PDA

View Full Version : Megaupload gone



nedkelly
20-01-2012, 08:48 AM
Megaupload is gone.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/19/feds-shut-down-file-sharing-website/
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/exec-tech/megauploadcom-file-sharing-website-shutdown-charges-laid/story-e6frgazf-1226248982532
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399105,00.asp

Wonder how long until the feds go after all the other hosting sites?

goodiesguy
20-01-2012, 09:24 AM
Well i was watching something on it this morning (at around 6am). So when did it go off?

SP8's
20-01-2012, 09:36 AM
OK ... so can we have a roll call to find out which two members are not present today please ... :D

Snorkbox
20-01-2012, 09:44 AM
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/96338/arrests-in-new-zealand-over-music-piracy-probe

Agent_24
20-01-2012, 09:50 AM
"An indictment accuses Megaupload.com of costing copyright holders more than US$500 million in lost revenue from pirated films and other content."

Bullshit.

Piracy does not equal lost revenue, if the pirate had no intention to pay for the content anyway (which is often the case)

They also would not have factored in ANY of the potential sales caused by "try before you buy" cases and extra future sales caused by people discovering new things.

autechre
20-01-2012, 09:53 AM
Damn, it was quite a useful site too.
One of the better filehosts in terms of waiting time between files and speed for free users.

Snorkbox
20-01-2012, 09:54 AM
But, Agent_24, you don't have the right to try before you buy do you?

Agent_24
20-01-2012, 09:59 AM
But, Agent_24, you don't have the right to try before you buy do you?

Regardless to the legality, the point is that without taking it (and other things) into account, their apparent loss of revenue is quite inaccurate.

rob_on_guitar
20-01-2012, 10:11 AM
Damn, it was quite a useful site too.
One of the better filehosts in terms of waiting time between files and speed for free users.

yea, 'spose a refund for paying customers in a no go

stevensaaron
20-01-2012, 10:26 AM
Yeah they say that there were illegal uploads there...which i know there were...but what about the Majority of Legal documents and files etc. i have a premium account there, and i had legal uploads, files which were too big to email what happens to my subscription fees i had a lifetime sub there.

legod
20-01-2012, 10:28 AM
Damn shame. Good site that.
Plenty of others to choose from though.
They will NEVER control the internet.
And the fact that the US Justice Dept can just grab people from little old New Zealand like that is a bit worrying.

This is the same guy who gave us fireworks!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10697221

Digby
20-01-2012, 10:39 AM
Yeah they say that there were illegal uploads there...which i know there were...but what about the Majority of Legal documents and files etc. i have a premium account there, and i had legal uploads, files which were too big to email what happens to my subscription fees i had a lifetime sub there.

It looks like you've lost your documents! (and your subscription fees)
Unless you call Obama.
So much for the Cloud.

Kim Schmitz made $42m last year.

fred_fish
20-01-2012, 10:50 AM
One wonders if all those "documents" become evidence ...

Twelvevolts
20-01-2012, 11:05 AM
That New Zealand Police are involved in a "crime" that is alleged from the United States is a disgrace.

So we are going to have the United States movie or music industry determine who can be arrested and hauled over to the States to stand trial.

More at Gizmodo here

(http://gizmodo.com/5877612/feds-kill-megaupload)

goodiesguy
20-01-2012, 11:18 AM
It was a good site, and was great for when trading vinyl needle drops from all over the world of long out of print and rare lp's.

Snorkbox
20-01-2012, 11:25 AM
More here:-

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10779963

fred_fish
20-01-2012, 11:28 AM
A few Miami Vice fantasies fulfilled it seems ...
http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/30630.html


As this is a US Department of Justice led investigation comment from New Zealand Police and OFCANZ is limited to today's operation in the Auckland area.

The website of the US DOJ has further information about the investigation. www.justice.gov

Disgraceful!
"If you want to know what YOUR TAX DOLLARS are paying for, please see the US DOJ website"

rob_on_guitar
20-01-2012, 11:32 AM
That New Zealand Police are involved in a "crime" that is alleged from the United States is a disgrace.

So we are going to have the United States movie or music industry determine who can be arrested and hauled over to the States to stand trial.

More at Gizmodo here

(http://gizmodo.com/5877612/feds-kill-megaupload)

They bring in american law and now they bring in the americans. This can only get uglier.

Billy T
20-01-2012, 11:43 AM
[I] Bullshit. Piracy does not equal lost revenue, if the pirate had no intention to pay for the content anyway (which is often the case).

Nasty case of very selective morality here.

So shoplifting is not a crime either, if you had no intention of buying the desired bauble?

No matter how you try to sanitise or justify it, taking the property of others without colour of right, or intention to pay and thus depriving the rightful owner of lawful revenue, is and shall always be, theft.

The perpetrator is then, by definition, a thief, and a crime has been commited.

Shame!

Billy

fred_fish
20-01-2012, 11:49 AM
Oh ***! (ef-ef-ess)
Copyright infringement is NOT theft!

CYaBro
20-01-2012, 12:19 PM
And it's not MegaUpload that were doing any infringing anyway.
They just provided the service of storage for uploading and downloading files.
It's the users that put the illegal content on there.

SKT174
20-01-2012, 12:50 PM
you could get 5 years for uploading a Michael Jackson song, one year more than the doctor who killed him...

CYaBro
20-01-2012, 01:06 PM
you could get 5 years for uploading a Michael Jackson song, one year more than the doctor who killed him...

CRazy isn't it!!??

I could also steal a CD from a bricks'n'mortar store and get maybe fined $100 and banned from the store.
Download the same CD illegally and get who knows what....$15,000 fine maybe.

pcuser42
20-01-2012, 01:22 PM
And it's not MegaUpload that were doing any infringing anyway.
They just provided the service of storage for uploading and downloading files.
It's the users that put the illegal content on there.

From what I've heard, their employees were uploading and using pirated material to the site and turning a blind eye to illegal files, whereas the likes of YouTube actively take down pirated videos.

icow
20-01-2012, 01:38 PM
All if have to say about this is: F*CK.

Agent_24
20-01-2012, 02:54 PM
Nasty case of very selective morality here.

So shoplifting is not a crime either, if you had no intention of buying the desired bauble?

No matter how you try to sanitise or justify it, taking the property of others without colour of right, or intention to pay and thus depriving the rightful owner of lawful revenue, is and shall always be, theft.

The perpetrator is then, by definition, a thief, and a crime has been commited.

Shame!

Billy

No. Piracy is different to shoplifting because in the shoplifting scenario a physical product has been taken away from the store, which the store owner had already paid for and then lost.

In the piracy case, a virtual copy of the product has been made, and the original has not been taken away from anyone.

Hence "potential" loss of revenue. It is only loss of revenue for someone IF the person would otherwise have paid for the pirated item.

(This is why some people dispute piracy as being theft at all - in fact in a similar vein you could say simply going to a library and reading a book could be considered theft because you didn't pay for the book but you received the information for free by reading it!)


Then it comes down to a per-case basis.

For example, if the person pirated the product because they could not afford the product, then they were never going to buy it anyway, so regardless if they pirated or not, the shop\copyright holder would never have received any money from them.


I am not saying that piracy is excusable or should be legal. I am saying that in some cases, piracy is not actually going to make a difference to revenue, and in fact in some cases it may be beneficial (gives the product free advertising, and increased audience)

For example, after borrowing certain CDs from the library, I went on to purchase the entire artist's works because I liked their music so much and felt they actually deserved my money. Had I pirated those first CDs instead, the outcome would have been the same.

Ironically of course, the artist themselves would not have received much at all - the majority going to the record company!


In my view the only time there is revenue actually lost is when someone who could have paid and would have paid if they couldn't have pirated the product didn't do so, and pirated instead and then never purchased the product later - BUT this is not the scenario for 100% of all "piracy incidents".

1101
20-01-2012, 03:34 PM
Hey lets not try & take the high moral ground here, for a site that was primarily used for distributing pirated
material

be honest, thats what it was mainly used for. And they knew it. Turning a blind eye & saying they didnt know & couldnt control the files uploaded/downloaded is BS, when just the very filenames used often makes it obvious
what the files were.
Those who use (yes, me incl) & have used rapidshare, MegaShare ,fileserve etc etc know exactly the real reason these sites are used.
Uploading personal docs & files to a site like this...well isnt that asking for trouble. :) They'ed all be on various agencies hit lists.

Billy T
20-01-2012, 03:44 PM
No. Piracy is different to shoplifting because in the shoplifting scenario a physical product has been taken away from the store, which the store owner had already paid for and then lost.


There is a basic rule for survival in this world:

When you are in over your head, stop digging!

Dishonesty is a fundamental component of the majority of statutory offences relating to the acquisition, conversion and disposal of property (tangible or intangible i.e including software downloads of intangibles such as data streams) as clearly defined in criminal law. "Acquisition and conversion" embrace the dowloading of intellectual property over which you do not have colour of right.

The argument you advance is not only semantic, but downright stupid and it is incredibly naive of you to post this on a public forum where others with opposing views and interests might seek to obtain your details. You can bet your bottom dollar that Fairfax/PCW is not going to die on the barricades to save your skin. If asked, they will give your personal details up in a heartbeat and as you well know, everything that goes on the web stays on the web. There are enough archives out there to sink most of the pirates on the planet. I found a (free) knitting pattern for my sister-in-law on an archive dating several years back and the site was long gone.



