MegaUpload shut down

[SleepKiller]

Your very arrogant aren't you? I'm not taking this conversation any further.

[tirpider]

Blah.
[spoiler]

a case, and evidence

All one would have to do to fairly build a case against any of these sites is do a simple google search for bootleg material.
Follow up on those links and what do you find?

Evidence.

Add a few months of server logs, show it to a judge, shake and serve.

Seems to be not only fair, but fairly easy.



Really, SOPA is a different issue. If any government decides your speech needs to go away, you honestly think they would think twice about using legal or illegal tactics to make it happen?
Big Brother isn't the enemy.  He is a distraction, just like Goldstein.
The real enemy is that thing in the back of our heads that dreams up all the terrible things that can happen if we 'get caught'.

Virtually any website designed for the dissemination/sharing of private information can be meaningfully accused of copyright violation at some level

While idealisticly true, you aren't going to win any fights about free speech by waving the flag of thieves and pirates.

Sharing the lifetime work and study of a physician/scientist/astrologer/whatever in the efforts to hold back dissease/stop evil/save the world/whatever , while still protected under intellectual property laws, could at least be argued as the 'right' thing to do.

Feeling persecuted because you can't download Lady GaGa's new album is just pouting.

And that's all they were interested in with SOPA to begin with. It was lobbied for by industry, not black hattted, moustache twirling, illuminate, waiting for the day they can show us all...

I hate the idea of having isp's, server operators, and even forum staff turned into police for the industry.
It would turn out as infuriating as the TSA hiring airport security through state unemployment lines.
People doing a job they are not qualified for, and not interested in doing.

But that doesn't mean that everyone gets to sneak into the latest Twilight for free.
There needs to be some sort of regulation and at least a penalty for trafficing stolen goods.

The users of the internet have proven that they can't be in the library without stealing the books, so the industry has started looking for solutions.

Arresting them and putting legislation in place is part of it.

I think the end game is clear: the end of privacy as we know it. This is a direct assault on the freedom of information, and privacy. The first decades of the internet have been wild, and free, but there is a menacing effort on the part of authorities worldwide to replace this internet 1.0 with a second, "improved" internet 2.0. We can't let them undo so much progress.

You are right.
The internet is ruined forever.
But governments aren't the reason.
Marketers are.
They started jamming ads and products into every corner of the web, and now it's just as annoyingly filled with coersive advertisment and insipid infomercial-like sites as broadcast television.
And since everyone involved is not only interested in the money, but acting as someone elses employee, they all want to keep their jobs and are willing to do all the same crappy things to the net that they have done to newspapers, magazines, tele, radio, and city streets, to the internet.

The government could care less if you are a brony.
But Hasbro will pay good money to make sure you get ads for the latest Rainbow Dash t-shirt on your facebook.
And that's where your privacy concers are... not in the hands of government, but deep pocketed industry lobbiests and demographic data harvesters (google, facebook, anyone with a cookie.. which all the tracker sites, including TorrentFreak, use.) 
[/spoiler]


Summery:
[spoiler]
I kinda don't care how they make the thieves go away.
As long as they go...
If they have something important to tell the world, they can write their manifesto in prison and mail it it to a friend to publish, so the world can bootleg it all over the place.[/spoiler]

[Joseph]

tirpider, thank you for thinking about this issue. I agree with a lot of what you say. For the sake of argument, I will agree with the blanket "piracy-is-bad-and-must-be-stopped" view (even though my thoughts on that matter are more complex).

But you have to take a functionalist view of recent events. It won't do to speculate on what SOPA/PIPA/MegauploadShutdown were designed for, or what their architects are trying to accomplish. For all I know, the latter's intent is completely just and well-meaning (doubtful). But that's just speculation. Instead, in order to respond meaningfully, we have to look at the effects of these programs. And as I (and many others) have demonstrated, these effects are just plain bad.

If you want to solve the piracy problem, fine, but don't do it this way. Any old legislature won't do. One may well praise the attempt to curtail copyright infringement -- but one must surely admit to how sloppily and carelessly this project is being carried out? That's assuming all of the creepy clauses and vague power suctioning all over these bills are accidents. I'm willing to bet that they aren't.

How do you justify them?

[tirpider]

I can only justify them in that it is an attempt to protect their interests.

