| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 122906 | 2012-01-19 20:48:00 | Megaupload gone | nedkelly (9059) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1255080 | 2012-01-20 00:19:00 | 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. |
CYaBro (73) | ||
| 1255081 | 2012-01-20 00:50:00 | you could get 5 years for uploading a Michael Jackson song, one year more than the doctor who killed him... | SKT174 (1319) | ||
| 1255082 | 2012-01-20 01:06:00 | 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. |
CYaBro (73) | ||
| 1255083 | 2012-01-20 01:22:00 | 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. |
pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 1255084 | 2012-01-20 01:38:00 | All if have to say about this is: F*CK. | icow (15313) | ||
| 1255085 | 2012-01-20 02:54:00 | 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". |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1255086 | 2012-01-20 03:34:00 | 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. |
1101 (13337) | ||
| 1255087 | 2012-01-20 03:44:00 | 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 |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 1255088 | 2012-01-20 03:47:00 | So stupid things tend to make sense now? | icow (15313) | ||
| 1255089 | 2012-01-20 04:07:00 | "Anonymous" have thrown their toys out of the cot and done some DDoS'ing. | Renegade (16270) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 | |||||