In my view the only time there is revenue actually lost is when someone who could have paid and would have paid if they couldn't have pirated the product didn't do so, and pirated instead and then never purchased the product later - BUT this is not the scenario for 100% of all "piracy incidents".

That is the biggest load of gibberish that I have ever read. What you describe so ineloquently, is the definition of piracy in itself. It is highly unlikely that any pirate would ever go back later and pay, that's a fantasy lifted straight from cloud-cuckoo land.

Billy

icow
20-01-2012, 03:47 PM
So stupid things tend to make sense now?

Renegade
20-01-2012, 04:07 PM
"Anonymous" have thrown their toys out of the cot and done some DDoS'ing.

CYaBro
20-01-2012, 04:23 PM
That is the biggest load of gibberish that I have ever read. What you describe so ineloquently, is the definition of piracy in itself. It is highly unlikely that any pirate would ever go back later and pay, that's a fantasy lifted straight from cloud-cuckoo land.

Billy

Actually that's not true.
My dad loves his music and probably has one of the biggest collections of cassette tapes, vinyl and CDs in the country.
He has spent a small fortune on music over the years and a lot of stuff he has bought more than once as the newer mediums became available.
He often downloads music to see if it is any good or not.
If he doesn't like it then he just deletes it.
If he likes it then he goes and buys the CD or vinyl and he also deletes the downloads.

Now he does this mainly because a lot of the music he likes is not even available to buy in New Zealand so he buys the CDs from Amazon and other places.
But before he buys something from why shouldn't he be allowed to listen to it first to see if he likes it?

Nomad
20-01-2012, 04:38 PM
Re: the majority. If they borrowed a CD from the library or off a mate at school, how many of them would later go out and buy Windows or Office or that game or music CD ....

Don't some music stores allow one to listen in NZ ....

Cato
20-01-2012, 04:43 PM
And it's not MegaUpload that were doing any infringing anyway.
They just provided the service of storage for uploading and downloading files.
It's the users that put the illegal content on there.

I do not know if MU operated in this way, but, Filesonic, Wupload and many others pay uploaders per download. I think this is the part which may cause legal issues.

Sooner rather than later we will see more services akin to SpiderOak being shut down, too, out of sheer paranoia if nothing else.

This, however, is very upsetting. US has jurisdiction over anything that happens in NZ. Are we a god damn protectorate?
I know this is how it will play out: They finance pirates, the pirates are from countries like Pakistan, because Pakistan also has terrorists.... ... They are financing the Taliban fighters...

Cato
20-01-2012, 04:46 PM
Re: the majority. If they borrowed a CD from the library or off a mate at school, how many of them would later go out and buy Windows or Office or that game or music CD ....

Don't some music stores allow one to listen in NZ ....

That's a BS argument. You can listen to almost anything you want on youtube. Why download from MU or torrents if you can do that?

fred_fish
20-01-2012, 04:49 PM
There is a basic rule for survival in this world:

When you are in over your head, stop digging!

Dishonesty is a fundamental component of the majority of statutory offences relating to the acquisition, conversion and disposal of property (tangible or intangible i.e including software downloads of intangibles such as data streams) as clearly defined in criminal law. "Acquisition and conversion" embrace the dowloading of intellectual property over which you do not have colour of right.

The argument you advance is not only semantic, but downright stupid Notwithstanding the obvious moral and legal issues with copyright infringement, I would beg to differ:
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.Clearly this is not the case with illegal COPYING of copyrighted material and the industry's (mostly successful) attempts to inject this falsehood into the public psyche is disingenuous and self-serving. The highly inflated "estimated losses" and totally disproportionate penalties in relation to serious property crimes are a ridiculous commentary on the state of society.
and it is incredibly naive of you to post this on a public forum where others with opposing views and interests might seek to obtain your details. You can bet your bottom dollar that Fairfax/PCW is not going to die on the barricades to save your skin. If asked, they will give your personal details up in a heartbeat and as you well know, everything that goes on the web stays on the web.Last time I checked it was still not illegal to express an opinion in a public forum, however, when those laws are passed, you are correct, the mechanisms are in place to track down the offenders (and probably extradite them to the USSA for prosecution).
There are enough archives out there to sink most of the pirates on the planet. I found a (free) knitting pattern for my sister-in-law on an archive dating several years back and the site was long gone....along with the agreement with the copyright holder to distribute the work. I trust you established that the 'web archive' had also the right to distribute that work to you?

Nomad
20-01-2012, 05:12 PM
That's a BS argument. You can listen to almost anything you want on youtube. Why download from MU or torrents if you can do that?

Not sure what side you coming from.

But yeah .. while youtube do now and then police activities, but if you can youtube it, what's wrong with doing it thru other channels. Maybe the diff is that youtube police them but some others may not.

My side was just that if someone at school borrowed a CD off a classmate, I don't think many of them would later go out and buy the product. Could be wrong though.

fred_fish
20-01-2012, 05:36 PM
Under the law 'youtubing it' is no different to downloading it if you are not complying with the terms of the rightsholders distribution policy, it's just less easily enforced than torrents.

plod
20-01-2012, 06:08 PM
And it's not MegaUpload that were doing any infringing anyway.
They just provided the service of storage for uploading and downloading files.
It's the users that put the illegal content on there.
I always thought being in the possession of stolen property was a crime

icow
20-01-2012, 06:13 PM
I always thought being in the possession of stolen property was a crime

Thought so too. I think CYaBro was going towards the they did nothing but still had/have responsibility for the files that someone else put up there.

CYaBro
20-01-2012, 06:14 PM
I always thought being in the possession of stolen property was a crime

They didn't keep monitor every signle file that was uploaded to their servers.

And what about probably every single online backup provider?? I'm sure there are lots of people that are backing up their illegally downloaded music/videos onto the online backup providers servers. Should they get taken down as well?

wainuitech
20-01-2012, 06:39 PM
This type of thread never ceases to amaze, always a fight :p

BUT the "agencies and film people" Now have got more on their plates than megaupload and other file sharing sites to worry about.

From a newsletter I just received --
Some websites currently under DDoS include the FBI; The Warner Music Group; The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA); the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and Universal Music. They should be more worried about The radical group known as "Anonymous " scmagazine.com (http://www.scmagazine.com.au/News/287728,copycat-megaupload-site-emerges.aspx?eid=7&edate=20120120&utm_source=20120120&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter) Article.

Read the article -- not only are Anonymous attacking, they have listed a "hit list" - names and addresses, link in the article.

Cato
20-01-2012, 06:40 PM
Under the law 'youtubing it' is no different to downloading it if you are not complying with the terms of the rightsholders distribution policy, it's just less easily enforced than torrents.

While this is true, I was speaking for a more ethical perspective. If you want to try something for the sake of trying it, you aren't going to bother downloading, you would just take a peak on YouTube. There are plenty of record labels links "Buy this song on Itunes/whatever". Just seems a lot less unscrupulous.
Because, in all honesty, how many people would delete something they have downloaded?
It doesn't seem realistic that people would do this, I would say 99% who say they do are liars.

Cato
20-01-2012, 06:44 PM
They didn't keep monitor every signle file that was uploaded to their servers.

And what about probably every single online backup provider?? I'm sure there are lots of people that are backing up their illegally downloaded music/videos onto the online backup providers servers. Should they get taken down as well?

This is the strange part. Copyright owners would contact MU/RS/whoever and they would take those files offline immediately... So I would say, they were rather compliant...

plod
20-01-2012, 06:48 PM
They didn't keep monitor every signle file that was uploaded to their servers.

And what about probably every single online backup provider?? I'm sure there are lots of people that are backing up their illegally downloaded music/videos onto the online backup providers servers. Should they get taken down as well?Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm all for pirating content. Was just being a smart arse. And I don't think there would be anyone on the forum that could honestly say their haven't.

Cato
20-01-2012, 06:50 PM
From a newsletter I just received -- They should be more worried about The radical group known as "Anonymous " scmagazine.com (http://www.scmagazine.com.au/News/287728,copycat-megaupload-site-emerges.aspx?eid=7&edate=20120120&utm_source=20120120&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter) Article.

Read the article -- not only are Anonymous attacking, they have listed a "hit list" - names and addresses, link in the article.

This is the worst thing that they could have. This is cyber-terrorism, isn't it?
They just painted a massive bull's eye on themselves and many others. Imprisonment without trial and the FBI will be coming after them.

Cato
20-01-2012, 06:56 PM
My side was just that if someone at school borrowed a CD off a classmate, I don't think many of them would later go out and buy the product. Could be wrong though.
Pretty much.

I don't care for piracy either way. I am just sick of all this hypocrisy and high nosed behaviour, "I never steal, I just try it before I buy it" BS annoys me.

wainuitech
20-01-2012, 07:08 PM
They just painted a massive bull's eye on themselves "Anonymous" have been doing those sorts of things for quit a while, almost inviting trouble, but yeah , agree - they may have opened a can of worms as the saying goes.

fred_fish
20-01-2012, 07:21 PM
This is the worst thing that they could have. This is cyber-terrorism, isn't it?
They just painted a massive bull's eye on themselves and many others. Imprisonment without trial and the FBI will be coming after them.
One could argue that the former has arisen, at least in part, due to the preexistence of the latter.

