Slashdot Mirror


Megaupload.com Shut Down, Founder Charged With Piracy

zacharye writes "Federal prosecutors in Virginia have shut down notorious file-sharing site Megaupload.com and charged the service's founder with violating piracy laws. The Associated Press broke the story on Thursday, reporting that the indictment accuses Megaupload.com's owner with costing copyright holders including record labels and movie studios more than $500 million in lost revenue."

1,005 comments

  1. U.S. law is the new international law by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary doesn't mention it, but none of those indicted or arrested were U.S. citizens or had likely even ever set foot on U.S. soil. Even if you're in another country, you had better make sure you're not violating U.S. law. Here's a full list of those foreigners who foolishly thought they weren't under U.S. jurisdiction (from the DOJ website):

    Kim Dotcom, aka Kim Schmitz and Kim Tim Jim Vestor, 37, a resident of both Hong Kong and New Zealand. Dotcom founded Megaupload Limited and is the director and sole shareholder of Vestor Limited, which has been used to hold his ownership interests in the Mega-affiliated sites.

    Finn Batato, 38, a citizen and resident of Germany, who is the chief marketing officer;

    Julius Bencko, 35, a citizen and resident of Slovakia, who is the graphic designer;

    Sven Echternach, 39, a citizen and resident of Germany, who is the head of business development;

    Mathias Ortmann, 40, a citizen of Germany and resident of both Germany and Hong Kong, who is the chief technical officer, co-founder and director;

    Andrus Nomm, 32, a citizen of Estonia and resident of both Turkey and Estonia, who is a software programmer and head of the development software division;

    Bram van der Kolk, aka Bramos, 29, a Dutch citizen and resident of both the Netherlands and New Zealand, who oversees programming and the underlying network structure for the Mega conspiracy websites.

    Dotcom, Batato, Ortmann and van der Kolk were arrested today in Auckland, New Zealand, by New Zealand authorities, who executed provisional arrest warrants requested by the United States. Bencko, Echternach and Nomm remain at large.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by alphatel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most will confuse this with a SOPA action, which will make it that much easier to hype.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    2. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      SOPA might as well be called iDMCA because it basically takes the DMCA Takedown system to an international level. (I.E. If a TLD won't take down a piracy site, ban the whole TLD from the US Internet.) Maybe what we should trade for that is a punitive damages clause added for incorrect DMCA letters.

    3. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But they used server located in the US.

      If you stand in Mexico and use a remote control car to rob a bank in the US, the US will come after you..and visa versa.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All that with the money he made from piracy.

      Or by running a useful business. Come on, they have an advertisement with a bunch of artists about how useful their site is for their work. Some people using Google to find unauthorized files doesn't mean Schmidt's money is "made from piracy".

    5. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, this is a good argument for why we don't need SOPA/PIPA.

    6. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and people think Ron Paul is the crazy one for wanting America's fingers out of other country's pies.

      This sort of thing is going to spark widespread international hatred for the United States. No, not the general dislike that many countries have for us now, but honest-to-god hatred. Look what good things came out of that situation in the mideast.

    7. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by poity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Before anyone gets voted up to the stratosphere or down to oblivion here, we should remind ourselves that there is no way to tell how legitimately or illegitimately he made his money until a breakdown of his income is published.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    8. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm just glad it doesn't work the other way around. I could put swastikas all over my website on some server in Germany, confident that the FBI would laugh at Germany if they tried to have an American citizen arrested and deported.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. I have used services like that to move large files between offices. There are plenty of legitimate uses for sites like these. These bastards should be forced to go after the uploaders. But they are too damn lazy, and know damn well there is no payday at the end, and not from common sense, but from EXPERIENCE.

    10. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by hawks5999 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you are going to be accused of piracy, hope that you live in one of these non-extradition treaty countries: Bhutan Botswana Brunei Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad China Comoros Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Gabon Guinea Guinea Bissau Indonesia Iran Ivory Coast Jordan Kuwait Laos Lebanon Libya Madagascar Mali Maldives Mauritania Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Nepal Niger Oman Qatar Russia Rwanda Samoa Sao Tome e Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Somalia Sudan Syria Togo Tunisia Uganda United Arab Emirates Vanuatu Vietnam Yemen Yemen South Zaire

    11. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kim Dotcom, aka Kim Schmitz and Kim Tim Jim Vestor, 37, a resident of both Hong Kong and New Zealand. Dotcom founded Megaupload Limited and is the director and sole shareholder of Vestor Limited, which has been used to hold his ownership interests in the Mega-affiliated sites.

      ...his name was seriously Kim Dotcom? Or rather, he willingly changed his last name to "Dotcom"?

      Okay, the other guys, they're free to go in my book. Kim, though, should be arrested for that last name alone.

    12. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Oakey · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "All that with the money he made from piracy."

      When will the FBI shutting down all those US based Usenet providers offering high speeds and 1000 day retention on binaries? No one is honestly paying $10-$40 a month for text articles, are they?

      --
      "Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
    13. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't think the exact same scenario would happen under Paul, you really are crazy.

    14. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tmosley · · Score: 2

      No, I don't think they would. They might demand that MEXICAN authorities go after you, and failure to do so would cause an international incident, but they can't come after you directly. This action is outrageous.

