|
On January 23 2012 11:37 Yergidy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:27 themask4f wrote:
This is fucking madness. US congress has gone too far, they should be working for their voters, not their lobbyists Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:24 Detwiler wrote:
SOPA and PIPA not passed? Fuck it who cares lets shut down sites anyways.
Love, The U.S Government There seems to be a misconception about what happened. The US government did nothing to Filesonic to make them shutdown the filesharing portion of their website, Filesonic has done that by itself, because of fears of being just like megaupload. This is the exact thing the governement wanted to do, make megaupload a example case and make other companies crack down on the illegal filesharing on their own.
As long as Filesonic actually has a system that encourages and "induces" copyright infringement, I'm fine with them changing their plans (I actually have no idea how Filesonic operates).
The problem is if sites are suddenly forced to incur costs by taking preventative measures, which the law simply does not require at all. The worst thing that could ever happen to the internet is if the RIAA and MPAA could force everyone else to be their police.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 23 2012 11:42 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:38 Jibba wrote:
What? You use YouTube to listen to specific songs. There's nothing questionable about it at all. Artist gets your hit. If I load an entire album of an artist that auto-playlists, but the uploader is not affiliated with the artist what do you call that? I can download entire albums of youtube at high quality, maybe not flak but still FS quality. Its the same thing.
YouTube automatically detects it and notifies the company. If you have other content, then you're producing something. If not, it'll be taken down. Either way, using YouTube to listen to music is extremely simple, open and profitable for the artist most of the time. Every listen is more advertising.
|
Other countries need to grow some balls and tell America "No", they aren't the fucking world police even if they like to think they are. They're clearly worried they'll be next.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 23 2012 11:44 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:41 Jibba wrote:On January 23 2012 11:40 Kurr wrote:On January 23 2012 11:38 Jibba wrote:
What? You use YouTube to listen to specific songs. There's nothing questionable about it at all. The artist gets your hit. Not really. There are thousands of random people re-uploading songs to other channels. Yes, and they get removed when it's requested. It's still not the same as downloading someone's album. Same as Filesonic, all filehosts do this even Megaupload, what's the difference?
Ding ding, another uninformed person who decided to post before reading the indictment. No, Megaupload didnt. That's why safe harbor laws don't protect them.
|
On January 23 2012 11:44 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:42 sluggaslamoo wrote:On January 23 2012 11:38 Jibba wrote:
What? You use YouTube to listen to specific songs. There's nothing questionable about it at all. Artist gets your hit. If I load an entire album of an artist that auto-playlists, but the uploader is not affiliated with the artist what do you call that? I can download entire albums of youtube at high quality, maybe not flak but still FS quality. Its the same thing. YouTube automatically detects it and notifies the company. If you have other content, then you're producing something. If not, it'll be taken down. Either way, using YouTube to listen to music is extremely simple, open and profitable for the artist most of the time. Every listen is more advertising.
YT does take things down but not immediately and some songs can stay up year after year. The same is true (or should be true) about all file sharing systems, despite megaupload not following on said claims.
As far as the advertising goes, the same can be said about someone downloading a song on filesonic and listening to it there.
|
The biggest issue of all of this is that sites are being shut down or effectively shut down without having been found in violation in court.
On January 23 2012 07:06 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 07:03 yakitate304 wrote:
Just put in a request for a refund of my $35, since I paid for my 180 day account on Jan. 2nd, and got a whole 2.5 weeks of use.
Don't really care about the money, but it'd be nice to get it put back into my PayPal account. Not holding my breath though. If what you paid for is totally legal, then at least in the UK you would definitely be entitled to a refund of the substantial part of the payment, for unreasonable alteration of contract obligation... (Edit: By UK I mean England & Wales)
UK and I believe the EU in general have much better consumer protection laws than the US has.
On January 23 2012 11:47 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:44 sluggaslamoo wrote:On January 23 2012 11:41 Jibba wrote:On January 23 2012 11:40 Kurr wrote:On January 23 2012 11:38 Jibba wrote:
What? You use YouTube to listen to specific songs. There's nothing questionable about it at all. The artist gets your hit. Not really. There are thousands of random people re-uploading songs to other channels. Yes, and they get removed when it's requested. It's still not the same as downloading someone's album. Same as Filesonic, all filehosts do this even Megaupload, what's the difference? Ding ding, another uninformed person who decided to post before reading the indictment. No, Megaupload didnt. That's why safe harbor laws don't protect them.
lol? I have seen hundreds of links to Megaupload that had been removed for copyright infringement.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 23 2012 11:51 Kurr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:44 Jibba wrote:On January 23 2012 11:42 sluggaslamoo wrote:On January 23 2012 11:38 Jibba wrote:
What? You use YouTube to listen to specific songs. There's nothing questionable about it at all. Artist gets your hit. If I load an entire album of an artist that auto-playlists, but the uploader is not affiliated with the artist what do you call that? I can download entire albums of youtube at high quality, maybe not flak but still FS quality. Its the same thing. YouTube automatically detects it and notifies the company. If you have other content, then you're producing something. If not, it'll be taken down. Either way, using YouTube to listen to music is extremely simple, open and profitable for the artist most of the time. Every listen is more advertising. YT does take things down but not immediately and some songs can stay up year after year. The same is true (or should be true) about all file sharing systems, despite megaupload not following on said claims. As far as the advertising goes, the same can be said about someone downloading a song on filesonic and listening to it there.