One of the positives of this media attention is that it brings into stark relief in the public domain the liberties that are being taken with our sovereignty, and if we are not very careful, our freedom.

Whether enough people give a **** is a different matter altogether...

I don't recall dawn raids with helecopters, refused bail, or mass property seizures for those Bridgecorp pricks, and they ACTUALLY STOLE the life savings of REAL people.

Nomad
20-01-2012, 07:30 PM
There are video trailers, reviews and music playbacks at the music store I think in NZ (with the headphones) yeah ... to try them out, even clips on youtube.com and yeah the library.

stu161204
20-01-2012, 09:39 PM
"Anonymous" have thrown their toys out of the cot and done some DDoS'ing.

About time!!

Chilling_Silence
20-01-2012, 10:46 PM
RIAA website, amongst others, has been down all day today. Still down at the time of writing. Good on them!

MegaUpload is similar to Rapidshare / Hotfile / Whatever else in that they offer a 'premium' service where they give you a "full speed" service rather than what is either over-subscribed or throttled-back connections. I use megaupload quite often for legitimate purposes, I've got many difference Android ROMs from there, it's where people upload to rather than bearing the burden of hosting themselves. Just look at the likes of xda-developers and you'll see a *lot* of people do-so. It's not specifically MU's fault what the users put up there, they have their usual disclaimers about "It's not our stuff" but again (Back to whats been mentioned) SOPA and PIPA seek to make the website owner responsible for the content of all users. This is what would cause issues with the likes of Facebook, YouTube, Google, Reddit, pretty much everything under the sun that allows for discussions...

pctek
21-01-2012, 06:03 AM
No. Piracy is different to shoplifting because in the shoplifting scenario a physical product has been taken away from the store, which the store owner had already paid for and then lost.

In the piracy case, a virtual copy of the product has been made, and the original has not been taken away from anyone.

Hence "potential" loss of revenue. It is only loss of revenue for someone IF the person would otherwise have paid for the pirated item.

(This is why some people dispute piracy as being theft at all - in fact in a similar vein you could say simply going to a library and reading a book could be considered theft because you didn't pay for the book but you received the information for free by reading it!)


Then it comes down to a per-case basis.

For example, if the person pirated the product because they could not afford the product, then they were never going to buy it anyway, so regardless if they pirated or not, the shop\copyright holder would never have received any money from them.


I am not saying that piracy is excusable or should be legal. I am saying that in some cases, piracy is not actually going to make a difference to revenue, and in fact in some cases it may be beneficial (gives the product free advertising, and increased audience)

For example, after borrowing certain CDs from the library, I went on to purchase the entire artist's works because I liked their music so much and felt they actually deserved my money. Had I pirated those first CDs instead, the outcome would have been the same.

Ironically of course, the artist themselves would not have received much at all - the majority going to the record company!


In my view the only time there is revenue actually lost is when someone who could have paid and would have paid if they couldn't have pirated the product didn't do so, and pirated instead and then never purchased the product later - BUT this is not the scenario for 100% of all "piracy incidents".

Tell that to the person who wrote the song, or book or whatever.
So they sell 1 copy, everyone else in the entire world steals it because it's data and therefore still exists. How long do you think they'd stay in that business?

What a stupid argument. You steal a CD from a shop - there's still plenty of copies left on the shelf right? So according to your logic, that's OK.

As for libraries - they paid for the book, they allow you to borrow it and return it - don't return it and you get charged for it. Idiot.

Digby
21-01-2012, 06:57 AM
What amazed me was why these 4 guys (all Europeans) lived in NZ ?

Boy that is a big mansion !

I note that the herald says that Kim Dotcom (dur) was not allowed to buy some thing a few years ago as the OIC felt that he was not a good character.

Digby
21-01-2012, 07:02 AM
As regards piracy - a s a result of my 20 years in the computer sales industry I came to the conclusion that people will always try to get somethingr for nothing, even if it is cheap.

And most people will take a pirated copy of something if it is cheaper than the real thing.

I agree that piracy is wrong and bad fot the music and video industries.

But people seem to have thougt that 'the war" was won in that you can now get music legally from Itunes.

But what people forget is that you can only play the music on an itunes device.
What if Apple stopped the service or closed down ?
And the "music" you are buying is really only a crappy 192 bit rate file not the real FLAC thing.

WalOne
21-01-2012, 07:11 AM
Tell that to the person who wrote the song, or book or whatever.
So they sell 1 copy, everyone else in the entire world steals it because it's data and therefore still exists. How long do you think they'd stay in that business?

What a stupid argument. You steal a CD from a shop - there's still plenty of copies left on the shelf right? So according to your logic, that's OK.

As for libraries - they paid for the book, they allow you to borrow it and return it - don't return it and you get charged for it. Idiot.

Well said. :thumbs:

Cato
21-01-2012, 08:13 AM
And the "music" you are buying is really only a crappy 192 bit rate file not the real FLAC thing.

IIRC, it's 128kbps.

That crap isn't worth listening to.

goodiesguy
21-01-2012, 08:24 AM
That's a BS argument. You can listen to almost anything you want on youtube. Why download from MU or torrents if you can do that?

Because of youtube's crappy audio compression. I'd rather listen to a nice uncompressed .flac to see if i like it before buying it.

Twelvevolts
21-01-2012, 08:32 AM
Over here the book shelf is sagging with all the CD's I've bought in the last year or so, CD Wow got the price down from what used to be $35 bucks in the shop to $8 to $20 bucks (typically and that's the price delivered to your door). Now I know not everyone wants CD's - I just like the physical copy with the lyrics etc, it just not the same with only an Mp3 (I guess it goes back to the days wth records, and the great packaging they used to have).

But if wasn't for YouTube and the like - I'd never hear most of the bands to like their music to buy the CD's. So go ahead music industry - shut the internet down and I can stop spending all this money and I'll get less grief at home for spending cash on your products.

PS Not sure what these guys have done that Google doesn't do - they were just a bit more specialised as far as I can see.

Cato
21-01-2012, 08:50 AM
Because of youtube's crappy audio compression. I'd rather listen to a nice uncompressed .flac to see if i like it before buying it.

Ha, nice if you to hit that up after my last post.

But yeah, I have to vehemently disagree with that. For trial purposes even 96kbps would suffice.
I don't see people, with our data caps in particular, wasting half a gigabyte of traffic to "try" music, which you would then delete, go to the shop and buy?

I don't give a damn piracy, download (and/or upload) all you like, I just don't like hearing (reading, rather) this kind of bullshit. Stop assuming everyone is a naive 8 year old girl.

Also, I have also NEVER heard of someone NOT buying a good album because of bad production quality.

Digby
21-01-2012, 08:55 AM
This is serious, its really going to affect the sales of Hard drives.

The best hard drives to try music and movies on are 1.5 or 2Tb.

Iantech
21-01-2012, 09:00 AM
I dont know why "Anonymous " arent trying to bring down the NZ police website for their involvement in it all, surely that would be an easy target for them considering some of the other websites they are attacking.

Iantech
21-01-2012, 09:00 AM
This is serious, its really going to affect the sales of Hard drives.

The best hard drives to try music and movies on are 1.5 or 2Tb.
Can I have some of whatever you are on? :)

Twelvevolts
21-01-2012, 09:04 AM
But what people forget is that you can only play the music on an itunes device.
.

That's not true - I buy music through iTunes and transfer it on to my Sony player all the time. iTunes has some live performances exclusively where you can't buy the CD, my player converts them over to MP3 automatically as it transfers them over. No copy protection on it either.

However, I do find myself buying the iTunes version of some things - then I go out later and buy the physical album so they actually get me twice! Sometimes the CD is cheaper than the download - which is kind of bizarre.

Agent_24
21-01-2012, 09:23 AM
Tell that to the person who wrote the song, or book or whatever.
So they sell 1 copy, everyone else in the entire world steals it because it's data and therefore still exists. How long do you think they'd stay in that business?

What a stupid argument. You steal a CD from a shop - there's still plenty of copies left on the shelf right? So according to your logic, that's OK.

As for libraries - they paid for the book, they allow you to borrow it and return it - don't return it and you get charged for it. Idiot.

The person who wrote the book or song gets a hell of a lot less money from you than then record company does. The artist might lose out a bit but not nearly as much as the record company. Why do you think it is the record companies who get pissed off the most? They have the most to "lose" - never mind they are multi-billion dollar industries with (despite piracy) INCREASING profits every year - it's not as if the CEO of Sony Music or whatever will ever starve in a gutter somewhere.


You don't get it. I am not saying that piracy is OK. I am saying that in my opinion it is NOT BLACK AND WHITE THEFT as some of you seem to think. In fact, If you look at it from the point of "did it affect sales adversely" then in several cases it makes absolutely no difference to revenue (which is what my problem is - when the media companies go on about how many millions of dollars they lost, they are not accurate)

It doesn't matter if there are plenty of copies of a CD left in a shop if you only stole one, they still lost that one copy. that is theft. I did not say that was OK either. In fact if you read my previous post properly you would have seen that I said it wasn't.


Regarding the library: The library paid for the book (once) but you paid nothing to borrow it. You paid nothing to read it and absorb the information into your mind. If it's not overdue you pay nothing to return it. You can borrow it as many times as you like. I never said anything about keeping the book.

pcuser42
21-01-2012, 09:32 AM
I am saying that in my opinion it is NOT BLACK AND WHITE THEFT as some of you seem to think.

