http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/19/us-government-megaupload-piracy-indictment
I hope no one had any mod maps there... :ohmy:
Yeah action against piracy!
Very sad it has to come to this, megaupload was a great site for sharing files. All because of money. I hope they don't go after mediafire next.
Yeah... however there's just another 5000 sites that will take it's place.
Heard that this morning, i was sad too :/
I heard about some retaliation too. Its not good to mess with people who know how to hack.
Quote from: Dbiz 1617 on January 20, 2012, 10:55:34 PM
I heard about some retaliation too. Its not good to mess with people who know how to hack.
If you are referring to Anonymous, don't get your hopes up. Anonymous is effectively controlled opposition. The idea that the most appropriate response to draconian actions is to DDoS some irrelevant websites for a few hours, is massively stupid. Moreover, it generates sympathy for further government infringements on freedom of information.
Anon couldn't co-ordinate their way out of a paper bag. And yes it's likely that their sometimes overbearing internet presence will probably turn on them in the end.
MegaUpload is very much a symbol of piracy and file sharing, so while it's removal won't have lasting effects it (since countless other sites provide the exact same service) it makes it look like the US government are doing something to tackle the "problem".
And now btjunkie has voluntarily shut down, :'(
odd timing, my guess is the gov't threatened to sue their arses off unless they voluntarily shut down.
This is a demonstration that our corrupt government does not need acts like SOPA to censor the internet. The shutdown of Megaupload was a lengthy, laborious red-tape affair. But now that the gov't has shown that they can successfully perform these investigations/shutdowns (given enough time), they can wield the Megaupload affair like a club at anyone who stands in their way. It's a totalitarian way of thinking -- literally controlling people through threats. We live in interesting times. Democracy in the US is going to reach either (1) an all time high or (2) an all time low within the next decade. There's no way it can remain balanced in the precarious position it's currently in.
edit: and yet something tells me this won't make prime times news like the last one (even though it was the largest torrent index), let's find out.
edit: "The company did not specifically address why it opted to shut down, but in an interview with TorrentFreak, BTJunkie's unnamed founder said the threat of legal action was a main reason. "Witnessing all the trouble colleagues got into was cause for a lot of worry and stress, and those will now belong to the past," TorrentFreak wrote."
Quote from: Joseph on February 06, 2012, 08:48:05 PM
odd timing, my guess is the gov't threatened to sue their arses off unless they voluntarily shut down.
This is a demonstration that our corrupt government does not need acts like SOPA to censor the internet. The shutdown of Megaupload was a lengthy, laborious red-tape affair. But now that the gov't has shown that they can successfully perform these investigations/shutdowns (given enough time), they can wield the Megaupload affair like a club at anyone who stands in their way. It's a totalitarian way of thinking -- literally controlling people through threats. We live in interesting times. Democracy in the US is going to reach either (1) an all time high or (2) an all time low within the next decade. There's no way it can remain balanced in the precarious position it's currently in.
edit: and yet something tells me this won't make prime times news like the last one (even though it was the largest torrent index), let's find out.
edit: "The company did not specifically address why it opted to shut down, but in an interview with TorrentFreak, BTJunkie's unnamed founder said the threat of legal action was a main reason. "Witnessing all the trouble colleagues got into was cause for a lot of worry and stress, and those will now belong to the past," TorrentFreak wrote."
Why you little (Wait Buckler would kill me for completing this sentence.) .
For the record everyone I'm thrilled that Megaupload got shut down, it hosted more copyright files than any other site on the internet. I'll personally troll anyone to death who says that they think the FBI made a corrupt move here. And who also think that they are now using it as a weapon. I'm a person who hates people who rip off movies, books, games, music, and software.
My only lament in all this is the loss of modding assets.
If anyone here has messed with quake or doom, you'll have noticed the very large id games shaped hole in public ftp sites (If you can even find those, anymore.) There is an entropic force erasing the good stuff before it's even discovered.