When YouTube detects a song, it notifies the publisher and it's up to the to request it be removed. If songs are staying up, then it was never requested.
And no, that type of advertising doesn't work at all on file sharing sites. There is no link to link transfer to an artists' other works from a file sharing site. If you go to an artists' song on YouTube, you get linked along to their other work and other artists under their label.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 23 2012 11:53 Craton wrote:The biggest issue of all of this is that sites are being shut down or effectively shut down without a single minute in court. Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 07:06 sc4k wrote:On January 23 2012 07:03 yakitate304 wrote:
Just put in a request for a refund of my $35, since I paid for my 180 day account on Jan. 2nd, and got a whole 2.5 weeks of use.
Don't really care about the money, but it'd be nice to get it put back into my PayPal account. Not holding my breath though. If what you paid for is totally legal, then at least in the UK you would definitely be entitled to a refund of the substantial part of the payment, for unreasonable alteration of contract obligation... (Edit: By UK I mean England & Wales) UK and I believe the EU in general have much better consumer protection laws than the US has. Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:47 Jibba wrote:On January 23 2012 11:44 sluggaslamoo wrote:On January 23 2012 11:41 Jibba wrote:On January 23 2012 11:40 Kurr wrote:On January 23 2012 11:38 Jibba wrote:
What? You use YouTube to listen to specific songs. There's nothing questionable about it at all. The artist gets your hit. Not really. There are thousands of random people re-uploading songs to other channels. Yes, and they get removed when it's requested. It's still not the same as downloading someone's album. Same as Filesonic, all filehosts do this even Megaupload, what's the difference? Ding ding, another uninformed person who decided to post before reading the indictment. No, Megaupload didnt. That's why safe harbor laws don't protect them. lol? I have seen hundreds of links to Megaupload that had been removed for copyright infringement.
Lol? Read the fucking indictment?
|
Why would I care what a lawyer who is clearly trying to frame his case in the best possible light has to say when I have personally seen hundreds of times the exact opposite?
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 23 2012 11:57 Craton wrote:
Why would I care what a lawyer who is clearly trying to frame his case in the best possible light has to say when I have personally seen hundreds of times the exact opposite?
Why would anyone care what you have to say when you haven't done an ounce of due diligence and are completely ignorant of the situation at hand? Your opinion is completely worthless in this discussion until you read up on it.
If you made comments like that in the strategy forum without having watched the replay, you'd get banned.
|
On January 23 2012 11:44 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:42 sluggaslamoo wrote:On January 23 2012 11:38 Jibba wrote:
What? You use YouTube to listen to specific songs. There's nothing questionable about it at all. Artist gets your hit. If I load an entire album of an artist that auto-playlists, but the uploader is not affiliated with the artist what do you call that? I can download entire albums of youtube at high quality, maybe not flak but still FS quality. Its the same thing. YouTube automatically detects it and notifies the company. If you have other content, then you're producing something. If not, it'll be taken down. Either way, using YouTube to listen to music is extremely simple, open and profitable for the artist most of the time. Every listen is more advertising.
Everywhere you go there is music illegally uploaded on youtube. You have to be kidding yourself if you think auto-detect is foolproof, its not even close.
Your last point doesn't make sense to me. The argument can be applied to music sharing hosts cohesively as a whole, how does that help the situation at all?
On January 23 2012 11:47 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:44 sluggaslamoo wrote:On January 23 2012 11:41 Jibba wrote:On January 23 2012 11:40 Kurr wrote:On January 23 2012 11:38 Jibba wrote:
What? You use YouTube to listen to specific songs. There's nothing questionable about it at all. The artist gets your hit. Not really. There are thousands of random people re-uploading songs to other channels. Yes, and they get removed when it's requested. It's still not the same as downloading someone's album. Same as Filesonic, all filehosts do this even Megaupload, what's the difference? Ding ding, another uninformed person who decided to post before reading the indictment. No, Megaupload didnt. That's why safe harbor laws don't protect them.
Ding ding. Megaupload did ban users and delete copyrighted material.
Megaupload made a big mistake in making a joke about it and trying to file a lawsuit against WMG (http://www.itproportal.com/2011/12/13/megaupload-files-lawsuit-against-universal-music-group-after-removal-youtube-video/). Megaupload suddenly became a threat to WMG and so WMG decided to kick their asses. However this is just one case of WMG stepping out of line and removing a song that was totally legal, original, and legitimate.