Imagine your car was stolen overnight, but it was still there when you woke up.

wainuitech
21-01-2012, 09:59 AM
never mind they are multi-billion dollar industries with (despite piracy) INCREASING profits every year - it's not as if the CEO of Sony Music or whatever will ever starve in a gutter somewhere.
Reading that gives the impression that if a company is making loads of money, then its perfectly fine to take what otherwise should be paid for.

Saying its not a physical item - I can see where you are coming from - But the mentality of people pirating is wrong, people are trying to compare and justify old items with new technology --- Most people that pirate music, films what ever, wouldn't walk into a book shop, or music store and steal it from the shelf.


Lets say you worked all week at doing some program for a company, then at the end of the week, the person in charge said - narrr its not good enough - redo it, or in fact lets bin it -- OH by the way - you're not getting paid for that week of work, the work wasn't used. Its not actually a physical thing. Its only coding and a bunch of 1's and 0's which can be wiped as if it never existed.

That would be OK - No pay ?

Now take the other side of that -- your work is used -- the company makes billions of dollars from your work -- but since you only worked on it for a week, thats all you will get, no extra payouts, even though you have put a copyright on it, royalty clauses etc.

fred_fish
21-01-2012, 10:41 AM
Tell that to the person who wrote the song, or book or whatever.
So they sell 1 copy, everyone else in the entire world steals it because it's data and therefore still exists. How long do you think they'd stay in that business?Well if only one person is WILLING to pay for their work, then maybe they are in the wrong business. There are a LOT of artists doing well selling lossless drm-free music (that is also available free from "other sources") A lot of artists also encourage and even distribute themselves through the "free" channels is as it is free advertising, reaching a hell of a lot of people, a percentage of which will seek out more from said artist and are willing to pay for it, and turn up at gigs and such. Either fans support the artists they enjoy, or those people will go get jobs and stop releasing music. The "problem" with this model is that there is no room for the fat profits of "mega-corporations" or extravagant lifestyles of "mega-stars" - how sad.

What a stupid argument. You steal a CD from a shop - there's still plenty of copies left on the shelf right? So according to your logic, that's OK.
No, that's not what he was saying at all. The industry's campaign to equate copyright infringement with ACTUAL THEFT and the GROSSLY INFLATED figures of lost revenue is nothing more than a cynical means to cajole the powers that be to enact increasingly draconian laws with penalties FAR EXCEEDING those for real property crimes, in order to protect their own embarrassingly profitable and completely outdated business model.They are evolutionary neanderthals desperately trying to stop the world from changing under them.
Idiot.:blush: I thought you might be able to offer a more reasoned argument ...
Regarding the library: The library paid for the book (once) but you paid nothing to borrow it.I pay for the library in the first place, via taxes & rates.

icow
21-01-2012, 11:00 AM
I hate it how big record labels and what not go on about how they are losing revenue to piracy. Yes their revenue will decrease as more people pirate but they claim that the pirated versions are actually of value to them. IMO they haven't actually lost anything because the people who pirate their stuff wouldn't have brought it anyway. The way I see it there are two major groups of people who pirate: people who don't give a **** and people who can't afford to buy the real thing so they just download it for free anyway. The majority of either of these groups will never ever buy legit material in the current market. I don't think the first group will ever change and for the later to change big labels need to introduce good pricing. IMO cheap prices is the best method of anti-piracy and GOG.com has proved this. Old games which you can probably download for free just by searching for them on google actually sell because they are offered in DRM free, legal versions for around $5US. Why should I go out to the jb hifi or whatever and pay $30 for a new release DVD when I can get it for free in maybe less than an hour without moving (apart from it being morally right and legal). It's about convenience and now it's easier for someone to download music illegally than it is to say legally purchase it via iTunes and then chances are you'll end up with DRM (I know itunes has removed it now) which is designed to stop people from pirating, but really has it ever worked? It just ends up annoying the end user. In no way do I think piracy is right or people should get away with it, it's just the way companies currently go about it is stupid. Anyway how can you sue LimeWire for more money than there is in existence? Companies overvalue what they have, but shouldn't piracy tell them it's not worth that much at all?

fred_fish
21-01-2012, 11:31 AM
Reading that gives the impression that if a company is making loads of money, then its perfectly fine to take what otherwise should be paid for.No that's not OK.

Saying its not a physical item - I can see where you are coming from - But the mentality of people pirating is wrong, people are trying to compare and justify old items with new technology --- Most people that pirate music, films what ever, wouldn't walk into a book shop, or music store and steal it from the shelf. Because copyright infringement is different to theft and people know that. Neither is right, but similarly, a lot of people (given the right circumstances) could justify punching someone but would draw the line short of taking to them with a bat.

Lets say you worked all week at doing some program for a company, then at the end of the week, the person in charge said - narrr its not good enough - redo it, or in fact lets bin it -- OH by the way - you're not getting paid for that week of work, the work wasn't used. Its not actually a physical thing. Its only coding and a bunch of 1's and 0's which can be wiped as if it never existed.

That would be OK - No pay ?
If you were contracted to supply code to a particular standard or purpose and it didn't, then yes. But that's not what you are getting at :)

Now take the other side of that -- your work is used -- the company makes billions of dollars from your work -- but since you only worked on it for a week, thats all you will get, no extra payouts, even though you have put a copyright on it, royalty clauses etc.Again, if you are employed and paid weekly, then any code you produce would be owned by, and copyright of, your employer.

Digby
21-01-2012, 11:31 AM
Years ago, way way back in time, before Star Wars, and before the 8088 was invented.

My friends used to by an LP Album every week on pay day. (the price of a CD today is probably cheaper relatively)
They were all single and working and could afford to do that.

But when you get older and have children and mortgages there is not so much spare cash.

pctek
21-01-2012, 01:06 PM
IMO they haven't actually lost anything because the people who pirate their stuff wouldn't have brought it anyway.

Why should I go out to the jb hifi or whatever and pay $30 for a new release DVD when I can get it for free in maybe less than an hour without moving
Most burglars wouldn't have bought it either, that's why they steal it instead.


Why should you pay when you can get it for free?

There you go, says it all really.

Tukapa
21-01-2012, 01:21 PM
I always thought being in the possession of stolen property was a crime

Nope - knowledge or recklessness together with possession makes it a crime (Receiving). Mere possession alone does not.

Roscoe
21-01-2012, 01:35 PM
It seems to me that libraries all over the world do something similar to megaupload and many others. They buy books and then lend them - usually no charge apart from the joining fee - to many people. Is that not similar to piracy?

I have often seen a book I would like to read and so have checked with the library to see if they have a copy. Most times they have. I borrow the book from the library and I do not pay the author and neither does the library. Sounds very much the same as online piracy to me. And as you know, libraries also lend CDs and DVDs, and they charge for those. So why aren't they taking libraries to court?

icow
21-01-2012, 01:47 PM
Most burglars wouldn't have bought it either, that's why they steal it instead.


Why should you pay when you can get it for free?

There you go, says it all really.

Thieves are always going to be thieves the people you can change however are the ones who cannot afford to buy the things they want.

wainuitech
21-01-2012, 01:59 PM
Thieves are always going to be thieves the people you can change however are the ones who cannot afford to buy the things they want. Some people use that as an excuse. Just because a person doesn't have the money to buy something, doesn't give them the right to obtain by means considered to be illegal.

goodiesguy
21-01-2012, 02:31 PM
Ha, nice if you to hit that up after my last post.

But yeah, I have to vehemently disagree with that. For trial purposes even 96kbps would suffice.
I don't see people, with our data caps in particular, wasting half a gigabyte of traffic to "try" music, which you would then delete, go to the shop and buy?

I don't give a damn piracy, download (and/or upload) all you like, I just don't like hearing (reading, rather) this kind of bullshit. Stop assuming everyone is a naive 8 year old girl.

Also, I have also NEVER heard of someone NOT buying a good album because of bad production quality.

a 96kbps mp3 is unlistenable, and there is no way i'd buy a good album if it sounded bad. And I don't have any data cap. i'm on ulimited with trustpower. We have absolutely no data cap whatsoever.

fred_fish
21-01-2012, 03:01 PM
Some people use that as an excuse. Just because a person doesn't have the money to buy something, doesn't give them the right to obtain by means considered to be illegal.
+1
Thieves and paupers were never their customers anyway. Their main problem is that instead of evolving with the new technology to meet their customers (those with money to spend on music) new expectations, they went to war against those very customers!
Napster showed that it was possible to deliver music over the net in a very convenient (and extremely cheap for the distributor) package.
It also showed that this is the way people are going to get their music from now on. They loved the fact that they could pick and choose the tunes they want at the click of a button (and three days later by dial-up it would be here :) ).
The record companies missed it. They have spent over a decade trying to stop their customers getting the product they want, and in the process have alienated most and destroyed their own business.
The lack of a decent alternative (and a dissatisfaction with the treatment) is what has driven the explosion of piracy, not simply the fact that it is free.