    15. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, this is a good argument for why we don't need SOPA/PIPA.

      My thinking exactly.

      Present laws should be shown to fail before new laws, which are effectively wrecking balls to swat mosquitos, are enacted.

      Timing is certainly insteresting. Is this meant to underscore that point? Could be...

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    16. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

      So, If I am in southern Texas and see a Mexican climbing over the fence, between the two countries, I then shoot him as he tops the fence and his body falls into Mexico who has jurisdiction?

      The bullet entered the skull in Texas and exited in Mexico
      The body is on the Mexican side
      The crime of shooting him happened in Texas.

    17. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by VAElynx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A man that made his money off "piracy" is any day more likeable than those who make equivalent sums by exploiting workers. Nobody seems to complain in those cases, though.

    18. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised North Korea and Iran are not on that list.

    19. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Before anyone gets voted up to the stratosphere or down to oblivion here, we should remind ourselves that there is no way to tell how legitimately or illegitimately he made his money until a breakdown of his income is published.

      And we'll probably be a lot older and following other stories by the time that comes out...

      In today's news, aliens land in Los Angeles ans proclaim L. Ron Hubbard totally slanders them in his Church of Scientology writings and they plan to sue. Tom Cruise was unavailable for comment as he was squashed flat by the alien ship landing.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    20. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      From your description, he is not taken to the court, but the site is. So if all they have against him is only this site, they actually have nothing, not even the right to close the site, or to prosecute him, as this site is NOT USA hosted.

    21. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by mister_playboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's also been "industry" standard to know that Megaupload is very nice for piracy uploaders.

      Megaupload is very nice for downloaders. Unlike most other sites, you were not able to make money by uploading to MU. It was the generous downloading limts that made the site popular.

      MU had unrivalled file retention for a free service. Even when uploading as a free user, files were retained for years, even without any downloads. It's fully possible to find working MU links posted in 2005. The only thing they removed files for was a DMCA takedown. If there was a limit or the files you could upload to a free account, I never hit it. Other sites did not offer anything similar unless you paid for preimum membership.

      Kim make have been a crook, but MU itself was the bastion of free filesharing in the P2P mould from a user standpoint, whereas nearly every other site except Mediafire is based on commerical (payouts to uploaders) filesharing.

      A sad day. Back to the torrents!

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    22. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Texas law only requires that you shoot him in season and buy a tag.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    23. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by poity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not calling for his income to be published. I'm saying in the absence of their site statistics and their income breakdown, neither FightFreedomOfSpeach nor the AC who responded to his post can prove their assertions. One claims his money is made illegitimately, the other claims the opposite. What I'm seeing is moderator reaction favoring the AC and punishing FightFreedomOfSpeach in an instance where all we have is speculation. I'm for a neutral stance until facts emerge, and because of that I'm against this one sided moderation. Why are you so defensive?

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    24. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      I don't see how they could go after you......legally i mean....

    25. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Let's not give them any ideas...

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    26. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have not the slightest idea what Ron Paul's platform is.

    27. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by the_saint1138 · · Score: 2

      Ugh, where us the "-1 shhhh" option when I need it.

    28. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Oakey · · Score: 1

      The first rule of....

      The second rule of.... ;)

      --
      "Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
    29. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by operagost · · Score: 0

      Wow... that's like a Who's Who of suck. And Russia's still in with the suck. I guess Kuwait's not very appreciative of the USA saving them from Saddam in the 1990s, huh?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    30. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Megaupload is also a very good way to share large files that you have created with others, without setting up your own website. An entirely legitimate and legal use.

      What's the balance between the two? Was there a better way to reduce piracy? What unintended effects are present?

      I have downloaded many files from Megaupload and MediaFire - always files uploaded and released by the original authors, who don't want to pay to host files of multi-megabyte (often 10's of mbegabyte or more) size. I know it's an easy target, but I fail to see why this business model is necessarily 'piracy'.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    31. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no god, and Ron Paul would not tolerate piracy any more than any other crime.

      What we're talking about is a new way of life for the human race, where IP is actually open and accessible for all, at very little cost, if not free of any cost.

      Rapid duplication of digital content, easily shared, for free, for the benefit of humanity... this is the future, and no law will stop it, and if it ever does, we have stopped the evolutionary process of our species.

      Our way of lives have to change. Capitalism has no place in the future. Do you think aliens will respect our dollar? :P Our species knows where it has to go... Its a wonder why we fight against progress for selfish needs.

    32. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oderint dum metuant.

      Don't steal American property and you won't have American law enforcement on your ass. Don't hurt American citizens and you won't have American cruise missiles in your capital cities.

    33. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 2

      Julius Bencko, 35, a citizen and resident of Slovakia, who is the graphic designer;

      Dotcom, Batato, Ortmann and van der Kolk were arrested today in Auckland, New Zealand, by New Zealand authorities, who executed provisional arrest warrants requested by the United States. Bencko, Echternach and Nomm remain at large.

      A graphics designer remains at large? Presumed armed and dangerous, I hope.

    34. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by DinDaddy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Tom Cruise was unavailable for comment as he was squashed flat by the alien ship landing.

