained about the personal files that were lost as collateral damage.

 

 

From work-related data to personal photos, the raid disabled access to hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of files that are clearly not infringing. A recent announcement by the US Attorney now suggests that these files may soon be lost forever.

 

"We received a letter very late Friday from the US Attorney that declared there could be an imminent destruction of Megaupload consumer data files on this coming Thursday," MegaUpload lawyer Ira Rothken told TorrentFreak.

 

Rothken explains that MegaUpload is determined to protect the interests of its users, but that its hands are tied without help from the authorities. The looming data loss is linked to unpaid bills at Cogent Communications and Carpathia Hosting where MegaUpload leased some of its servers.

 

"We of course would like to think the United States and Megaupload would both be united in trying to avoid such a consumer protection calamity whereby innocent consumers could permanently lose access to everything from word processing files to family photos and many other things that could never practically be considered infringing," the lawyer told TorrentFreak.

 

"Megaupload's assets were frozen by the United States. Mega needs funds unfrozen to pay for bandwidth, hosting, and systems administration in order to allow consumers to get access to their data stored in the Mega cloud and to back up the same for safekeeping."

 

MegaUpload has contacted the US Attorney's office with a request to unfreeze assets including money and domains so users can get access to their personal data. If this doesn't happen, the consequences for many MegaUpload users and the future of other cloud hosting services will be disastrous.

 

"If the United States fails at helping protect and restore Megaupload consumer data in an expedient fashion, it will have a chilling effect on cloud computing in the United States and worldwide. It is one thing to bring a claim for copyright infringement it is another thing to take down an entire cloud storage service in Megaupload that has substantial non infringing uses as a matter of law," Rothken told us.

 

Meanwhile, MegaUpload users are also taking action themselves. Last week Pirate parties worldwide began making a list of all the people affected by the raids, and they are planning to file a complaint against authorities in the US. The EFF has also taken an interest in the issue, and is sharing data with the international Pirate parties.For now, however, the more urgent matter is to ensure that the data doesn't get destroyed.

 

[ilovecuttingyews]

MegaUpload User Data Soon to be Destroyed

http://torrentfreak....stroyed-120130/

MegaUpload has received a letter from the US Attorney informing the company that data uploaded by its users may be destroyed before the end of the week. The looming wipe-out is the result of MegaUpload's lack of funds to pay for the servers. Behind the scenes, MegaUpload is hoping to convince the US Government that it's in the best interest of everyone involved to allow users to access their data, at least temporarily.

While I've been on the 'side of the law' for this incident, this is absolutely absurd. For the US Attorny to allow so much legitimate user data to be destroyed is beyond me. Not to mention it's still considered evidence, is it not? I don't know if it hurts anyone to allow users to access their own files, in order to save what they may not have backed up.

[Furah]

They've either finished with it, and have all they need, or only deleting irrelevant evidence. Although that could be construed as tampering with evidence.

[obfuscator]

No, we don't. "Stealing", "theft", and "piracy" are all inadequate words, and no adequate words exist in my opinion. Am I right in thinking you don't believe in harm-based morals? If my memory serves me well, we can't agree.

I'm not a big fan of harm based morals, no.

 

Even so, we live in a capitalist society where people deserve to be paid for their work. When their work is taken or otherwise used without their permission or payment, that constitutes theft. The word itself may not be "adequate" as you put it, but the idea behind it is quite clear.

What kind of morals are you into then?

 

Absolute ones. But that's for another topic..

 

 

Are people still honestly trying to claim that piracy isn't theft?

 

It depends how you define theft. I personally don't see them as equivalents.

 

Like I said before, perhaps "theft" in it's definition is not 100% suitable. The principle of obtaining and using something without permission or payment is what I mean, and it is undeniable that piracy is exactly that.

[Furah]

Ok, so Ars Technica has been able to shed some light.