The NEW music industry is on the rise - artists selling direct to fans and via places like Addictech (http://www.addictech.com/p/76642 for example).
They DON'T treat their customers like the enemy, to be sued and arrested when they find ways around the DRM to play on a different device, or avoid the overpriced crap bundle for a single wanted track, but instead offer a product and service that they want and provide a means to pay them for it.

People have always shared music and the result is that it generally expands the market for a particular artist by exposing them to people that otherwise may not have bothered buying to listen in the first place, but will now buy the next one and tell someone else ...

pctek
21-01-2012, 03:05 PM
It seems to me that libraries all over the world do something similar to megaupload and many others. They buy books and then lend them - usually no charge apart from the joining fee - to many people. Is that not similar to piracy?


Libraries buy the book in the first place.

WalOne
21-01-2012, 03:38 PM
Years ago, way way back in time, before Star Wars, and before the 8088 was invented.


Yup, I remember those days - and being on board a yacht off the Socal coast, watching Starwars on Beta. Several months before it was released.

My lips are sealed :xmouth:

Tukapa
21-01-2012, 03:53 PM
The NEW music industry is on the rise - artists selling direct to fans and via places like Addictech (http://www.addictech.com/p/76642 for example).

Had me a bit excited with a new music link but I can't even find a genre on there worth listening to let alone a song!

Roscoe
21-01-2012, 04:03 PM
Libraries buy the book in the first place.

That's right, but they only buy one and so the author is only paid once, but it is lent for free many times. The author misses out. It is the same with CDs and DVDs that they lend. As I said, it is similar to piracy, but it's respectable.

CYaBro
21-01-2012, 04:12 PM
The thing with most theives / burglars is that they are stealing stuff to sell for money not because they can't afford that stuff.

Metla
21-01-2012, 04:14 PM
It seems to me that libraries all over the world do something similar to megaupload and many others. They buy books and then lend them - usually no charge apart from the joining fee - to many people. Is that not similar to piracy?

I have often seen a book I would like to read and so have checked with the library to see if they have a copy. Most times they have. I borrow the book from the library and I do not pay the author and neither does the library. Sounds very much the same as online piracy to me. And as you know, libraries also lend CDs and DVDs, and they charge for those. So why aren't they taking libraries to court?

Not at all similar, There is a difference between gettng to look at something that belongs to someone else, and getting a 1-to-1 copy of it to take home just based on a title, to keep for ever, and to make unlimited 1-to-1 copies.

For it to be similar the library would need a printing press, so would you, and everyone else who wanted a copy to carry on destribution. They would have to be able to create the copy in a couple of minutes and be suported by a world wide destribution network that also takes a couple of minutes at worst.


Now, the 2600 ebooks I saw to download the other day, thats piracy.

oh yes.


sweet sweet piratical ebooks.

fred_fish
21-01-2012, 05:08 PM
Had me a bit excited with a new music link but I can't even find a genre on there worth listening to let alone a song!
:lol:

Ah, well, each to his own.
The point is, they offer downloads of single tracks or whole albums in your format of choice.

No DRM, no crippled-quality (of format anyway - musical tastes may vary :) ) and try before you buy.

And the artists get the bulk of the payment directly.

Agent_24
21-01-2012, 05:40 PM
Don't forget they don't force you to install iTunes.

fred_fish
21-01-2012, 05:58 PM
Had me a bit excited with a new music link but I can't even find a genre on there worth listening to let alone a song!
I suppose my point is, if whatever you listen to could be got like that (maybe it can), would you use it?
And would knowing the cash went directly to the artist make it more appealing than either getting it free or buying a new corporate jet for EMI?

Agent_24
21-01-2012, 07:11 PM
The ultimate thing would be an online store that sold music like this:

1) High quality files, with no distinction between say FLAC and MP3 for prices. When you pay for a song you get the highest quality by default which you can recode to any other format you want if you need to for putting on a portable player etc.

2) You can re-download at any time, in any format, all music already paid for, in the event you lose anything due to hard drive failure etc. (Hopefully that would be feasible)

3) No DRM, and preferably open source formats where possible and convenient.

4) No software installation required, like iTunes.

5) Sells ALL music, including the stuff you actually want, not just random dance music - several places fit the bill of the first 4 points pretty well, but unfortunately not point 5 :(


This I would personally love for one-off songs and things. However I still like to purchase full phsyical CDs depending on the artist.

Cato
21-01-2012, 07:34 PM
a 96kbps mp3 is unlistenable,

This may be the case if you paid for it, but to try it, it is more than sufficient.


and there is no way i'd buy a good album if it sounded bad.

Bullshit. You have posted, time and again, music from 50s and 60s that by modern standards have atrocious quality. So, I take it you wouldn't buy that?

wainuitech
21-01-2012, 09:05 PM
The ultimate thing would be an online store that sold music like this:

1) High quality files, with no distinction between say FLAC and MP3 for prices. When you pay for a song you get the highest quality by default which you can recode to any other format you want if you need to for putting on a portable player etc.

2) You can re-download at any time, in any format, all music already paid for, in the event you lose anything due to hard drive failure etc. (Hopefully that would be feasible)

3) No DRM, and preferably open source formats where possible and convenient.

4) No software installation required, like iTunes.

5) Sells ALL music, including the stuff you actually want, not just random dance music - several places fit the bill of the first 4 points pretty well, but unfortunately not point 5 :(


This I would personally love for one-off songs and things. However I still like to purchase full phsyical CDs depending on the artist.Digirama (http://www.digirama.co.nz/) doesn't do to bad, #5 just depends on a persons taste of music. # 2 -- sure can in the same format as per original - you simply log in, and redownload.
#4 no additional software required.

Winston001
21-01-2012, 09:41 PM
The ultimate thing would be an online store that sold music like this:

1) High quality files, with no distinction between say FLAC and MP3 for prices. When you pay for a song you get the highest quality by default which you can recode to any other format you want if you need to for putting on a portable player etc.

2) You can re-download at any time, in any format, all music already paid for, in the event you lose anything due to hard drive failure etc. (Hopefully that would be feasible)

3) No DRM, and preferably open source formats where possible and convenient.

4) No software installation required, like iTunes.

5) Sells ALL music, including the stuff you actually want



Thats cool, sounds like the music store of the very near future.

So what happens when I copy tracks which I've paid for, and pass them on to friends for nothing? And maybe put them up on my webpage for others to copy for free purely to spread the enjoyment of particular artists. And I do the same for movies which I have paid for and give away copies. How does the artist put food on the table from that?

martynz
21-01-2012, 09:57 PM
That's right, but they only buy one and so the author is only paid once, but it is lent for free many times. The author misses out. It is the same with CDs and DVDs that they lend. As I said, it is similar to piracy, but it's respectable.

There is a scheme that pays authors for books in libraries.
http://www.authors.org.nz/wawcs0137981/idDetails=165/Public-Lending-Right-formerly-known-as-The-Authors-Fund.html

Twelvevolts
21-01-2012, 09:58 PM
How does the artist put food on the table from that? Charge you a hundred bucks to see them perform live like they do now

icow
21-01-2012, 10:05 PM
The ultimate thing would be an online store that sold music like this:

1) High quality files, with no distinction between say FLAC and MP3 for prices. When you pay for a song you get the highest quality by default which you can recode to any other format you want if you need to for putting on a portable player etc.

2) You can re-download at any time, in any format, all music already paid for, in the event you lose anything due to hard drive failure etc. (Hopefully that would be feasible)

3) No DRM, and preferably open source formats where possible and convenient.

4) No software installation required, like iTunes.

5) Sells ALL music, including the stuff you actually want, not just random dance music - several places fit the bill of the first 4 points pretty well, but unfortunately not point 5 :(


This I would personally love for one-off songs and things. However I still like to purchase full phsyical CDs depending on the artist.

Sounds a bit like bandit.fm, however I don't know what the quality is like compared to FLAC or whatever and in regards too #5 it depends on personal taste, I feel bandit however is lacking.


Thats cool, sounds like the music store of the very near future.

So what happens when I copy tracks which I've paid for, and pass them on to friends for nothing? And maybe put them up on my webpage for others to copy for free purely to spread the enjoyment of particular artists. And I do the same for movies which I have paid for and give away copies. How does the artist put food on the table from that?

Well its a trust thing isn't it. That's generally how things with no DRM work and even normal DRM. Because is there really any form of copy protection that hasn't been cracked? All it does is get in the way of the end user who actually paid for it and slows the pirates down by a few days. What you have described there is your average joe pirating things. It's no different to how it is now.

goodiesguy
22-01-2012, 03:53 AM
This may be the case if you paid for it, but to try it, it is more than sufficient.



Bullshit. You have posted, time and again, music from 50s and 60s that by modern standards have atrocious quality. So, I take it you wouldn't buy that?

You obviously have no education on music. Many music from the 50's and 60's, when mastered properly, can far surpass the sound quality of today's music. It's all finding the right mastering. And no, a 96kbps mp3 is unlistenable, too much digital compression artifacts to even enjoy what i'm hearing.

Finding old music with great sound is easy, as i'm on this forum: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2

Digby
22-01-2012, 05:25 AM
The ultimate thing would be an online store that sold music like this:

1) High quality files, with no distinction between say FLAC and MP3 for prices. When you pay for a song you get the highest quality by default which you can recode to any other format you want if you need to for putting on a portable player etc.

