Why SOPA was wrong, but Megaupload's takedown is right.

Recommended Videos

GonvilleBromhead

New member
Dec 19, 2010
284
0
0
Megaupload has been shutdown as their is reasonable suspicion that it is encouraging the illegal distribution of copyrighted material. Whether or not those arrested are found guilty of such will, of course, be decided by a jury of their peers and a later date.

Prior to the trial, the site has been shutdown - this is perfectly in line with the legal situation in every country with a common law system (not just the USA), and I'd wager is the case in civil law countries - for one thing, a legal system cannot allow the continuation of potentially illegal activity following arrest. Secondly, one cannot be allowed to profit from a crime. To use an example, once someone has been arrested for illegally manufacturing narcotics, the drug factory would not be allowed to continue producing cocaine - even if the defendant claims that that white stuff is talcum powder.

I hasten to add that the lack of judicial overview and the lack of recourse or appeal are reasons why I was against SOPA/PIPA - but I'm not going to have a go at something that is merely treating piracy as no different from any other crime - as is the case here.

Now, that said, I do not think that such takedowns are a practical way of actually combating piracy - too expensive, the returns are too few, and frankly it'll never really solve the problem, and I feel that the industry's affected could make quite a number of changes to their business models and distribution that would both seriously undermine the pirates and be profitable for the producers. However, Megaupload managed to make the great mistake of getting itself an awful lot of publicity recently - once that happens, demands grow for action to be taken, and government agencies end up looking rather ineffective if action is not taken (a bit iffy, but understandable.) I appreciate that a lot of legitimate users have been screwed over due to the recent take-down (again, I re-iterate, I do not think such tactics are really a long term effective remedy), but the blame lays squarely at Megaupload for not being seen to do enough about the alleged illegal side of it's operations, being stupid enough to bloody advertise (which is frankly, retarded, when there is little argument that there was an illegal part of their operations), and getting itself in the news.


EDIT: as an addendum to the above, the takedown of Megaupload may actually HINDER the passing of future anti-piracy bills in the future. If the current law is seen to be working, then the impetus to introduce new ones will be severely reduced
 

Diablo2000

Tiger Robocop
Aug 29, 2010
1,159
0
0
Now... Neither Megaupload or it's owners are guilty of anything. They have some control about what's upload to there, even some sites stop using it because it was deleting their files over the piracy suspicion, but is impossible to watch over all. They are not directly responsible about their users are uploading and sharing.

Neither is Rapidshare, Filesonic, Uploaded and so on...
 

Revnak_v1legacy

Fixed by "Monday"
Mar 28, 2010
1,978
0
0
Blablahb said:
Skin said:
Considering people use iTunes when they can get the very same music for free baffles me
If you make ? 27.000 a year (median income two years ago in my country), paying ? 50-60 for a game or ? 15-20 for 7-10 songs becomes a bit more worth it compared to the small extra trouble of downloading. Especially with some never protection I can imagine why people who understand little of computers go all store-purchased.

Basically the higher your income, the less you can save relatively speaking by finding alternatives to store-purchased music and software.
Revnak said:
Seeing as megaupload is how my friend and I have been uploading videos we've been making, the whole event has put me in a foul mood. I do see that they have apparently done some messed up shit, but I'm still kinda pissed. Oh well.
Claim damages with the FBI I'd say. You paid to upload those videos, and they took them down without you being guilty of anything.
Thanks, but I believe we were using a free account. I may have gotten the name mixed up too. I should ask my friend about it.
 

Bradeck

New member
Sep 5, 2011
243
0
0
Diablo2000 said:
Now... Neither Megaupload or it's owners are guilty of anything. They have some control about what's upload to there, even some sites stop using it because it was deleting their files over the piracy suspicion, but is impossible to watch over all. They are not directly responsible about their users are uploading and sharing.

Neither is Rapidshare, Filesonic, Uploaded and so on...
According the the law, the group, or entity, is guilty if individuals in that group are guilty. It's how America cracks the mafia families. By arresting one member of their family on racketeering, the entire group is guilty. It's called complicit or conspiracy theory.

It's also how NY Penal Code busts people in drug deals. It's illegal to sell, use, possess, or make narcotics in the state of New York, it is not illegal to buy. The cops WILL nail you for possession, and conspiracy to the sale of a narcotic.

So, tl;dr, if they can prove one case of illegal file transfer, the entire site, it's owners, operators, and board are all subject to the same law.
 

TheDooD

New member
Dec 23, 2010
812
0
0
Smeggs said:
Skin said:
And these corporations can suck my motherfucking dick. They make enough money from the sheeps who only ever buy things the legal way, and yet they want to shut down what I would assume is a minority? Considering people use iTunes when they can get the very same music for free baffles me, and it baffles me further that this is not enough for these corporations.
Are you trolling right now? Because honestly you must be as you just tried to make it seem like those of us who buy things legitimately instead of stealing everything we can under the sun off of the internet is a bad thing. Sheep? Since when did the term sheep apply to those of us who obtain a medium of entertainment honestly? I suppose paying for things is just too mainstream for you, eh?