 

 

Feds give OK to deleting Megaupload user files starting Thursday

http://arstechnica.c...ng-thursday.ars

 

 

The US Attorney's Office leading the prosecution of Megaupload founder Kim Dotocm and his associates has told the court that the companies hosting Megaupload data might begin deleting data on February 2, according to an AP report."The execution of those search warrants [on the servers] has now been completed," said the government letter. "The United States copied selected Mega Servers and copied selected data from some of the other Mega Servers, but did not remove any of the Mega Servers from the premises.

 

"Now that the United States has completed execution of its search warrants, the United States has no continuing right to access the Mega Servers. The Mega Servers are not in the actual or constructive custody or control of the United States, but remain at the premises controlled by, and currently under the control of, Carpathia and Cogent. Should the defendants wish to obtain independent access to the Mega Servers, or coordinate third-party access to data housed on Mega Servers, that issue must be resolved directly with Cogent or Carpathia. It is our understanding that the hosting companies may begin deleting the contents of the servers beginning as early as February 2, 2012."

 

Since Megaupload's assets are frozen, company attorney Ira Rothken told AP reporter Joshua Freed that Megaupload was unable to continue to pay its hosting providers, but that he had been working with prosecutors to keep the data—belonging to at least 50 million Megaupload users—from being erased.

 

Carpathian and Cogent representatives have not commented on the letter.

 

[Guest jrhairychest]

So, who's ready to go to jail for the law that they feel is so wrong? :P

 

I'm not ready to go to gaol for theft, but I would for copyright infringement.

 

Me thinks the truth doth hurt a little? :-D

[Omar]

Like I said before, perhaps "theft" in it's definition is not 100% suitable. The principle of obtaining and using something without permission or payment is what I mean, and it is undeniable that piracy is exactly that.

I don't consider this to be wrong. Still being honest. As far as utilitarianism sees, this is a win-neutral situation. Person A got music/movie/content; B received no product, was deprived of no product, received no money, and was deprived of no money (before you say that's false, saying it's true implies the seller has the money before the transaction takes place, which is obviously untrue).

[Randox]

Just a point, it actually is a loss if you would have paid for the product had a free option not been available. It's only not a loss in the case where, if obtaining for free was not an option, you would have instead simply gone your entire life without purchasing the product (essentially living without).

 

So it can be win neutral, but it is not automatically so.

 

Unless your trying to argue that a lost sale is not in fact a loss?

[Furah]

So, who's ready to go to jail for the law that they feel is so wrong? :P

 

I'm not ready to go to gaol for theft, but I would for copyright infringement.

 

Me thinks the truth doth hurt a little? :-D

 

Not really. If I stole something I would be willing to go to gaol for theft.

[Omar]

Just a point, it actually is a loss if you would have paid for the product had a free option not been available. It's only not a loss in the case where, if obtaining for free was not an option, you would have instead simply gone your entire life without purchasing the product (essentially living without).

 

So it can be win neutral, but it is not automatically so.

 

Unless your trying to argue that a lost sale is not in fact a loss?

That's not something I was trying to defend in this argument, but I'll take it on. If someone pirates a product instead of paying for it, then turns someone who would otherwise not have bought it onto a purchase, I consider it paid. And then it's actually a win-win. Gray area #2: a lost sale may lead to one or more sales that would otherwise not have existed.

 

One of my fans showed me a totally easy way that someone could STEAL my music off of Bandcamp using RealPlayer 14.1 beta 3, or RipTheWeb.com, or by going into Temporary Internet Files and renaming blah blah blah. What are you doing about this grave problem?

Nothing. Since streams on Bandcamp are full-length, rather than 30-second snippets, it's correct that someone could use one of the above methods to access the underlying 128k mp3. And sure, we could throw some technical hurdles in their way, but if they hit one of those hurdles, it's not like they'd slap their forehead and open their wallet. Instead, they'd just move on to some other site where those restrictions aren't in place, and you'll have squandered the chance to make your own site the premier destination for those seemingly cheap, but enthusiastic, word-spreading, and potentially later money-spending fans. In other words, the few people employing the above methods are better thought of as an opportunity, not a lost sale.