2) You can re-download at any time, in any format, all music already paid for, in the event you lose anything due to hard drive failure etc. (Hopefully that would be feasible)

3) No DRM, and preferably open source formats where possible and convenient.

4) No software installation required, like iTunes.

5) Sells ALL music, including the stuff you actually want, not just random dance music - several places fit the bill of the first 4 points pretty well, but unfortunately not point 5 :(


This I would personally love for one-off songs and things. However I still like to purchase full physical CDs depending on the artist.

Yes that store sounds great.

But as Winston001 said how would they stop people sharing the songs they have bought ?
There is NO way to stop that, which is why the record industry has always been against selling music online.
They are not as stupid as people make them out to be.

Metla
22-01-2012, 05:53 AM
Yes that store sounds great.

But as Winston001 said how would they stop people sharing the songs they have bought ?
There is NO way to stop that, which is why the record industry has always been against selling music online.
They are not as stupid as people make them out to be.

The exact same way they stopped people sharing cd's, they can't, and measures to try are futhering ruining their product and customer base.

Which is exactly why they are as stupid as people make them out to be.

pctek
22-01-2012, 06:34 AM
2) You can re-download at any time, in any format, all music already paid for, in the event you lose anything due to hard drive failure etc. (Hopefully that would be feasible)

And why should they allow that? You didn't get to go back to a shop when your tape got eaten by the tape payer and get another for free. It's your problem if you didn't back up.


3) No DRM, and preferably open source formats where possible and convenient.

And that won't happen because they can't trust people not to share it.

plod
22-01-2012, 07:25 AM
2) You can re-download at any time, in any format, all music already paid for, in the event you lose anything due to hard drive failure etc. (Hopefully that would be feasible)

And why should they allow that? You didn't get to go back to a shop when your tape got eaten by the tape payer and get another for free. It's your problem if you didn't back up.


3) No DRM, and preferably open source formats where possible and convenient.

And that won't happen because they can't trust people not to share it.
iTunes is both 2 and 3

R2x1
22-01-2012, 07:59 AM
2) You can re-download at any time, in any format, all music already paid for, in the event you lose anything due to hard drive failure etc. (Hopefully that would be feasible)

And why should they allow that? You didn't get to go back to a shop when your tape got eaten by the tape payer and get another for free. It's your problem if you didn't back up.


3) No DRM, and preferably open source formats where possible and convenient.

And that won't happen because they can't trust people not to share it.

Hopefully, we are not taking the tape or disk system as an ideal to aim at? (Tapes, vinyl and even sheet music wear measurably each time they are played, should we preserve that feature too?)


It is in the nature of things that corporates want to boost their greed factor and monumental overheads. Consumers want better, faster and more economic delivery. Performers and composers (mostly) want to perform and get paid, although some expect to get obscenely overpaid.

Nothing much has changed in people's motivation since recording first started whether on perforated paper rolls or wax cylinders (arguably, printed music was the initiator in a more genteel fashion). The formula is take some talent no matter how small, throw some marketing (okay, a lot) and a bit of production at it, aiming the whole process at potential buyers who wish to get lots for little.

Each party averages out to be most strongly characterised by greed, which they only see in others. Alas, the distributors are the largest party as well as the most expensive bit, so they also have the strongest greed. New systems of doing the distribution and the promotion threaten to take away some part of their chances to profit from the arrangement, as a result they fight like cornered rats. This brings in another layer of greed to siphon off money while adding nothing to the product - the huge legal teams of parasites all paid for by the consumer. To protect their position, the legal teams side with the industry associations to pop up targets that must be destroyed. The targets are huge "losses" that only they can prevent. If these nebulous "losses" are eliminated, it will not result in all that money going to the performers or the distributors, it will almost entirely go to the legal systems that have made themselves out to be an essential part of the chain. The performers will do what they did, as will the distributors, the consumers will vote with their wallets so reducing sales volume a bit. The overheads remain the same, so costs rise again, forcing a price rise - - - .

What? It has already happened? Surely we can't all be that stupid?

Tukapa
22-01-2012, 08:21 AM
Personally it's not an issue for me because I still buy CD's. I like CD's. I like the physical item, the cover art, the liner notes, having a CD player hooked up to a proper stereo system and being able to listen to uncompressed audio.

And I still think that 400 or so CD's on a CD rack looks cool.

I wait until I hit Auckland for a concert every 6 months or so and blow out my spending budget at JB HiFi with a $400-$1000 spend up on all things music, movie and gaming.

I rip the CD's to FLAC for my PC and there you go - sorted. I convert songs that I want to put on my phone for running to MP3. Maybe that's seen as questionable but I bought the CD, I've still got the physical item sitting in my CD rack.

kahawai chaser
22-01-2012, 10:37 AM
My mate want's a rare Renee Geyer Song. My step father want's a few John Rowles Songs (the lessor known ones from his 1969 album) for their pc's. Also Eliza Keil from NZ 60's. I want some early legitimate Larry Morris, Erana Clark, Angela Ayers, (http://www.sergent.com.au/music/angelaayers.html) (remember her?) and John Hanlon digital songs. I have scoured legitimate sites, including their sites and related sites, eMusic, Amazon, etc. Nothing. Never will be. I emailed a few companies for Geyers/Rowles asking for info. Still waiting after 3 weeks...

Scenario's like this - where song's are unlikely to be commercially reproduced digitally, even from popular artists, - i.e.music studios/recording industry won't produce certain songs. This might drive some either to convert (LP to mp3) to share online, or seek such music from share sites. Call it piracy or similar. I call it lost nostalgia music. Never to be regained easily for some.

icow
22-01-2012, 10:58 AM
Yeah sadly sites containing pirated material can have larger and better libraries of content than legit providers.

Metla
22-01-2012, 12:33 PM
2) You can re-download at any time, in any format, all music already paid for, in the event you lose anything due to hard drive failure etc. (Hopefully that would be feasible)

And why should they allow that? You didn't get to go back to a shop when your tape got eaten by the tape payer and get another for free. It's your problem if you didn't back up.




Because thats what the customers want, Its up to the industry to provide a product that people are willing to pay for.basic pricipal of bussiness.

Instead they bankroll politicians in order build a legal avenue to attack there customer base, who they seek to bankrupt,imprison and control.

Madness, and abhorrent.

plod
22-01-2012, 12:45 PM
Yeah sadly sites containing pirated material can have larger and better libraries of content than legit providers.
That can be the fault of the artists. The travelling wilburys vol1 was out of production for years, Roy orbisons wife had the rights for it. Second hand copies were going for over $ 100 a cd. It finally has been rereleased both in cd format and digital format.

Metla
22-01-2012, 01:01 PM
Righto, My personal position.

Itís there product, they own the rights to it, I have never seen any argument that justifies peoples position of making copies.The lost revenue is a Turkey, Irrelevant of the figures it has no bearing on the matter, its their property, they haven't given permission, the argument pretty much ends there. People take it because itís free and easy.

However I can understand and fully support the anger against the recording industry, for me itís not because they are seeking to protect their revenue stream but because of the way they are doing it, The hole they are digging can only get bigger and I hope to see it consume them. The US government should be moving against these actions rather than getting into bed with them for the sake of a few dollars and personal power.

For me it means only buying second hand CD's unless itís a NZ artist in which case I may buy a new item, Sure I have plenty of mp3's as does just about everyone. I fully understand that these are copies of a protected work and I would quite happily go to a pay model if they offered a suitable product.

What I would expect before these sinful bastards get another cent from me

-Stop attacking your customer base, hopefully the backlash will crush you.

-Quality-Compressed audio has no value, its available free already. The spin off from this is sound engineers compressing the audio on the source so they won't sound so inferior when someone uploads them to youtube. What sort of queer mentality is this? Itís like making poo flavored food because thatís what it ends up like anyway.

-Value for money-CD's have always been a rort, perhaps people wouldn't have abandoned them if they weren't $30 each, Now you still want to charge a premium for a product that cost you next to nothing. You loan the bands the money to make the album then you take 100% of the proceeds to pay back the "loan" until you get to your profit margin, then you continue to take the vast majority of every sale.

Then we get a product of poor audio quality with no packaging or logistical costs...and at what cost? All digital albums should be below $5, Hell, I'd buy 5 a week without a seconds thought. Why is it I can buy a blu-ray movie in town for less than the cost of a digital album?

-I should be able to access my purchased items at any time, from anywhere, from any device registered in my name, for life. It costs you nothing and itís a feature I would happily pay for. It works for e-books, the fact that I can view any purchased item on my phone, my wives phone, my tablet, my pc and my laptop means I have spent more money on books in the last 40 days then I have in a decade, It also means I have read a heap of books in the last few weeks. Thank you e-books/amazon for awakening my long ignored love of reading books.

-DRM, ***, what are they thinking. An example, I have been buying blu-ray movies recently with the intention of building up a solid collection, the last 2 I purchased wouldn't play thanks to DRM. I am no longer buying an Blu-Ray movies. Well done, I suffer, you suffer, and no doubt the resulting action is you will take some knob to court for having a poor quality copy of it on their harddrive.

Digby
22-01-2012, 01:04 PM
And I still think that 400 or so CD's on a CD rack looks cool.

I rip the CD's to FLAC for my PC and there you go - sorted. I convert songs that I want to put on my phone for running to MP3. Maybe that's seen as questionable but I bought the CD, I've still got the physical item sitting in my CD rack.