      Rendering him several inches shorter.

    35. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by future+assassin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >It's also been "industry" standard to know that Megaupload is very nice for piracy uploaders.

      From the same industry that says every download is a lost sale?
      From the same industry that pirated and sold works they didn't have rights to? http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/135/

      > It's only good - criminals are taken to court and jail

      Alleged criminals....

      >so companies can again produce goods and software and they don't have to see the widespread piracy that is going on.

      Strange so are you saying movies, music and software would be that much more creative and better quality if there was no piracy? I mean all movies and music albums should reap in millions from every release. If they don't apparently its because the companies can't make good works because piracy is holding them back.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    36. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Your logic is interesting. Since when has associating Apple with internationalism been hateful?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    37. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most systems of law (AFAIK) determine whether the crime is considered to be committed where it "started" or where the end result took place. The interesting thing would be, in your example, if Mexico chose the former and the US chose the latter.

    38. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO, the US is the new tyrant.

      By the way, Virginia is one of the most fascist states in the entire US, for those who may not know this.
      Whenever some possibly questionable legal matter needs to be railroaded through, the courts in
      Virginia can always be counted on to do the bidding of their corporate masters.

    39. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nowhere! The survivors are still alive!

      Wait, what was the joke?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    40. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's what they did. They asked New Zealand to arrest the men involved, and New Zealand police arrested them. Perhaps reading is not your strong suit?

      There are plenty of reasons to be unhappy with this that are based in fact. You should try one of those.

    41. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Funny

      Iran is. Remaining under debate is how many Yemens there are.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    42. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Unless these mega sites rent servers in the US, then this isn't at all analogous. By convention a bank robbery is considered to take place in the jurisdiction where the bank is located, regardless of where one might be when the bank is actually robbed.

      It's very different to be located in a foreign country behaving in a way that might be legal there and then be hauled into a completely different country without jurisdiction because somebody else happened to be in their jurisdiction.

    43. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by ironjaw33 · · Score: 2

      So they drag these guys from halfway around the world to try them in my backyard (I live 30 miles from Norfolk, where the Eastern District court is). The Eastern District is also notorious for patent suits. In that article, the newspaper claims it's the speediness that attracts these cases, but I'm guessing it's the likelihood of getting a jury packed with current and former military members who favor harsh punishments for trivial infractions.

      We've also had our share of Somali pirates and a few Guantanamo prisoners tried here.

    44. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by hedwards · · Score: 1

      He is crazy and it's their decision whether or not to extradite those folks. Now, if we invade and take the suspects by force, then he would have a point.

    45. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if it's on public property, if it's on your own land it falls under regular farming maintenance.

      You want to have to buy a tag every time you slaughter a cow? Of course not. Same sort of thing.

    46. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I don't think they would. They might demand that MEXICAN authorities go after you, and failure to do so would cause an international incident, but they can't come after you directly. This action is outrageous.

      Ever heard of Osama Bin Ladin? The USA didn't ask Pakistan to arrest him. They just sent in their own assasins.

    47. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tom Cruise was unavailable for comment as he was squashed flat by the alien ship landing.

      Rendering him several inches shorter.

      Er, I don't think that negative height is actually possible.

    48. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure, except then you get to experience extraordinary rendition instead of extradition.

    49. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tmosley · · Score: 2

      Yes, and it was an international incident. Look at the consequences of that action. They cut off our supply lines into Afghanistan.

    50. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      There's also some assorted nonsense about allowed calibers.

      Oh, and 'You kill it, you clean it'.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    51. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by SomePgmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It'll all be in the spin.

      Murdoch* et al. will point at it as, "See! This kind of thing is killing American business!"

      The other side will say, "Doh. You used what legal muscle you already had, which is already abusive."

      * If you didn't see him squirm on Twitter yesterday, you're missing out.

    52. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by greap · · Score: 1

      Even if you're in another country, you had better make sure you're not violating U.S. law

      Extradition orders are only honored when the action a country is seeking to extradite for is illegal in both countries. This is why they will be in front of a judge today/tomorrow who will rule if the "crimes" they are accused of meet the dual criminality requirements.

    53. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Sancho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the "failure" is that the shutdown and arrest couldn't be done without due process. SOPA/PIPA eliminates a great deal of due process for the initial shutdown.

      Just consider how long megaupload's been around. If one could just mail a letter to their DNS provider to get it shut down, you can bet it would have happened long ago.

    54. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tmosley · · Score: 2

      Apparently it isn't yours, as I was talking about geekoid's post, not the article. But thanks for taking the time to post an insult.

    55. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by gnick · · Score: 1

      Iran is under the 'I's between Indonesia and Ivory Coast... I notice though that at a minimum, North Korea, Cuba, Bahrain, and Namibia are missing.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    56. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I don't think it matters. This type of thing happens some way below the office of president, and he has no authority. I'm sure if he put in a word unofficially it would be obeyed, but that's all. The president isn't responsible for everything.

    57. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      There's a brief article about him...

      Interesting...with a name like 'Kim', I'd assumed it was a chick....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    58. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is a man who makes money off of "piracy" not also someone who exploits workers since he doesn't give money to anyone who worked to make that content?