[sees_all1]

Just a point, it actually is a loss if you would have paid for the product had a free option not been available. It's only not a loss in the case where, if obtaining for free was not an option, you would have instead simply gone your entire life without purchasing the product (essentially living without).

 

So it can be win neutral, but it is not automatically so.

 

Unless your trying to argue that a lost sale is not in fact a loss?

That's not something I was trying to defend in this argument, but I'll take it on. If someone pirates a product instead of paying for it, then turns someone who would otherwise not have bought it onto a purchase, I consider it paid. And then it's actually a win-win. Gray area #2: a lost sale may lead to one or more sales that would otherwise not have existed.

 

That argument works when the product is fairly unknown... Unfortunately, it would seem that the vast majority of pirated content isn't the unknown, it's the known.

[obfuscator]

Like I said before, perhaps "theft" in it's definition is not 100% suitable. The principle of obtaining and using something without permission or payment is what I mean, and it is undeniable that piracy is exactly that.

I don't consider this to be wrong. Still being honest. As far as utilitarianism sees, this is a win-neutral situation. Person A got music/movie/content; B received no product, was deprived of no product, received no money, and was deprived of no money (before you say that's false, saying it's true implies the seller has the money before the transaction takes place, which is obviously untrue).

But it's not neutral at all. Person B is being deprived of the right to control the material they make - which is a very important right.

[Omar]

Just a point, it actually is a loss if you would have paid for the product had a free option not been available. It's only not a loss in the case where, if obtaining for free was not an option, you would have instead simply gone your entire life without purchasing the product (essentially living without).

 

So it can be win neutral, but it is not automatically so.

 

Unless your trying to argue that a lost sale is not in fact a loss?

That's not something I was trying to defend in this argument, but I'll take it on. If someone pirates a product instead of paying for it, then turns someone who would otherwise not have bought it onto a purchase, I consider it paid. And then it's actually a win-win. Gray area #2: a lost sale may lead to one or more sales that would otherwise not have existed.

 

That argument works when the product is fairly unknown... Unfortunately, it would seem that the vast majority of pirated content isn't the unknown, it's the known.

 

My stance isn't that there is no "black area", so to speak. I might formulate it as such: considering the multitude of other factors (generalized economic crisis, cannibalization of sales by legitimate internet businesses [iTunes], etc) which nuance the "awful" crisis content providers blame on "piracy" as well as the positive impacts it has on the music industry, outlawing it is a counterproductive measure and will only result in unhappiness on both sides. I would also like to know if the known is many times more pirated than it is bought when compared to the unknown, because that would seem like a fairer (though impractical) indicator of the effect of "piracy".

 

Person B is being deprived of the right to control the material they make - which is a very important right.

Go on, I think you might have caught me.

[Range_This11]

Like I said before, perhaps "theft" in it's definition is not 100% suitable. The principle of obtaining and using something without permission or payment is what I mean, and it is undeniable that piracy is exactly that.

I don't consider this to be wrong. Still being honest. As far as utilitarianism sees, this is a win-neutral situation. Person A got music/movie/content; B received no product, was deprived of no product, received no money, and was deprived of no money (before you say that's false, saying it's true implies the seller has the money before the transaction takes place, which is obviously untrue).

But it's not neutral at all. Person B is being deprived of the right to control the material they make - which is a very important right.

A different situation, but could offer a critique of the reasoning. To what extent does the average worker control the material he or she makes? I could drone on about Marxist concepts of alienation here, but I won't bore you with the details.

[Omar]

Are you not essentially agreeing with him in that Marx considers this removal of the right to control to be a problem?

[Range_This11]

I guess my point here is that most workers in America are very far-removed from the products they produce. Why should we apply this rule to the music and film industry, but at the same time not make the same argument for the rest of the workers?

[obfuscator]

 

Person B is being deprived of the right to control the material they make - which is a very important right.