You can get 400 CD's on one rack ?

But seriously that is a good idea to rip your CD's to FLAC.
Because as we all know CD's can and do crap out.
And I think that if you have bought a CD that gives your the right to play the music on what and where you like as long as its for you.

Tukapa
22-01-2012, 02:19 PM
You can get 400 CD's on one rack ?

No unfortunately. Currently they are in 3 racks plus a pile sitting on the entertainment cabinet. I have an upcoming project to build a storage system to hold all the CD's plus DVD, Blu-ray, and Xbox 360 & PS3 games.

When I finally get round to that (and SWMBO knows it will take some time if history is anything to go by :)) then it will look cool :)

Right now I've just put down a beer brew and the next week will be spent looking after that! All about priorities.

Agent_24
22-01-2012, 04:13 PM
Yes that store sounds great.

But as Winston001 said how would they stop people sharing the songs they have bought ?
There is NO way to stop that, which is why the record industry has always been against selling music online.
They are not as stupid as people make them out to be.

There are no issues with sharing online purchased music that didn't already exist with previous formats!

Tapes are copyable, CDs are copyable, MP3s are copyable, the only thing NOT copyable is DRM'd stuff... except that is crackable and copyable too.

So what would be the difference? Nothing, as far as I can see.


2) You can re-download at any time, in any format, all music already paid for, in the event you lose anything due to hard drive failure etc. (Hopefully that would be feasible)

And why should they allow that? You didn't get to go back to a shop when your tape got eaten by the tape payer and get another for free. It's your problem if you didn't back up.

Yeah I agree, if you don't backup that's your fault, BUT since online downloads vs a tape don't require anyone to send you a physical item and pay for its manufacture, the costs associated with re-distributing the file are probably negligible to nonexistent. Of course if they weren't, then that doesn't have to be an option. But I think it would just be a good way to get customers ;)


3) No DRM, and preferably open source formats where possible and convenient.

And that won't happen because they can't trust people not to share it.

Refer to the above reply in response to Digby's post.


Yeah sadly sites containing pirated material can have larger and better libraries of content than legit providers.

True, that - indeed some pirated material is stuff people want but for some reason the media corporation doesn't want to sell to them.

And then they complain that someone pirated it... Well, guess what, you weren't going to make any money off it by not releasing it, were you?

Digby
22-01-2012, 04:54 PM
Well, guess what, you weren't going to make any money off it by not releasing it, were you?

Very perceptive of you !

rob_on_guitar
22-01-2012, 10:52 PM
"I think it's a good idea because it's people trading music. It has nothing to do with industry or finance, it's just people that want music and there's nothing wrong with that. It's the same as someone turning on the f****** radio, it's the same as someone putting a cassette in a cassette deck when the BBC plays a special radio session. I don't think it's a crime, it's been going on for years. It's the same as people making tapes for each other. The industry is more threatened by it because it's the worldwide web and it's a broader scope of trading, but I don't think it's such a f******* horrible thing. The first thing we should do is get all the f****** millionaires to shut their mouths, stop bitching about the 25 cents a time they're losing."
-- Dave Grohl (Foo Fighters)

Digby
23-01-2012, 06:50 AM
Any without piracy we not not have all the 60 years old rockers doing live concerts! so they can make some money.

Soon The Rolling Stones will be wheeled on stage.
Just reading Keith Richard's book "Live" **** its good. I'm amazed how much details he can recall !

Metla
23-01-2012, 07:45 AM
-- Dave Grohl (Foo Fighters)

Pity that man and his band are the most boring middle class dweebs to ever achive world wide domination, Its hard to judge who sucks worse, them or Nickleback, they are both indications of a stagnet and crippled music industry.

They shame all the bad ****s with guitars who blazed the trails they now follow without a step off a naorrow (but perfectly smooth and straight) path, Not to oblivion and glory through the ages but to good health, good teeth and a big house.

Renegade
23-01-2012, 10:24 AM
Filesonic obviously believe most files hosted on their servers are dodgy too!

rob_on_guitar
23-01-2012, 12:07 PM
Pity that man and his band are the most boring middle class dweebs to ever achive world wide domination, Its hard to judge who sucks worse, them or Nickleback, they are both indications of a stagnet and crippled music industry.

They shame all the bad ****s with guitars who blazed the trails they now follow without a step off a naorrow (but perfectly smooth and straight) path, Not to oblivion and glory through the ages but to good health, good teeth and a big house.

I have similar thoughts, and I think these quotes came from the whole napster thing a couple of years ago, there are a whole load of popular musicians pretty much saying the same thing... not sure if its a trendy thing to jump on the bandwagon etc

Personally I think this whole thing is a shambles, I like that quote going around on facebook "5 years jail for illegally uploading a Micheal Jackson track, less than 5 years jail for killing him.".

If hollywood was smart, they could have just set up their own servers.

Renegade
23-01-2012, 12:51 PM
^ I go with the trendy theory. A few years ago Flea from the Chili Peppers had a rant that their new album leaked online before it was on the shelves. People bombarded their message board and were not happy with his rant so he put up an apology! I think a lot of bands kind of fear being attacked or hacked. Gene $immons was pissed off at downloaders and ranted they should be thrown in jail and have their houses/cars etc, taken. The result was "Anonymous" DDoS'd his site. So bands either shut up or say how cool it is to give their stuff away free.

Digby
23-01-2012, 12:55 PM
Soon a 1 meg a month data cap will be enough!

Snorkbox
23-01-2012, 01:12 PM
Soon a 1 meg a month data cap will be enough!

So where did you get that idea from???

Gobe1
23-01-2012, 01:22 PM
that could be a new t-shirt "5 years jail for illegally uploading a Micheal Jackson track, less than 5 years jail for killing him"

forrest44
23-01-2012, 02:57 PM
question about youtube music vids, why do they advertise "buy on itunes" etc, when one could simply extract the soundtrack from the video?

Metla
23-01-2012, 03:45 PM
question about youtube music vids, why do they advertise "buy on itunes" etc, when one could simply extract the soundtrack from the video?

Because people with jobs like to buy things that don't suck.

Like steak. Big screen televisions, beer,wine, and music.

xyz823
23-01-2012, 04:44 PM
Filesonic obviously believe most files hosted on their servers are dodgy too!

Looks like Filesonic, Fileserve, Wuploaded, Filejungle, Uploaded.to and possibly Hotfile have **** themselves and started blocking access to US based IPs, nuking US based accounts and ended any rewards program similar to MegaUploads. Maybe a return from RapidShare is likely?



MegaUpload
Closed.

FileSonic
ALL Sharing disabled. Closed affiliate program. Deleting files and accounts.

FileServe
Deleting multiple files. Closed affiliate program.

FileJungle
(Owned by FileServe) Deleting multiple files. Testing out blocking some USA IP addresses.

UploadStation
(Owned by FileServe) Deleting multiple files. Testing out blocking some USA IP addresses.

VideoBB
Closed affiliate program.

~disallowed~
Banned USA IP addresses.

FilePost
Started suspending accounts with infringing material (doing what Hotfile did)

VideoZer
Closed affiliate program.

4shared
Deleting multiple files.

Metla
23-01-2012, 04:49 PM
BRING BACK KAZAA

Agent_24
23-01-2012, 05:03 PM
BRING BACK KAZAA

Would you like spyware with that?

Digby
23-01-2012, 06:06 PM
Bring back Napster !
(I never used it!)

Metla
23-01-2012, 07:42 PM
Would you like spyware with that?

All part of the charm.

Agent_24
23-01-2012, 09:50 PM
Thinking about Kazaa reminded me of this:

<NES> lol
<NES> I download something from Napster
<NES> And the same guy I downloaded it from starts downloading it from me when I'm done
<NES> I message him and say "What are you doing? I just got that from you"
<NES> "getting my song back ****er"

mikebartnz
23-01-2012, 11:45 PM
That New Zealand Police are involved in a "crime" that is alleged from the United States is a disgrace.

So we are going to have the United States movie or music industry determine who can be arrested and hauled over to the States to stand trial.
Not only that but it shows they did it without the shelved SOPA bill so what would they be able to do if they ever get it.

mikebartnz
24-01-2012, 12:12 AM
That is the biggest load of gibberish that I have ever read. What you describe so ineloquently, is the definition of piracy in itself. It is highly unlikely that any pirate would ever go back later and pay, that's a fantasy lifted straight from cloud-cuckoo land.
Sorry Billy but you are completely wrong there and you are being completely one eyed about this issue. I know of a guy with an extremely large collection of music (I don't know how he can even listen to it all) and when he finds something that he likes he always goes out and buys the CD because of the better quality and he doesn't think CD's are the best quality.
If the stupid music industry stopped putting out so much crap and made a jump into the 21 century and priced it appropiately with the right quality they would find they had a good business model.

mikebartnz
24-01-2012, 12:18 AM
They didn't keep monitor every signle file that was uploaded to their servers.

And what about probably every single online backup provider?? I'm sure there are lots of people that are backing up their illegally downloaded music/videos onto the online backup providers servers. Should they get taken down as well?
and what about the ISP's that let this pass through their system.

Cato
24-01-2012, 09:34 AM
Looks like Filesonic, Fileserve, Wuploaded, Filejungle, Uploaded.to and possibly Hotfile have **** themselves and started blocking access to US based IPs, nuking US based accounts and ended any rewards program similar to MegaUploads. Maybe a return from RapidShare is likely?