Sure, I've downloaded free music, but the fact of the matter is if everybody thought the way you do none of the artists would have any desire to make any more music in the first place as they wouldn't see the profits.

Money runs the world. No money, no way to fund new projects, no new content.
That's the thing money needs to change because they way it is now is broken. The rich have it all and just want more at the cost of the people that get the money from. Why would you want all the money in the world if you cant spend it. If they aren't gonna use it for anything good why should people give, work and or for them.
 

Flying Dagger

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,344
0
0
I only ever encountered two sides of megavideo - one of which was streaming video and the other was downloading patches or demos...

On the streaming video side they promised unlimited use if you bought premium membership and apparently if you bought it - the limit would still be in place. They were actively making money off people watching pirated tv shows on megavideo, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they were doing the same with games on megaupload...
 

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,549
0
0
Combustion Kevin said:
I still don't see how Megaupload can be charged for money-laundering, racketeering or conspiracy.
their revenue came from ads and people who bought premium, both of which are perfectly legal so there isn't any money to launder.
sure, they got more traffic by cutting copyrighted material some slack, but they took no illegal action themselves.

they are also a registrated and legitimate business, so racketeering goes out the window as well, this isn't the bloody maffia, they just found a loophole in the system and abused the fuck out of it, nothing technically illegal so what is this charge based on.

also, the conspiracy charge, to me, sounds a lot like:"but you were thinking it.".
It was no loophole in the system. You don't need to be the Mafia to engage in those type of criminal charges. Really this is the closest thing to imitating the Mafia in the digital world.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-IndictmentIn the indictment they presented clear evidence to show that even though they were well aware of illegal copyrighted material on their servers, they willfully chose to ignore it in order to keep the popularity and hits coming on the site.

If you start reading it at around page 28 it says there were e-mails going back and forth from the ones arrested speaking of payment for those who were uploading illegal, yet popular files like full copyrighted music albums or film rips.

The money-laundering, racketeering, and conspiracy to commit all these copyright infringements and profit off them are all very real. All those business practices that would normally be legitimate transform into those charges when they start using illegal content.

Evidence showing that they coordinated, and willingly took part in the illegal activity themselves.
 

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,549
0
0
TestECull said:
I think the Megaupload shutdown is bullshit. Megaupload operated the same way a brick and mortar storage unit did. they offered space the public could use to store something, and they had terms of service regarding what can and cannot be stored in their facility.
That doesn't really matter much when they grossly ignore the terms of service (and the law for that matter) themselves.

They certainly did not operate, "just as a storage locker" The evidence shows how they received continuous copyright claims that they purposefully ignored and rewarded members with monetary compensation for uploading illegal content to bring traffic to their site.

Money laundering, Racketeering... it's clear cut illegal stuff. Not just hosting the pirated content but actively seeking interest in getting it and rewarding those who uploaded it to them.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment Check out around page 28 of the indictment where the real damning evidence starts showing.
 
Jan 12, 2012
2,113
0
0
NameIsRobertPaulson said:
Glademaster said:
Em no this is not akin to something like preventing free travel to a drug dealer or something like that this is doing exactly what is in SOPA without actually having passed SOPA. This is the exact thing we tried to prevent. If they are taken to court and found to be guilty then the site should be shut down but not before they are brought to court and tried.

I mean this is the exact thing they wanted to do in SOPA to the letter as in block DNS to suspected copyright violators.
^^^THIS THIS A BILLION TIMES THIS^^^

What was the point of attacking SOPA when they were just going to ignore due process of law, attack a site that for all intents and purposes had less illegal files then YouTube, and screw thousands of people using the site legitimately anyway?
The main difference to seems to be twofold:

1) It's the government doing the shutdown, not companies. This is the OPPOSITE of SOPA, where corporations would have the power to shut websites down, and it then up to those websites to prove their innocence. We give the government power to enforce our laws, so it's expected that they enforce them when they have...

2) ...Legitimate evidence that the website knowingly supported illegal activity. Page 28-32 of the indictment http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment shows that MegaUpload knowingly hosted illegal content after being asked to remove it in 2010. This isn't Viacom shutting down a website because a user posted a link; this is the police stopping someone who was knowingly and repeatedly breaking the law for personal gain.
 

yukshee

New member
Oct 2, 2009
41
0
0
...and a tumble-weed rolled slowly past Billy No-Mates as he contemplated his 30 pieces of silver and the rope in his hand.

User received a warning for this post.
 

minimacker

New member
Apr 20, 2010
637
0
0
Wait. MegaUpload is Hongkong based. A tiny part of the servers are in Virginia. That gives the U.S full right to shut down the entire domain name, even for countries OUTSIDE of the U.S?
 