Go on, I think you might have caught me.

 

In a capitalist society, we have a right to be paid for the work we do. By extension, we have the right to choose not to do work for a certain person, or make our services available to a demographic, etc, etc. That's our right as people who can work and owners of intellectual property.

 

It's quite simple - piracy does not respect that right. You may say that movies, tv shows and music are generally of sub-par quality, and overpriced. I'd agree with that. But it doesn't change the fact that the owners and creators of that work have every right to charge whatever they feel is reasonable for it. When you pirate, you are effectively disregarding that right, which is effectively theft.

 

Now, I'm not saying the right to intellectual property and control over your own work is inalienable or anything like that. But it is a right we have in a capitalist society and one that is certainly not superseded by the desire of the general populace to use said intellectual property without proper permission or payment.

 

EDIT: @Range - the average worker has no possession over what they create, because they create it with the understanding it is being created for someone else and they have no ownership rights over it. The actual possession the average worker has ownership of is the work itself - and thus they deserve to be paid for doing it.

 

If, for example, someone is forced to work without pay, it's called slavery - because the right to demand payment for work they do or things they create has been stolen from them.

[Range_This11]

I don't see a wage laborer as owning any sort of work at all. They own time, which they are compensated for(whether or not it is fair compensation is not the issue). They do not own the work that they do. That work is owned and assigned by some sort of superior--a manager, supervisor, boss, whatever you want to call it. The worker owns his or her time, but the person in charge of the operation owns the labor of that person.

[Guest jrhairychest]

That's not something I was trying to defend in this argument, but I'll take it on. If someone pirates a product instead of paying for it, then turns someone who would otherwise not have bought it onto a purchase, I consider it paid. And then it's actually a win-win. Gray area #2: a lost sale may lead to one or more sales that would otherwise not have existed.

 

That argument works when the product is fairly unknown... Unfortunately, it would seem that the vast majority of pirated content isn't the unknown, it's the known.

I have to agree with See's on this.

 

Omar if what you were saying were true, wouldn't have these organisations have already thought about this, and SOPA wouldn't have come to light? Let's be realistic someone somewhere is losing out.

 

EDIT: @Range - the average worker has no possession over what they create, because they create it with the understanding it is being created for someone else and they have no ownership rights over it. The actual possession the average worker has ownership of is the work itself - and thus they deserve to be paid for doing it.

Absolutely. I have a clause in my contract at work that states anything I create during work time belongs to the company.

[Omar]

Omar if what you were saying were true, wouldn't have these organisations have already thought about this, and SOPA wouldn't have come to light? Let's be realistic someone somewhere is losing out.

You'd think so, but the RIAA and the MPAA have a history of [bleep]ing and moaning about technological change:

I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

Jack Valenti was President of the MPAA at the time. He was trying to get the House of Representatives to realize the VCR is a huge threat to the film industry. He's only right if you consider the percentage of Boston women the Boston strangler killed.

 

Fact is they are quickly becoming obsolete. They could have innovated and used the Internet, but they stuck to their old, embarrassingly profitable model, and now there's no room for another Internet-based business. Netflix, Bandcamp, iTunes, et al took over. Production means are being democratised: think of the dozens of amateur dubstep producers you know who didn't hire anyone to help them create their product. What used to require an amp can be done on an iPad. Distribution on the internet is now almost easy, free and instantaneous--no need for labels. Artists can now profit when their music sells, which is a big plus if you consider the Steve Albini article I posted earlier. They're losing out, whether there is piracy or not. And it's about time they do.

[obfuscator]

I don't see a wage laborer as owning any sort of work at all. They own time, which they are compensated for(whether or not it is fair compensation is not the issue). They do not own the work that they do. That work is owned and assigned by some sort of superior--a manager, supervisor, boss, whatever you want to call it. The worker owns his or her time, but the person in charge of the operation owns the labor of that person.

The point still applies in the case of their time :P