My personal view is that the web has gotten worse and worse over the years and have resigned myself to the idea that one day it will be just as useless as TV or a phone app. (I blame marketers and not government for this.)
I am more angry about unsolicited advertising online than I am about more intense filtering of content.

For SOPA.
The potential for abuse is there, but it always has been, even before modern attention.
I just don't see it as a personal threat.
My advise is to get some distance from all the illicit sources of media before the revised version actually makes it through.

For Megaupload.
They had a criminal piracy ring operating (among other things). Yeah.. their takedown was enevitable without special policies needed.  If they had a simple file hosting service, they could have worked with athorities to track offenders.  There was more to it than just holding files for folks, though.

PIPA.
That one is bad.  Fits right in with Homeland Security.
I imagine that it will be abused, and I honestly don't know what to do about it.
If you don't approve of it, you must be a terrorist, and they stuff you in a bag and send you to see Jimmy Hoffa.
No due process.
It's evil and anti-American in every way.

The authors/architects of the above arent out to get anyone.
(PIPA, I am not so sure of. I really hope it isn't another round of McCarthyism)All they want is to keep their jobs and a pile of money to call their own.
That goes for the media organizations, lobbiests, politicians, and artists.

I severely doubt that any of them are wringing their hands waiting to 'get' that one random person for some online indiscresion.

Show up as a group or mass of random persons, activly trying to couter or subvert their efforts, then yeah, they are going to fight back, till it becomes to expensive, then they will just pull the plug.

I just don't know what else to say about it.

-edit
I did some reading and I completely mixed up PIPA with something else.... my bad.

[Led]

As an author myself, I think that copyrighted works need to be protected and the authors' compensated 

But you know that copyright terms have been extended and extended again since the original copyright act of 1790. 

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html   
go near the end of that page for details

It used to be 14 years, with a 14 year renewal.
Then 28 years, with a 14 year renewal.
Then 28 years with a 28 year renewal.
Then the life of the author plus 50 years after that.
Then life plus 70 years.

I think that this is a real shame since I think it can stifle creativity.  One could argue that the copyright should be a shorter term now in the information age than in 1790.


And who holds the copyright?  Usually not the author, but the distributor is assigned the copyright by the author, because they control everything and it won't go anywhere without it.   

So, I think what we are witnessing is the thrashing of a failing revenue model.  MPAA can still get the government to go after players that don't follow the rules so the distributor is not shut out of their cut.  Those are the rules, and that is fine.  But--who do you think help make those new sets of rules, particularly the time extensions

Anyway, my main concern was that I hope no one lost assets due to them being shut down.

(It really bugs me when filefront loses stuff.  I encourage anyone that make models or assets to upload them here.  After my initial 3-year lease on this website is up, I plan to renew it for (at least) another 10.  Even if we are all long gone from SWBF, your content will be available for a long time.    )

[Phobos]

Interesting Read
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/02/03/you-will-never-kill-piracy-and-piracy-will-never-kill-you/

[SleepKiller]

Interesting read, you're right. And agreeable to certain extent, however I'm one of those people that always wants physical media over something on my hard drive. (Since what if my computer decides that that pill on the top shelf looks very tasty.) Then I'm stuck until I get a new PC and then I have to D/L it all again. DVD allows me to just put it in my disc drive or a DVD player, and watch to my hearts desire.

[Joseph]

DVDs and CDs exist to artificially inflate the price of digital downloads. Then when you go for these overpriced-by-a-factor-of-ten downloads or streaming content, you find that you're still buying a lower-quality version of the music, plus DRM restrictions (i.e. itunes' laughable 256kbps proprietary AAC files that they expect you to pay $1.29 for. It's highway robbery.) All I can say is: suckaz!

Led, I am interested to know what you've written.

Edit: tirpider must have been thinking about the NDAA. Obama and his wall street have relations with buddies are corroding our democracy faster than Reagan, Nixon, Bush, Clinton ever did. With Obama as Prince, the government can assasinate citizens at will (or at least lock them up indefinitely, for no reason at all.) This has already happened, folks. In a decade there will not be anything left to corrode. All of your worst nightmares about state control are probably going to be manifested in some way -- especially if the next wave of the financial crisis unfolds as some are saying it will. Meanwhile the so-called "liberals" - whatever the hell that means - will keep on voting their Democrats into power. (if you think the GOP will ever win a presidential election again, EVER, you're deluded. That is, unless they transmogrify themselves into a more genuinely libertarian, populist party. But that would mean alienating the psychopathic fundamentalist degenerates that pay the bills. Should get interesting!)