I recommend hoarding assets, So we don't have to scramble for links as they die (via megaupload like takedowns, or just plain deletion like filefront.)
I'm sitting on a 15gb un-organized pile of stuff for BF1 & 2, but none of the old stuff and lots of overlap.
As for btjunkie, this was inevitable. I suspect they were either threatened or paid to just go away. Had to see it comming though. The argument that there were legit torrents linked on their site died the instant you tried to find one.
Looked like a black market software and dvd warehouse to me.
I can't imagine that the absense of this black market will bring the demise of democracy, though. If it does, then I must completely misunderstand what democracy is. I don't see downloading movies for free or bootlegging music and software as an inalienable right. (I can't see the new Iron Man for free? RIOT!)
When federal agents start shutting down news sites and political forums, then I'll see the ability to speak freely as being in peril.
Till then, it's just bussines doing what it has always done: act in it's own best interest.
To expect it to do otherwise is fantasy.
Quote from: tirpider on February 07, 2012, 12:59:44 AM
As for btjunkie, this was inevitable. I suspect they were either threatened or paid to just go away. Had to see it comming though.
This is not how a democracy operates. If the government wants to take down a website for criminal activity, then they should do it with, ah, you know, a
case, and
evidence -- in a word: fairly. Eliminating enemies of the state via implicit threats,
implied action, is beyond creepy. If websites can be taken down in this fashion -- under the table -- then what's to stop the government from deploying similar tactics on arbitrary websites?
QuoteI can't imagine that the absense of this black market will bring the demise of democracy, though. If it does, then I must completely misunderstand what democracy is. I don't see downloading movies for free or bootlegging music and software as an inalienable right. (I can't see the new Iron Man for free? RIOT!)
When federal agents start shutting down news sites and political forums, then I'll see the ability to speak freely as being in peril.
This misconception is understandable, but not excusable. Let's look at SOPA -- the Stop Online Piracy Act. SOPA would require all websites to constantly police their comments/3rd party posts for links to sites with copyright violations. The mere presence of such content would incriminate the site in question and, in theory, allow the feds to shut it down. Facebook, CNN, Google,...that's how encompassing that legislature is/was. It means: guilty until proven innocent, a reversal of the American concept of justice.
If you think this idea died with SOPA, think again. SOPA was just a formal statement of what they can already do. The feds can, as we have seen, wield the Megaupload case like a club against any website that is potentially breaking the law. What's the problem here?
Virtually any website designed for the dissemination/sharing of private information can be meaningfully accused of copyright violation at some level. I shouldn't need to provide examples. 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.
Quote from: SleepKiller on February 06, 2012, 09:44:37 PM
I'll personally troll anyone to death who says that they think the FBI made a corrupt move here. And who also think that they are now using it as a weapon.
I just did that in Reply #9, sister
I see you live under the rule, Ignorance is Bliss. As in Ignorance to how much damage Megaupload cost to copy right holders. (Our beloved SWBF will have suffered losses as well.)
There as heaps of sites that I'd see shut down on the internet. They in no way impact Free Speach since they are just sites hosting illegal content, not Forums for discussion of the law. If I saw like tirpider said, news sites and other items like that being filtered then I'd definitely see a huge problem with the way the internet works.
Here is an exercise for you, say you wrote a book. It became very popular. However some people think it'd be all fine and dandy to D/L off the internet for free. You wouldn't be so thrilled about these sites now would you? Now let us say that the book gets turned into a movie, the movie become really popular. But once again it got put on the internet and 1000s of people watched it illegally for free. Those sites now seem like a very bad thing.
Quote from: SleepKiller on February 08, 2012, 08:25:36 PM
I see you live under the rule, Ignorance is Bliss. As in Ignorance to how much damage Megaupload cost to copy right holders. (Our beloved SWBF will have suffered losses as well.)