Balimaar

The Bass Fish
Sep 26, 2010
241
0
0
you want to hear something funny? i put a job app in to a few places over the past few weeks, in that app ive put links to games ive made myself..... guess which website the links point to?
 

VondeVon

New member
Dec 30, 2009
686
0
0
Awexsome said:
Youtube has its partnership program but if they rewarded someone who decided to upload a full movie just because it was popular the law would be in the right to press charges against Youtube for having Youtube themselves promoting or profiting off illegally uploaded content.
YouTube should probably have real people checking what they offer partnerships to, then. I see so much copyrighted stuff popping up little ads...
 

GonvilleBromhead

New member
Dec 19, 2010
284
0
0
Thunderous Cacophony said:
NameIsRobertPaulson said:
Glademaster said:
Em no this is not akin to something like preventing free travel to a drug dealer or something like that this is doing exactly what is in SOPA without actually having passed SOPA. This is the exact thing we tried to prevent. If they are taken to court and found to be guilty then the site should be shut down but not before they are brought to court and tried.

I mean this is the exact thing they wanted to do in SOPA to the letter as in block DNS to suspected copyright violators.
^^^THIS THIS A BILLION TIMES THIS^^^

What was the point of attacking SOPA when they were just going to ignore due process of law, attack a site that for all intents and purposes had less illegal files then YouTube, and screw thousands of people using the site legitimately anyway?
The main difference to seems to be twofold:

1) It's the government doing the shutdown, not companies. This is the OPPOSITE of SOPA, where corporations would have the power to shut websites down, and it then up to those websites to prove their innocence. We give the government power to enforce our laws, so it's expected that they enforce them when they have...

2) ...Legitimate evidence that the website knowingly supported illegal activity. Page 28-32 of the indictment http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment shows that MegaUpload knowingly hosted illegal content after being asked to remove it in 2010. This isn't Viacom shutting down a website because a user posted a link; this is the police stopping someone who was knowingly and repeatedly breaking the law for personal gain.
I'd personally add that the another major difference is that this is being treated identically to any other crime. They've gathered evidence, arrested those suspected of the crime following a court order, prevented the operation from continuing, and it's going to trial with the inherent rights and possibility of subsequent appeal that that would entail. A more "normal" example would be they have evidence that someone is making cocaine in a storage unit, arrest the perpetrators, close down the factory, and prosecute - fairly normal stuff.

SOPA, on the other hand, is the equivalent of permitting bakeries to burn down buildings it suspects manufacture illegal drugs
 

Monsterfurby

New member
Mar 7, 2008
871
0
0
Of course, you are right: MORALLY, taking down Megaupload was the right thing to do. The problem is: from a legal standpoint, it is highly questionable. That is actually the problem about the US authorities' handling of many problems: they claim the moral high ground and then proceed to ignore national, international and foreign laws to enforce it.

I for one would rather live in a lawful immoral world than a lawless moral one, which is why I still oppose the MU takedown.

Edit: Also, politically, it does not come at a good time.
 

getoffmycloud

New member
Jun 13, 2011
440
0
0
seraphy said:
You think it is moral, or even legal to shut down sites before their owners have actually been sentenced on any crime?

As far as I am aware innocent until proven guilty still applies in United states.
that is true but if I were to start selling stolen dvd's on the street I would be stopped investigated and then tried they wouldn't allow me to keep doing it until I go to court
 

Amarok

New member
Dec 13, 2008
972
0
0
Not everything on Megaupload was pirate material. A fair few people uploaded their own stuff on their, and that's been taken away from them because *some* of the site's users are pirates.

That's not right at all.

They have every right to combat piracy but taking down the WHOLE site is something they SHOULDN'T be allowed to get away with.
 

Krantos

New member
Jun 30, 2009
1,839
0
0
seraphy said:
You think it is moral, or even legal to shut down sites before their owners have actually been sentenced on any crime?

As far as I am aware innocent until proven guilty still applies in United states.
If a man gets arraigned on sex trafficking charges, they don't let him keep his brothels running while waiting for a sentence. They can't let them keep running the service when they're on trial for running that service.

If the charges end up getting dropped, Megaupload can potentially seek damages for lost revenue. It's unlikely they'll win, but the option is there.

So, no. While the charges are being pursued it's completely reasonable for them to shut down the site.

Whether or not the charges are valid... well that's another topic altogether.
 

seraphy

New member
Jan 2, 2011
219
0
0
Krantos said:
If a man gets arraigned on sex trafficking charges, they don't let him keep his brothels running while waiting for a sentence. They can't let them keep running the service when they're on trial for running that service.

If the charges end up getting dropped, Megaupload can potentially seek damages for lost revenue. It's unlikely they'll win, but the option is there.

So, no. While the charges are being pursued it's completely reasonable for them to shut down the site.

Whether or not the charges are valid... well that's another topic altogether.
Yes because running brothel is perfectly legal by itself, unlike file sharing...?

Excellent comparison.