    59. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Baloroth · · Score: 2, Informative

      Aaand they didn't go after the MegaUpload guys directly either. They asked the New Zealand authorities (which is where they were living) to do it for them, presumably under the US-NZ extradition treaty.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    60. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, we think Ron Paul is crazy for believing in intelligent design, for voting to defund Planned Parenthood, for supporting a Constitutional Amendment defining a fetus as a human being, and many other things; none of which involve fingers or pies.

    61. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You have not the slightest idea what the power of a fully funded bought and paid for Congress is. 'El Presidente' is supposed to be the figurehead of the government, not the Supreme Dictator. If by some chance Ron Paul does scam up the presidency, expect Congress to beat him senseless like a rented mule.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    62. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by CruelKnave · · Score: 1

      Oh, I wouldn't say that nobody complains about workers being exploited. Oblig

    63. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by segin · · Score: 1

      I've known MediaFire to be quite useful as a file host. I mean, come on, *every* file host ever (aside from the ones that manually check EVERY upload... yeah right) has had some form or another of piracy. And it seems a lot of the AOSP ROMs I've tried on my phone lately were hosted or mirrored on MediaFire.

      Yes, AOSP ROMs. Android OPEN SOURCE Project. I guess I could gather that open source is also piracy.

    64. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by unjedai · · Score: 1

      Looks like justice.gov is overwhelmed (I'd say slashdotted but this goes beyond slashdot).

    65. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It'll all be in the spin.

      Murdoch* et al. will point at it as, "See! This kind of thing is killing American business!"

      The other side will say, "Doh. You used what legal muscle you already had, which is already abusive."

      * If you didn't see him squirm on Twitter yesterday, you're missing out.

      Rupert says you should check your voicemail more often. Texts, too.

      Really, not an ounce of sympathy for a man who made his fortune ruining people.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    66. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are crazy to even think that, someone who thinks the same scenario would happen under Paul, is crazy.

    67. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Princeofcups · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Before anyone gets voted up to the stratosphere or down to oblivion here, we should remind ourselves that there is no way to tell how legitimately or illegitimately he made his money until a breakdown of his income is published.

      Illegally as defined by whom exactly? Printing an image of Mohamed is illegal in Iran. Should we extradite all US offenders to Iran? Most people outside of the US don't see sharing files as illegal in the same way. As a US citizen, I'm appalled and disgusted. How many people were killed by Megaupload? How many made to starve? This is a sickening abuse of power in the name of corporate profits.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    68. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by causality · · Score: 1

      and people think Ron Paul is the crazy one for wanting America's fingers out of other country's pies.

      Only because they maintain the illusion that, as average citizens, the US Government somehow represents them. So long as they believe that and believe the system is not broken, they think "America's fingers" are "their own fingers". And hey, since it's your own, it must be good according to you, right? Clearly anyone who objects to that is mistaken, ignorant, un-educated, etc...

      This sort of thing is going to spark widespread international hatred for the United States. No, not the general dislike that many countries have for us now, but honest-to-god hatred. Look what good things came out of that situation in the mideast.

      Don't worry. If they get so desperate and psychotic that they do something drastic about that, we'll be reassured that they merely hate us because of our great freedoms. Since we are currently reducing those, they should love us soon enough. In the meantime, it will provide a wonderful justification for more military action which means more pointless wars which means more pointless spending and bloodshed which means more defense spending which may help our economy. That's what matters. If you don't think so, you're against us.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    69. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by hendridm · · Score: 1

      I think you're splitting hairs. The U.S. would "come after you" via the MEXICAN police. I don't think the parent necessarily meant an FBI agent knocking on the door of your adobe and slapping cuffs on you. -,-

    70. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by PRMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's a brief article about him...

      Interesting...with a name like 'Kim', I'd assumed it was a chick....

      And with a name like 'Dotcom', I expected him to be a website...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    71. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by bky1701 · · Score: 0

      That's not why I think he is crazy. I think he is crazy for advocating 18th century monetary policy and "states rights," which has basically always meant the right of southern states to remove the rights of minorities.

    72. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      >If you are going to be accused of piracy, hope that you live in one of these non-extradition treaty countries: Bhutan Botswana Brunei Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad China Comoros Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Gabon Guinea Guinea Bissau Indonesia Iran Ivory Coast Jordan Kuwait Laos Lebanon Libya Madagascar Mali Maldives Mauritania Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Nepal Niger Oman Qatar Russia Rwanda Samoa Sao Tome e Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Somalia Sudan Syria Togo Tunisia Uganda United Arab Emirates Vanuatu Vietnam Yemen Yemen South Zaire

      And guess where the next Silicon Valley's and data centers will be?

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    73. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about, most hollywood blockbusters are already in the red nowadays. After all, Lord Of The Rings wasn't a ridiculously, insanely lucrative money magnet... it was so far in debt, they couldn't pay Peter Jackson at first.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

      Yaaaaaay... all legal, legit tactics! Nothing illegal here, move along.

    74. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 0

      Where are mod points when you need them?

      Somebody throw a funny at this comment!