Yep.
Many people in the warez community will be very happy to see the likes of the above gone from the scene. MU wasn't a problem because of it atrocious upload speeds.

Renegade
24-01-2012, 10:45 AM
Black March.... yeah, people will get on board :p


http://www.techpowerup.com/img/12-01-20/black%20march.jpg


"Do not buy a single record. Do not download a single song, legally or illegally. Do not go to see a single film in cinemas, or download a copy. Do not buy a DVD in the stores. Do not buy a videogame. Do not buy a single book or magazine." The idea is to "leave a gaping hole in media entertainment companies' profits for the 1st quarter, an economic hit which will in turn be observed by governments worldwide as stocks and shares will blip from a large enough loss of incomes."

And finally, the statement of intent: "We will not tolerate the Media Industries' lobbying for legislation which will censor the internet."

Cato
24-01-2012, 10:47 AM
Fail, epic fail.

SurferJoe46
24-01-2012, 01:47 PM
BULLETIN :::: BULLETIN ::: BULLETIN


At least one site similar to Megaupload, the file-sharing site that was shut down by U.S. authorities last week, is reportedly disabling its file-sharing capabilities. Filesonic is now limiting its online-storage service to its usersí own files, according to a note on its site.

Megaupload, a high-profile ďcyberlockerĒ that had been endorsed by musicians, was shut down Thursday by the FBI and Justice Department. The U.S. accuses the website of enabling online piracy. The takedown came after last weekís online protests against controversial copyright legislation that has since been shelved.

The government action angered Anonymous, the hacktivist group, which then disrupted government and entertainment websites, including that of Universal Music Group.

UMG is in a legal battle with Megaupload, and at last check, its site remains inaccessible. (See In the World Wild Web, Anonymous, Megaupload, SOPA all play a part .)
(http://click1.newsletters.siliconvalley.com/tmpwhvpgmmwkcrzjkbfczkdgsdkwtfsctbvfrtvlwbcvjzm_ug hgcwngqfqf.html)
A judge is scheduled to rule Wednesday on whether Megaupload founder Kit Dotcom will be eligible for bail, according to Reuters

.

legod
24-01-2012, 02:28 PM
Bring back AudioGalaxy. That rocked.

Renegade
24-01-2012, 03:06 PM
Oh dear, Dotcom's high-powered lawyer bails. Anyone calling themselves something as goofy as "Dotcom" should be arrested on sight anyway!

http://torrentfreak.com/megauploads-top-lawyer-outside-pressure-120123/

Cato
24-01-2012, 03:11 PM
BULLETIN :::: BULLETIN ::: BULLETIN

21 hours too late. Post #121.

legod
24-01-2012, 06:48 PM
Interesting development: Anonyupload!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/6306240/Anonyupload-to-replace-MegaUpload

icow
24-01-2012, 07:17 PM
That article is a joke. The title: "Anonyupload to replace MegaUpload" and on the web page "keep in mind that it does not target to become a replacement to megaupload.com. " FAIL.

pcuser42
24-01-2012, 07:27 PM
Thank you DotCom for the past years of services.
We hope you'll be released as soon as possible.
Try to not make that amount of money next time, and it should be alright.

:lol:

nerd89
24-01-2012, 07:55 PM
A fair trial in the USA. Plead guilty and take four years or we will find you guilty and give you twenty. This is what could await Mr DotCom and NZ is complicit.

Snorkbox
24-01-2012, 09:56 PM
Another Megaupload story:-

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/megaupload-anonymous-sopa-and-the-internet-fallout/7313?tag=nl.e036

fred_fish
24-01-2012, 10:15 PM
Wow!
Everybody knows it, but saying it out loud is still a rather surprising lapse.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/23/mpaa_bribery_petition_white_house/

Digby
25-01-2012, 06:03 AM
Oh dear, Dotcom's high-powered lawyer bails. Anyone calling themselves something as goofy as "Dotcom" should be arrested on sight anyway!

http://torrentfreak.com/megauploads-top-lawyer-outside-pressure-120123/

And how did he get away with those car registration plates. MAFIA and GOD.

When personalised plates first came in they set some standards, obviously those standards have gone.

rob_on_guitar
25-01-2012, 07:51 AM
Whats wrong with the plates?

Digby
25-01-2012, 07:57 AM
He is not God (Eric Clapton was)
And the Mafia is an illegal criminal organisation.

icow
25-01-2012, 11:36 AM
http://www.scsport.gov.cn/

Metla
25-01-2012, 12:11 PM
He is not God

So there should be rules about fictional charecters?



What is this.....Nazi Germany?

Muhahahahaha

wainuitech
25-01-2012, 12:43 PM
http://www.scsport.gov.cn/

OPPS!!!! Another one bitten by Anonymous :devil

pcuser42
25-01-2012, 12:46 PM
http://www.scsport.gov.cn/


You will never go anywhere by stealing this source.

Simple, press Ctrl+U :lol:

Agent_24
25-01-2012, 02:23 PM
What is that site supposed to be?

Renegade
25-01-2012, 03:30 PM
They sure do like to brag about their exploits (always a smart move) http://www.facebook.com/AnonSec
Be pretty funny if they end up in a cell next to Kim Dotcom - they sure as hell wouldn't fit in the same cell :lol:

Catweazle
26-01-2012, 06:19 PM
I'm really starting to wonder.. Of all the file sites on the web, why did they go after Megaupload. It might have been the millons upon millions the guy made but it surely couldn't be because of this could it? <From stuff.co.nz>

"Online file-storage service Megaupload.com was working on a legitimate music download service as recently as December that impressed the chief executive of New Zealand internet society InternetNZ.

United States technology website Techcrunch said the service, Megabox, was designed to let artists sell music direct to consumers online, cutting out record labels, and could even have seen them paid small amounts when they allowed their music to be downloaded for free.

Techcrunch said Megabox was tested with listed partners of 7digital, Gracenote, Rovi, and Amazon the world's largest online retailer. Amazon would not comment on the nature of any relationship.

InternetNZ chief executive Vikram Kumar said he was impressed by the business model for Megabox, which seemed completely legitimate.

Megaupload.com chief executive Kim Dotcom and three associates face extradition to the United States on copyright, racketeering and money laundering charges after their arrest last week.

Kumar said the case against them would boil down to the level of knowledge they had about illegal file-sharing taking place through Megaupload.com and the actions they took to prevent it. Emails cited in the US indictment appeared ''quite incriminating'' but the case would not be easy, he said.

In denying bail for Dotcom, judge David McNaughton said he had been operating "in plain sight for some years'' and appeared to have an ''arguable defence'' against copyright charges levelled against him.

"No doubt very considerable resources will be brought to bear both for the prosecution and the defence should the matter proceed to trial,'' he said. Kumar speculated the legal action might be settled before then."


I suspect there is a lot of ubermedia and american justice sytem string pulling happening here.

Agent_24
26-01-2012, 10:58 PM
United States technology website Techcrunch said the service, Megabox, was designed to let artists sell music direct to consumers online, cutting out record labels, and could even have seen them paid small amounts when they allowed their music to be downloaded for free.

Definitely sounds like something the MAFIAA would not like.

Would not surprise me if they targeted Megaupload for these kinds of reasons. There are many other sites like Megaupload they could have gone after.

Don't forget that Megaupload also filed a lawsuit against Universal Music: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/megaupload-v-universal/

Cato
26-01-2012, 11:27 PM
I'm really starting to wonder.. Of all the file sites on the web, why did they go after Megaupload. It might have been the millons upon millions the guy made but it surely couldn't be because of this could it?

MU, FSc, FS, HF, wU pay uploaders for the amount of downloads their files get. This is financing piracy.
Rapidshare and other do not do this, and hence aren't targeted.

Gobe1
27-01-2012, 08:49 AM
MU, FSc, FS, HF, wU pay uploaders for the amount of downloads their files get. This is financing piracy.
Rapidshare and other do not do this, and hence aren't targeted.

And yet all say in their fine print you are not allowed to put copyrighted content on to their space. Damn im gonna friggen create a megauplaod site too, do a few years, who cares?

Cato
27-01-2012, 09:39 AM
And yet all say in their fine print you are not allowed to put copyrighted content on to their space. Damn im gonna friggen create a megauplaod site too, do a few years, who cares?

That's not quite it.

You can start a filesharing service if you want. Obviously you will put up a disclaimer.

The question is, how do you attract customers to your service?

The easy option is offer a few bucks for 1000 hits to the uploaders. That attracts you downloaders because you have a lot of content, who in turn fill your coffers with pirate gold via premium subscriptions.
You removed copyright infringements as soon as you are notified to appease, to an extent, the media overlord.

All the issues started when FSc (wUpload), HF and FS came into the arena. They flooded the internet with masses of duplicate links from sites like MU.
For the copyright holders it was became much harder to make complaints when you have theses new services copying file at a massive rate (FTP awesomeness, copy from other services, etc)... The pirates of newer flicks were making hundreds of dollars a day. So they went against the big fish to make a point, because presumably they had additional ammunition against MU.

Mr Dotcom should have gotten out of the game when he was rich enough to do so.
He didn't and now he will suffer. Hubris is a *****.