They simply do not have the resources to ban everyone, nobody does, youtube has a lot more man-power, but many people still slip through the cracks.
Youtube also profits from people uploading material illegally, and promotes it by giving money to uploaders. Should youtube be taken down too?
You might think Youtube is not hot on the radar, they are, but nobody wants to wage war with a global superpower. I've never used Pandora, so I can't say, but if you can stream illegally uploaded music on it, it should be up there with the rest.
|
On January 23 2012 11:57 Craton wrote:
Why would I care what a lawyer who is clearly trying to frame his case in the best possible light has to say when I have personally seen hundreds of times the exact opposite?
So you're happy being wilfully ignorant then?
What is the point?
|
On January 23 2012 11:59 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:57 Craton wrote:
Why would I care what a lawyer who is clearly trying to frame his case in the best possible light has to say when I have personally seen hundreds of times the exact opposite? Why would anyone care what you have to say when you haven't done an ounce of due diligence and are completely ignorant of the situation at hand? Your opinion is completely worthless in this discussion until you read up on it. If you made comments like that in the strategy forum without having watched the replay, you'd get banned.
Personal attacks like you've been doing in the last few pages would as well.
|
United States22883 Posts
YouTube is protected by safe harbor laws. Megaupload isn't because READ THE FUCKING INDICTMENT. I'm done arguing with ignoramuses about this. You do not know what the fuck you're talking about, because youve chosen to remain ignorant instead of spending 30 minutes to educate yourself.
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 23 2012 12:02 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 11:59 Jibba wrote:On January 23 2012 11:57 Craton wrote:
Why would I care what a lawyer who is clearly trying to frame his case in the best possible light has to say when I have personally seen hundreds of times the exact opposite? Why would anyone care what you have to say when you haven't done an ounce of due diligence and are completely ignorant of the situation at hand? Your opinion is completely worthless in this discussion until you read up on it. If you made comments like that in the strategy forum without having watched the replay, you'd get banned. Personal attacks like you've been doing in the last few pages would as well.
They're not ad hominems. They're based in the fact that you haven't done your reading, yet you think you deserve to be heard. There is a minimum requirement of effort in order to be taken seriously, and you are not meeting that minimum. That should be the standard across TL.
|
The beginning of the end, perhaps.
|
On January 23 2012 12:04 Jibba wrote:
YouTube is protected by safe harbor laws. Megaupload isn't because READ THE FUCKING INDICTMENT. I'm done arguing with ignoramuses about this. You do not know what the fuck you're talking about, because youve chosen to remain ignorant instead of spending 30 minutes to educate yourself.
It's kind of silly to take the accusations as anything more than accusations until the case is decided. I mean, nowhere have we seen the supposed e-mails, no where have Megaupload employees admitted anything in public. All we have is the investigation's accusations that still need to be proven in court. Unless you've seen otherwise, and I'd be really interested if you have, I don't understand why you come off so aggressive with only accusations to back your viewpoint.
|
On January 23 2012 12:09 xBillehx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 12:04 Jibba wrote:
YouTube is protected by safe harbor laws. Megaupload isn't because READ THE FUCKING INDICTMENT. I'm done arguing with ignoramuses about this. You do not know what the fuck you're talking about, because youve chosen to remain ignorant instead of spending 30 minutes to educate yourself. It's kind of silly to take the accusations as anything more than accusations until the case is decided. I mean, nowhere have we seen the supposed e-mails, no where have Megaupload employees admitted anything in public. All we have is the investigation's accusations that still need to be proven in court. Unless you've seen otherwise, and I'd be really interested if you have, I don't understand why you come off so aggressive with only accusations to back your viewpoint.
why would they admit anything in public... it's kind of silly to think that they would.
|
United States5162 Posts
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 23 2012 12:09 xBillehx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 12:04 Jibba wrote:
YouTube is protected by safe harbor laws. Megaupload isn't because READ THE FUCKING INDICTMENT. I'm done arguing with ignoramuses about this. You do not know what the fuck you're talking about, because youve chosen to remain ignorant instead of spending 30 minutes to educate yourself. It's kind of silly to take the accusations as anything more than accusations until the case is decided. I mean, nowhere have we seen the supposed e-mails, no where have Megaupload employees admitted anything in public. All we have is the investigation's accusations that still need to be proven in court. Unless you've seen otherwise, and I'd be really interested if you have, I don't understand why you come off so aggressive with only accusations to back your viewpoint.
Then you argue that the evidence is not credible or was obtained illegally. That is a proper argument, which while I may not agree with it, is actually a possible conclusion that I must accept. That is based on having done research and understanding the full situation. Saying "Megaupload is following DHCA!!!" shows you didn't do the research, thus you're arguing from ignorance.
How can we possibly have a real discussion if one side isn't caught up? It's like discussing a calculus problem with someone who's only up to trig.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