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    75. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Virginia actually is in the USA though, whether you wish it wasn't or not.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    76. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Hentes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is a very good argument why people outside the US should still care about SOPA/PIPA.

    77. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by jpapon · · Score: 1

      Don't most extradition treaties specify that the action must be a crime in both countries for the extradition treaty to apply?

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    78. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind that Ron Paul is proof of the phrase, "It's possible to be both insane and correct." RMS is another.

    79. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      I believe you want 'overrated'.

    80. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Nobody seems to complain in those cases, though.

      They do. We just don't hear about it.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    81. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As much money as these guys had, they should have taken a page from the drug dealers handbook and bought a few cops. Or even a lot of cops. Then they could have been warned when the scuttlebutt warned there were arrests afoot.

      They should also have hired some other, specialized help to deal with the "authorities"

      Frankly, the US and it's "world policeman" actions are rather tiresome. I wanna see the good guys(whoever opposes US domination) win.

      These things are going to occur to people other than drug dealers pretty soon.

    82. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      In Somalia youj don't need to be extradited, US troops could just drag you out of your hut at night.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    83. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      This sort of thing is going to spark widespread international hatred for the United States.

      Judging by the U.S. government's actions since ... well, since 1954, they really don't give a shit. The United States is like the honey badger of the community of nations.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    84. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Bucky24 · · Score: 2

      You seem to have misread the post you were replying to. GP is talking about a website, something you can ssh or ftp into. The swastikas could be placed from anywhere in the world. The server however would reside in Germany.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    85. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      I hope they weren't important files... you were basically trusting your data to a guy who has been convicted of credit card fraud, insider trading, and embezzlement.

      He has been going around spending craploads of money on parties, cars, etc, for years before Megaupload, etc, were every founded. Wonder where that money came from...

    86. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Bucky24 · · Score: 2

      But will he stick to that platform if elected? Most elected officials don't, afaik.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    87. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Present laws should be shown to fail before new laws, which are effectively wrecking balls to swat mosquitos, are enacted.

      What happens if Russia or China arrests that guy first? What will the US do? Throw a fit?

      And a perhaps more pertinent question? Will any country give asylum if it becomes clear such people will be victim of unfair judgement by going to the USA? (I bet they will get harsher penalties than people who committed worse crimes...)

    88. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Congress can pass all the laws it wants, but if the Executive branch doesn't enforce them, they can go pound sand.

    89. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by jd2112 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It'll all be in the spin.

      Murdoch* et al. will point at it as, "See! This kind of thing is killing American business!"

      The other side will say, "Doh. You used what legal muscle you already had, which is already abusive."

      * If you didn't see him squirm on Twitter yesterday, you're missing out.

      I first saw this on fox news (link from google news, I wouldn't normally go there.) The article had so much pro-SOPA spin on it I got dizzy just reading it.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    90. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm still too afraid to post this pseudonymously, but if they're extraditing these people I can't be much further down the list :-( I figure they already have their sights on me if they're hunting down MegaUpload's graphic designer.

    91. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by znrt · · Score: 2

      we should remind ourselves that there is no way to tell how legitimately or illegitimately he made his money until a breakdown of his income is published.

      likewise there is no way to tell how legitimately or illegitimately his shop was shut down.

      i can accuse you of causing me $500 million in lost revenue, just as easily. shouldn't I prove it? should a breakdown of your income be published in the meantime?

    92. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      NZ is a bad place to hide because even a small shift in US trade regulations would seriously damage theirn economy. The let the rainbow warrior bombers go because of a trade deal for butter with the European Union.

    93. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By US law you are innocent until proven guilty, so there is no stupid "neutral stance", either proven guilty or innocent and since there is no proof of wrong-doing, this is an ABUSE by us authorities.

    94. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by cicho · · Score: 1

      What you say totally makes sense but it may just be a thing of the past:
      http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16148629

      (The article conveniently omits that one British court had already dismissed the guy's case, effectively saying he didn't commit a crime in the UK. Then another British court okayed his extradition to the US.)

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    95. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

      All that with the money he made from piracy.

      All with that money he made from advertising clickthroughs and membership fees. God bless NoScript...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    96. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a better argument for why we don't need the USA.

    97. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Informative

      I hope they weren't important files... you were basically trusting your data to a guy who has been convicted of credit card fraud, insider trading, and embezzlement.

      Have you never heard of encryption?

    98. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      I'm just glad it doesn't work the other way around. I could put swastikas all over my website on some server in Germany, confident that the FBI would laugh at Germany if they tried to have an American citizen arrested and deported.

      Apples to oranges.

      The crime committed in this instance (copyright infringement) thanks to international trade agreements is illegal in NZ and the US. It would be more like someone hosting child porn in Germany. The US would then be willing to extradite since both countries share the same laws/values.

    99. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by ilsaloving · · Score: 4, Funny

      *raises hand*

      Anyone else hear the voice of Yakko Warner (from the Animaniacs cartoon) as they read that?

    100. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Printing an image of Mohamed is illegal in Iran. Should we extradite all US offenders to Iran?

      That would actually be quite fun. I'd like to see that.

    101. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by genjix · · Score: 1

      Do not stand for this flagrant abuse of our farcical democracy!

