Can someone expleine me what the hell is going on with megaupload and what is this guy talking about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tD1yaE0GfQ&feature=g-logo&context=G244665fFOAAAAAAACAA
Megaupload is shut down. See: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/megaupload-s-executives-in-court-4697639
The allegations included copyright infringement as well as conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to commit racketeering. Two of the offences carry a maximum penalty of 20 years.
Basically you know that thing they where trying to do with SOPA and PIPA? Turns out they don't need it. They shut it down. For being a file sharing sight. Not even based in the US.
For being a file sharing sight. Not even based in the US
Check out the charges:
The allegations included copyright infringement as well as conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to commit racketeering. Two of the offences carry a maximum penalty of 20 years.
I say good on them for shutting Megaupload down for these charges. They commit the crime, then they gotta do the crime.
They shut them down and seized all their records so they know everyone who's ever downloaded anything from them, i.e. they know if you've ever pirated anything from megaupload.
I say good on them for shutting Megaupload down for these charges. They commit the crime, then they gotta do the crime.
Turns out they didn't do the crime. This would be like shutting down YouTube because people are playing pirated videos. They are just a file sharing website, once again they are basically YouTube, this is basically SOPA/PIPA 'cept they are getting a little bit of a trial, rather than no trial at all. What exactly did they do?
But the government asserts that Megaupload merely wanted the veneer of legitimacy, while its employees knew full well that the site's main use was to distribute infringing content. Indeed, the government points to numerous internal e-mails and chat logs from employees showing that they were aware of copyrighted material on the site and even shared it with each other. Because of this, the government says that the site does not qualify for a âsafe harborâ of the kind that protected YouTube from Viacom's $1 billion lawsuit.
Also, read the charges for what they did (which has been posted twice). It gives a clearer outline than what I can explain.
Prosecutors, who have dubbed the entire Megaupload group as "Mega Conspiracy," have accused them of engaging in a devious scheme that leeched around $500 million from copyright holders while generating more than $175 million in criminal proceeds. "In exchange for payment, the Mega Conspiracy provides fast reproduction and distribution of infringing copies of copyrighted works from its servers located around the world," reads the indictment which was unsealed on Thursday.
Also, read the charges for what they did (which has been posted twice). It gives a clearer outline than what I can explain.
So basically someone uploaded something illegal on their sight, and some employees realized that there was something illegal on their sight? Going back to my YouTube example, it would be like shutting down YouTube for copyright infringement (I am sure there is some, can't give any examples or I would fit that bill, wouldn't I?)
Do you know how Megauploads made it's money? Probably via advertisements. Once again, Megaupload is basically YouTube, it makes money from whatever the hell is uploaded, no matter if it is legal or not. "Leeched $500 million"? And making 175 million TOTAL (Which, unlike you have been told, was not totally illegal downloads.). How does that money work? Lets say that Megaupload (Which I will now call MU for ease of saying) made a dollar in advertising for each person and had 175 million visits, and it would seem that it has over that at around 180 mil, that would mean the original would have to cost two dollars. Which is ether way to much or way to little, depending on what was "Stolen".
I don't see how this is really that legitamate since pretty much ALL file sharing websites have pirated software on it, I remember one that actualy makes you pay prenium to get some of the pirated programs, but they are still up and running.
ok, many of u are SO WRONG! SOPA and PIPA would not just shut down the site, but any site that is helping it run, AKA if someone here posted a coment for you to go to Megaupload. that is considered helping. If i make a youtube video that says "USE MEGAUPLOAD" (this is an example!!)all of youtube could be shut down. and secondly
Do you know how Megauploads made it's money? Probably via advertisements. Once again, Megaupload is basically YouTube, it makes money from whatever the hell is uploaded, no matter if it is legal or not. "Leeched $500 million"? And making 175 million TOTAL (Which, unlike you have been told, was not totally illegal downloads.). How does that money work? Lets say that Megaupload (Which I will now call MU for ease of saying) made a dollar in advertising for each person and had 175 million visits, and it would seem that it has over that at around 180 mil, that would mean the original would have to cost two dollars. Which is ether way to much or way to little, depending on what was "Stolen".
that may be true but... they may have sold some ileagle content (or vialated copyright laws) Thanks,
ok, many of u are SO WRONG! SOPA and PIPA would not just shut down the site, but any site that is helping it run, AKA if someone here posted a coment for you to go to Megaupload. that is considered helping. If i make a youtube video that says "USE MEGAUPLOAD" (this is an example!!)all of youtube could be shut down. and secondly
That is not how I have heard it run, assuming you are correct wouldn't that make it even worse?
that may be true but... they may have sold some ileagle content (or vialated copyright laws) Thanks,
They didn't "sell" anything, if I remember them correctly they are a free sight with premium features with rather strange rules to fit them. Once again, basically it was/is like YouTube, people would upload their content and it would be available for everyone. Since you have people, just everyday unchecked people, posting content on it it is bound to have some copyright violations. Does that mean it should be shut down?
They were likely going to wait to SOPA and PIPA passed then take down Megaupload under the new regulations trumpeting it as a victory for the bill. Since the bills got shot down they instead came up with trumped up charges as an excuse. I just hope non of you are thinking stopping SOPA and PIPA was meaningless. It did hold meaning, we just have to not stop there.
So basically someone uploaded something illegal on their sight, and some employees realized that there was something illegal on their sight? Going back to my YouTube example, it would be like shutting down YouTube for copyright infringement (I am sure there is some, can't give any examples or I would fit that bill, wouldn't I?)