There as heaps of sites that I'd see shut down on the internet. They in no way impact Free Speach since they are just sites hosting illegal content, not Forums for discussion of the law. If I saw like tirpider said, news sites and other items like that being filtered then I'd definitely see a huge problem with the way the internet works.
Here is an exercise for you, say you wrote a book. It became very popular. However some people think it'd be all fine and dandy to D/L off the internet for free. You wouldn't be so thrilled about these sites now would you? Now let us say that the book gets turned into a movie, the movie become really popular. But once again it got put on the internet and 1000s of people watched it illegally for free. Those sites now seem like a very bad thing.
I hate to sound callous, but I have an exercise for you: read my two posts and provide some sort of commentary. Repeating common misconceptions that are have been disarmed repeatedly does not do anything to promote understanding, for you or me.
I am well aware of the extent to which piracy has hurt copyright holders, and to a large extent, I am sympathetic. (of course, its always the Majors who are pushing these laws -- and I couldn't care less about the Majors!). However important that issue is, it is somewhat of a red herring in the context of this debate, because there are far more weighty infringements at stake. It simply won't do to just ignore them and take on faith that your government is watching out for you!
Your very arrogant aren't you? I'm not taking this conversation any further.
Blah.
[spoiler]
Quotea 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'.
QuoteVirtually 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.
QuoteI 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]
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?
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
As an author myself, I think that copyrighted works need to be protected and the authors' compensated 8)
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. :) )
Interesting Read
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/02/03/you-will-never-kill-piracy-and-piracy-will-never-kill-you/
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.
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 :censored: 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 :censored: fight! A GOP candidate who is left of Obama on civil liberties and foreign policy? Shite!)
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.
If these fascists have their way there will be 30,000 drones patrolling America by the end of the decade (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/319564)
I'm hoping someone burns down Congress/White House Inglorious Basterd style.
Quote from: Joseph on February 13, 2012, 08:28:52 PM
If these fascists have their way there will be 30,000 drones patrolling America by the end of the decade (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/319564)
I'm hoping someone burns down Congress/White House...
Are you sure about that (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_2.html)?
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"
Quote from: Joseph on February 14, 2012, 01:00:31 PM
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. (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_12.html), didn't grant the Government the ability to indefinitely detain suspects so much as reaffirm, meaning that the Government already had this ability.
Quote from: BlackScorpion on February 19, 2012, 11:54:55 AM
I thought that the NDAA, which I believe is mandated by U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 12. (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_12.html), 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.
Quote from: BlackScorpion on February 19, 2012, 11:54:55 AM
I thought that the NDAA, which I believe is mandated by U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 12. (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_12.html), 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 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf), 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 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=98513&st=&st1=#axzz1iE5qy7a3)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.
New Megaupload news:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165858/Mega-mistake-Court-rules-police-raid-New-Zealand-mansion-Megaupload-boss-illegal.html
U.S. lawyers for Megaupload have also argued that American federal authorities cannot charge the company with criminal behaviour because it is Hong Kong-based, and also that no papers have ever been formally served.
Quote
Earlier this week, the company hosting the frozen data of millions of users of the file sharing site said their bill must be paid or they be allowed to delete the data.
Carpathia Hosting said it is using more than 1,100 servers to store the 25million gigabytes of the website's data - it has been inaccessible since the site was seized by the FBI.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165858/Mega-mistake-Court-rules-police-raid-New-Zealand-mansion-Megaupload-boss-illegal.html#ixzz1z61UMrPr
Once again a fascist bill has passed (just in the House though) without being covered by the corrupt media. (Think NDAA.) You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act)
The rumor is that Obama will veto it, but that is probably a lie just like when he said he'd veto the NDAA. In case you missed it, the NDAA turns the USA into the civil rights equivalent of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. I commented on it earlier in this thread.
The feds are mounting a full frontal attack on the internet, because the internet harbors the seeds of their irrelevancy, i.e. destruction.
http://www.cispapetition.org/ (http://www.cispapetition.org/)