      Megaupload has been forcibly closed by the FBI. In a sickening undermining of the people’s will, they are making an example out of an historic, legitimate, useful and well-known website. This is a prophetic glimmer of the coming war against pure free speech- the internet.

      This happened once before. Here in the UK, the IWF (Internet Watch Foundation) is a censoring system for the internet. In 1996, the Metropolitan Police started requesting the banning of illegal content by ISPs in the UK. With veiled sly threats they asked that ISPs engage in ‘self-enforcement’ rather than forcing them to enforce the law on them.

      Most of the ISPs complied except Demon internet. Demon was a British ISP that contributed to the Open Source community, ran several IRC servers and were pioneers of their time. They objected on the grounds of it being “unacceptable censorship”. A few days later, a tabloid expose appeared in the Observer newspaper alleging that the director of Demon was supplying paedophiles with photographs of children being sexually abused.

      Then the police let it be known that during that summer, they were planning a crack-down on an unspecified ISP as a test-case (translation: making an example of them). Between the threats and pressure, the IWF was formed- a supposedly voluntary organisation but in fact a fake-charity and a quango. The IWF is a disgraceful secretive group with an awful corrupt history and no public oversight.

      Now we see the same tactic has been used against Megaupload. They are using the threat of violence to coerce companies, how the British police did to create their own laws. The SOPA legislation did not go their way, so they have resulted to immoral tactics of repression.

      From ACTA which is decided behind closed European chambers, the DEA which was pushed through undemocratically at alarming speed before elections, evil La Hadopi and now SOPA/PIPA in the US, there is nowhere to run. The nepotists are determined to push through these legislation. At all costs. This is not about piracy- it never was and will not do a thing. It is about control.

      We have built a tool. For all their false talk of democracy we have for the first time in history reached this epochal moment. Self determination. If they truly believed in democracy, we could have a direct-democracy tomorrow. The tools exist. Instead we see this flagrant deception. It has become acceptable for politicians to cater to the greatest common denominator. We let them off the hook on the truth like Cameron pretending to be pro-NHS or Obama pretending to be Christian because it is for voters. Since when did it become acceptable to lie! Now today we see this limp-wristed hand wringing by the US president about how he will veto SOPA. Oh shut up.

      Was it Gordan Brown who said that voting levels were dangerously low in the below-30s because youngsters today are apolitical. He wanted mandatory attendance for voters. No, we are not apolitical, we are sick of your lies and deceit. This generation is probably more political than any generation in history. In the 80s, only 5% of people in the US were members of organisations. In the 90s, 70% of Americans belonged to some kind of organisation. People are mobilising and prescient of issues.

      Libel law is atrociously bad in the UK. Payouts are 10 times greater than in main-land Europe and you get a situation where billionaires use law firms like Carter-Ruck to keep news publishers (which are poor) in court and bleed them dry. Time magazine did an undercover piece of reporting and was sued for libel. They won the case but it ended up costing them $1 million. That’s effectively a fine of $1 million for undercover journalism.

      Of course when the law is broken, what do we do? Make more laws! That is why California has brought in anti-SLAPP legislation.

      Patent law is so stupid and I won’t even go there.

      Copyright is fascist. I find it revolting that

    102. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just imagine if/when we contact an interstellar species what they will think of Scientology.

      "What? Listen stupid human, we have interstellar starships, mass converters, plasma cannons, and molecular decohesion units. Why would we waste the time and resources to fly halfway across the galaxy to dump some malcontents on a volcano and use a primitive and messy nuclear fission explosive device? Just disintegrate or recycle them. Or if you really want to be dramatic, toss them into the sun. The bizarre things you superstitious barbarians will imagine just astounds us. Though it does make for some interesting xenosociology studies."

      I'm sure others can think of even funnier responses.

    103. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by makomk · · Score: 2

      Not even then. Even if the records of his site did record which files made him the most money, it's kind of hard to tell the difference between a cryptically named encrypted RAR containing pirated video and a cryptically named encrypted RAR containing internal documents from some small company whose employees are using it as a cheap way to pass files around.

    104. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Nyder · · Score: 2

      Tom Cruise was unavailable for comment as he was squashed flat by the alien ship landing.

      Rendering him several inches shorter.

      Tom Cruise is rendered? I knew a real person couldn't be as stupid as he is.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    105. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by angelbar · · Score: 1

      You can enter North Korea without being constantly monitored ?

      --
      -no sig today-
    106. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any further jurisidictional test than asking the requesting country "do you claim jurisdiction?"

      --
      FGD 135
    107. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I don't think they would. They might demand that MEXICAN authorities go after you, and failure to do so would cause an international incident, but they can't come after you directly. This action is outrageous.

      You are so naive. The US has kidnaped people from all around the world when local autorities didn't want to deport someone.

    108. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Nope, this was a longgggg time coming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload#Unavailability

    109. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by genjix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do not stand for this flagrant abuse of our farcical democracy!

      Megaupload has been forcibly closed by the FBI. In a sickening undermining of the people’s will, they are making an example out of an historic, legitimate, useful and well-known website. This is a prophetic glimmer of the coming war against pure free speech- the internet.