The only reason the media are playing along with the idea of Ron Paul having a chance at the White House, is to SCREW the republican party by dividing them hopelessly. How does that work? It's dead obvious. Ron Paul has a sizable 21% of the republican vote (as of a couple days ago) The catch is that if Paul drops out, none of that support is going to either of the other three  candidates. Paul is too distinctive and his supporters (among whom I tentatively count myself) too determined. They'll write him in, if it comes to that. So, unlike the case for Romney, Gingrich (lol), or Santorum (lol), dismissing Ron Paul means pissing away 1/5 (at least) of your voters. I think this is exactly what the media (ie their corporate controllers) want. Paul may not be the GOP favorite, but he's the only one with a prayer against Obama. Screwed. (barring a Paul nomination, which I find unlikely, if extremely pleasurable. Obama vs Paul -- THAT would be a  fight! A GOP candidate who is left of Obama on civil liberties and foreign policy? Shite!)

[BlackScorpion]

Please correct me if I am wrong on anything, but this is how I see things:

Supporters of the relevant bills:
(1) argue that piracy hurts their profits;
(2) while making this argument cite the total value of things downloaded dubiously;
and (3) fail to recognize that (i) many people who download dubiously will purchase legitimately--it's not lost business then--and (ii) many other downloads represent people who would not purchase the goods in the absence of being able to obtain them for free.

Opponents of the relevant bills:
(1) agitate for freedom of speech because it's a slippery slope;
(2) and for that are labeled socialists because the result of their results would, in the eyes of big business, limit IP.

I don't think that SOPA or any of its sister legislation will survive constitutional muster.  While I believe that the most likely reason for a court invalidating the statute would be on First Amendment grounds, I do not expect it to be entirely on Freedom of Expression (indeed, I'm fairly sure that the implicit Freedom of Association--see, e.g., NAACP v. Alabama (1958) does not extend to illegal conspiracies); instead, I believe that it will be struck down as either void for vagueness or over-breadth.

Conspiracy theory time: Steven Chu, Obama's Energy Secretary, is the brother of Irella & Manella IP litigator Morgan Chu, the leading IP litigator in the nation.

[Joseph]

If these fascists have their way there will be 30,000 drones patrolling America by the end of the decade

I'm hoping someone burns down Congress/White House Inglorious Basterd style.

[BlackScorpion]

If these fascists have their way there will be 30,000 drones patrolling America by the end of the decade

I'm hoping someone burns down Congress/White House...

Are you sure about that?

[Joseph]

pretty sure, not much to be scared of politically anymore that hasn't already happened or is taking shape. I will assume you have read the NDAA and that you're speaking "tongue-in-cheek"

[BlackScorpion]

pretty sure, not much to be scared of politically anymore that hasn't already happened or is taking shape. I will assume you have read the NDAA and that you're speaking "tongue-in-cheek"

I thought that the NDAA, which I believe is mandated by U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 12., didn't grant the Government the ability to indefinitely detain suspects so much as reaffirm, meaning that the Government already had this ability.

[SleepKiller]

I thought that the NDAA, which I believe is mandated by U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 12., didn't grant the Government the ability to indefinitely detain suspects so much as reaffirm, meaning that the Government already had this ability.

Tip bro your right he's wrong leave the conversation.

[Joseph]

I thought that the NDAA, which I believe is mandated by U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 12., didn't grant the Government the ability to indefinitely detain suspects so much as reaffirm, meaning that the Government already had this ability.

Your statement does not follow from your cited clause, nor from any other clause in the Constitution.

Again, I can only enjoin you to read the act itself, particularly title X subtitle D (section 1021 especially) on counterterrorism, which should clear up most of the confusion here. In any case, the rightness or wrongness of a piece of legislature cannot be resolved by appealing to whether or not one can find some Nostradamian "precedence" in the Constitution.

Were there truly such a precedence (and there isn't), there would be no need for (a) reaffirmation nor (b) Pres. Obama's signing statement that "My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

There is arguably a precedent in the equally-criminal AUMF.