Although in Youtubes case, they get rid of the videos/music. Ever noticed that annoying notice: The Music of this video has been removed do to a copyright claim by "XXXXX" Where as in MegaUpload case, they don't give a crap.
They didn't "sell" anything, if I remember them correctly they are a free sight with premium features with rather strange rules to fit them.
How do you know? I am sure the FBI would have considerable evidence to make these charges. Plus,
it was copyright infringement as well as conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to commit racketeering.
Aka: It has not happend yet, but they were planning to commit these offences.
Although in Youtubes case, they get rid of the videos/music. Ever noticed that annoying notice: The Music of this video has been removed do to a copyright claim by "XXXXX" Where as in MegaUpload case, they don't give a crap.
If I remember correctly they did have a system for reporting content and did take down material. As to the extent it was used I couldn't say.
How do you know? I am sure the FBI would have considerable evidence to make these charges. Plus,
He can say that because that's not how the system was set up to work.
Aka: It has not happend yet, but they were planning to commit these offences.
Is it possible to download straight from youtube via youtube? (not some 3rd party hack site)
It sounds like MU was a hub specifically for putting up material (most likely material that you, yourself, didn't make) for others to then download and keep copies of. I'm not quite sure of all of the proper terms that come with computers and how things work, but I'll give my best go at it.
The copy of the file stays on youtube, and is only ever on the viewer's computer transiently. Youtube takes illegal files down when made aware, and people on youtube don't usually want you reproducing their stuff and resubmitting it to youtube. The original owners wouldn't submit it to youtube if they didn't want those who could view it to have it transiently on their computers. I'm sure that the educational video owners don't even care if you download them, but most of them still ask for donations. Putting their stuff on a 3rd party site is still stealing from them. If they're good enough, then they're paid by the number of view they get... you detracting from that view count with their own videos is stealing from them.
The method by which it is done doesn't matter. The location from where it is done doesn't matter. Stealing is stealing. I was against the two bills b/c of their ambiguity and a few other things... but stealing is stealing. The internet isn't some place that transcends the rest of the world and in being so transcends things such as rules and laws. Rules and laws are nothing but human constructs, and as long as the powers that be in other countries are willing to work together and extradite people, then I guess that part of the internet hasn't transcended as much as it thought.
I might be wrong, but I think I remember some of the people here who are against this being the ones on that thread a while back about the 80+ year old nazi death camp guard who was being tried for war crimes... and I think I remember some "HE DID THE CRIME! HE DOES THE TIME!" If anything... that was the actual crime. Just find the thread. I don't want to give that dissertation all over again. But now that people are making it more difficult for you to freely reap the fruits of the hard labor of someone else, you complain?
I'm not quite sure that someone just happened to put some illegal material on there and some of the higher ups just happened to know about it... site like that are made primarily for that sort of thing... right? just like all of the sites that let you upload music so other people can download it for free. Youtube removes the stuff when notified of it. Apparently sites like this one thrive off of it. Even if they had "remium features" (not familiar w/ site), unless they struck a deal with everyone who had material put on there (by themselves or otherwise) they're profiting from someone else's work without giving them any of the money. That's the same as profiting from bootleg copies of cds/dvds.
According to what I've seen... it's ok to upload something that's not yours onto a site and get monies, but it's a whole different story when you're dishing out hard copies?
People don't want limits on the internet, amirite? That's realistically not going to happen until the actions of other people on the internet don't have non-internet world ramifications for other people. This whole internet vs real world thing is laughable... here's the thing... it's all the REAL world. The internet is just a technology that allows for massive almost instantaneous transmission of information. It isn't some other realm or universe. You might come up with some description of it in some symbolic sense that incorporates those words (or others that are similar), but it's just the real world. An internet outlet for piracy is still a real world outlet for piracy.
Censorship =/= stopping piracy. Stopping piracy = stopping piracy. Censorship = censorship(I said I didn't agree with the bills earlier... just so you didn't forget). You can probably find almost anything you want legally on the internet. Most of this would just attempt to stop the pirates.
Perhaps I made a few too many assumptions about MU. But, I wouldn't imagine such sites putting up the facades of report systems only to say they have them and then routinely weed out a few things just to keep up the farce of actually fighting piracy. ...and then not removing some of the other stuff until there were threats of lawsuits. Now, if I messed up in my assumptions of the site, then by all means please correct me. ...but, then go back and lets talk about the things I did. As in, what if my assumptions had been true. Are you for or against stopping internet piracy? Do you think sites made to be hubs of e-trading of illegal files for profit should be allowed to exist? Should the money stolen from the owners/creators of those files just be ignored? If the charges were true and the charges not "trumped" would you then support it?
Aka: It has not happend yet, but they were planning to commit these offences.
The fact that a person or organization is charged with a crime, doesn't mean that they are guilty of said crime. One is considered innocent until proven guilty. As a matter of fact it doesn't even mean that the prosecutors have "considerable evidence" to make these charges. You know, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich, if that's what you wanted.
Generally when someone is charged with a crime, the prosecutors trump up the biggest charge they can squeak through. The prosecutors puff the charges up to be the toughest, most severe criminal category possible to scare the defendant and give them bargaining power later. Frankly, its just a bullying tactic.
Finally, in most cases, conspiracy can only be prosecuted once an overt act has occurred. An overt act is generally defined as any action, whether criminal or not, that would be necessary for the crime to be completed, such as buying a gun to use in an armed robbery. A mere intention in the mind to commit a crime is not enough. No -provable- overt act, no conspiracy.