      This happened once before. Here in the UK, the IWF (Internet Watch Foundation) is a censoring system for the internet. In 1996, the Metropolitan Police started requesting the banning of illegal content by ISPs in the UK. With veiled sly threats they asked that ISPs engage in ‘self-enforcement’ rather than forcing them to enforce the law on them.

      Most of the ISPs complied except Demon internet. Demon was a British ISP that contributed to the Open Source community, ran several IRC servers and were pioneers of their time. They objected on the grounds of it being “unacceptable censorship”. A few days later, a tabloid expose appeared in the Observer newspaper alleging that the director of Demon was supplying paedophiles with photographs of children being sexually abused.

      Then the police let it be known that during that summer, they were planning a crack-down on an unspecified ISP as a test-case (translation: making an example of them). Between the threats and pressure, the IWF was formed- a supposedly voluntary organisation but in fact a fake-charity and a quango. The IWF is a disgraceful secretive group with an awful corrupt history and no public oversight.

      Now we see the same tactic has been used against Megaupload. They are using the threat of violence to coerce companies, how the British police did to create their own laws. The SOPA legislation did not go their way, so they have resulted to immoral tactics of repression.

      From ACTA which is decided behind closed European chambers, the DEA which was pushed through undemocratically at alarming speed before elections, evil La Hadopi and now SOPA/PIPA in the US, there is nowhere to run. The nepotists are determined to push through these legislation. At all costs. This is not about piracy- it never was and will not do a thing. It is about control.

      We have built a tool. For all their false talk of democracy we have for the first time in history reached this epochal moment. Self determination. If they truly believed in democracy, we could have a direct-democracy tomorrow. The tools exist. Instead we see this flagrant deception. It has become acceptable for politicians to cater to the greatest common denominator. We let them off the hook on the truth like Cameron pretending to be pro-NHS or Obama pretending to be Christian because it is for voters. Since when did it become acceptable to lie! Now today we see this limp-wristed hand wringing by the US president about how he will veto SOPA. Oh shut up.

      Was it Gordan Brown who said that voting levels were dangerously low in the below-30s because youngsters today are apolitical. He wanted mandatory attendance for voters. No, we are not apolitical, we are sick of your lies and deceit. This generation is probably more political than any generation in history. In the 80s, only 5% of people in the US were members of organisations. In the 90s, 70% of Americans belonged to some kind of organisation. People are mobilising and prescient of issues.

      Libel law is atrociously bad in the UK. Payouts are 10 times greater than in main-land Europe and you get a situation where billionaires use law firms like Carter-Ruck to keep news publishers (which are poor) in court and bleed them dry. Time magazine did an undercover piece of reporting and was sued for libel. They won the case but it ended up costing them $1 million. That’s effectively a fine of $1 million for undercover journalism.

      Of course when the law is broken, what do we do? Make more laws! That is why California has brought in anti-SLAPP legislation.

      Patent law is so stupid and I won’t even go there.

      Copyright is fascist. I find it revolting that

    110. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      Quite the contrary, since the actions are already legal, you should be asking for a law that puts all available actions, requirements, etc., under one Act so it's easier to follow.

      Fighting Bills that intend to do this is really just making it harder for the public at large over the long run.

    111. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, this guy made his money by exploiting the workers who made the content.

    112. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      Yeah due process...damn pesky thing. Sure makes you wonder about lawyers sometimes doesn't it?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    113. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that's what the sites he stole credit card info from thought, as well...

    114. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Synerg1y · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd love to hear how megaupload made money from piracy when uploading / downloading from the site has always been free. Only thing you'd have to pay for is if you wanted faster download speeds, irrelevant to the user generated content on the site. Megaupload couldn't exist under SOPA / PIPA laws irregardless for that reason.

      Also, I am very curious as to what they (the arrested) can / will argue. A lot of lesser arguments have been shut down by courts (ex. I didn't know it was on my server), but megaupload is a little different and unique of a RIAA/MPAA victim isn't it?

      If the above can get the US government to consider SOPA though, I don't like their chances considering lobbyists trying to buy a guilty verdict from the judge.

    115. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      Oh no, this is exactly why there have been a slew of international copyright groups formed who have successfully lobbied for national governments to enter in to treaties that cover cross-border copyright enforcement.

    116. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      I think the reason is that people assume piracy as the first thing. Eon's ago I asked what were the non-infringing uses of sites like Megaupload (as at the time I couldn't think of any - call it a brain fart or ignorance, or whatever). Some people were actually polite enough to explain to me what the legitimate uses were. I think it all just stems from a knee-jerk reaction. I think if people bothered to take the time to really think about it, it's rather obvious. I know I felt a little stupid when people explained it to me. It was very much a "duh" moment.

    117. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If you want to believe that it's trivial to crack strong encryption, go ahead living in your fantasy world.

    118. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ron Paul is a racist. Regardless of his isolationist stand on foreign policy (which I support up to a certain point), he is insane if he believes a restaurant should have the right to refuse to serve black people food. We tried that already. It wasn't any better for the white people and it was a hellish second-class-citizen state for everyone else. It's not about "property rights" unless we're counting people with certain skin colors as "property" (again...) It's about the right to discriminate, and no matter how Ron Paul tries to gloss it over, that's what he supports, and that's what nearly all of America is against.

      Is he insane? Yeah, but it has nothing to do with his foreign policy stance. He's just crazy anyway.

      Oh and I'm a 24 year old white male in Alabama. I know 30 others roughly my age who share my skin color. I know probably 20 others roughly my age who don't share my skin color. I know that ALL of them agree that Ron Paul is a racist. Most are geeks like me and spend ample time online. We are not uninformed. We are well aware of the fanboy-ism online for Ron Paul. Yet we all agree the prick is a racist. I am not biased, and I am not wrong. Ron Paul is a racist. I'd say it again if it'd make any difference.

      Now can we please ignore this ignorant asshole who has nothing to do with this and focus on the issue at hand?

    119. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All hail the new Roman Empire. Us New Zealanders are glad to be non-sovereign subjects of the USA. We thank you for our recession and increasing loss of privacy.

    120. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      I feel ashamed to be a New Zealand citizen right now.

    121. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I admit that to pirates it probably was great, but megaupload was the best to non pirates too, at least, I would say so. Very fast speed even without account, so I could easily rar pictures and other stuff to send to friends.

    122. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by viperidaenz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If no one can prove either way, isn't he innocent until proven guilty?

    123. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      actaully Princeofcups (150855) has a pretty valid point. I'm not religious but many western people (including a lot in my catholic country) mock up Islan not to mention other countries culture and values. Just because we do not have the same standards does not give us the right to attack other people values. For me SOPA and PIPA are the worst attacks to freedom of speech that you can get from the so called civilized world.

      Very often we condemn other nation for being closed and less open, but SOPA and PIPA are just plain attacks to the basics of our western world. Habeas corpus principle is an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action (wikipedia quote) lacking sufficient cause or evidence.

      SOPA and PIPA work like a bypass, you now trust the accusation and don't care if they gathered enough evidence. Just point a finger and the blind arm of the law will do the rest. One thing is certain, if SOPA and PIPA are passed on, Freedom of Speech as we knew will be dead soon and thereafter all our rights and ideas will belong to some copyright corporation.

      MEGAUPLOAD might be full of pirated movies and music, and it's not the only place around, but there are better ways to reduce piracy, and one of them is to improve people social and economical conditions. Democratic access to culture is also a great way to reduce cultural conflicts and share common values among people. Instead they focus on milk every single cent they can while creating a framework that reduces Freedom of Speech. It's not piracy that caused the movie industries to lost 500M, it's they lack of creativity, it has been quite a while since i saw a pretty good movie, i'm not talking about special effects and fireworks, but real stories that make you dream and dare to become different. Nowadays, most movies are a bunch of special effects and crappy stories. Come on guys, 50 years ago people made movies with less money and better scripts ...

    124. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a plane crashes, and lands on the US-Mexico border, where do you bury the survivors?

    125. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Patch86 · · Score: 2

      Not usually, no. Usually the mitigator is that you're only supposed to sign extradition treaties with countries who's legal system you trust. So the UK has an extradition treaty with the US on the basis that US law is supposed to be of a shared level of quality as our own.

      Vaguely relevant is the Julian Assange extradition case (from the UK to Sweden). Even though some of the offences he is charged with in Sweden aren't covered by UK law, the treaty works on the basis that the Swedish legal system is generally close enough to our that we'll trust their national laws are just.

    126. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA has invaded Mexico before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa_Expedition

    127. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Meeni · · Score: 1

      German residents are safe. Unlike UK, most european countries are still sovereign nations, and not a dominion of the US, and refuse to extradite their citizens.

    128. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Previous similar sites (Napster, Kazaa) have been handled through civil cases. Why a criminal case for this one? Megaupload was a very different site than Napster/Kazaa/mp3.com, and it is not at all clear under current law that megaupload is illegal.

      Megaupload is a file locker service that has many legal uses purposes. Should a landlord be liable when a tenant infringes copyrights? Then why should a file locker provider be liable when a user uses the service to infringe copyright?

      If this is the law of the land, then the founders of the next youtube will be locked up and thrown in jail before their site can ever take off. Of course, that may be what the RIAA/MPAA are shooting for.

    129. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he made money by providing a service. Others exploited his service for their own ends.

    130. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      You can wonder all you want in the courtroom of speculation and hearsay. I wonder where it came from too... because I don't know. Maybe he's just good at business?

      As far as using it for file storage goes, I've done that too... and the files I've uploaded there have mostly been stuff I wanted to make publicly available, or stuff I'd AES encrypted prior to uploading. He'd be unlikely to try and crack it, as there are better ways for him to make a buck that are available to him and perfectly legal.

      From the hearsay and documented evidence I've seen about him, he sounds like the standard "upstanding citizen" who dabbled in shady deals to make his first million and then played by the rules to multiply that into multi-millions -- kind of like most of the founding families of the US (and for that matter, AU, UK, and many other countries).

      I'm not saying he's a golden child -- I'm also not saying he's an evil scammer. He did however produce a useful service that benefited me in squeaky clean legal ways... kind of like Google.

      Wait until the DOJ realizes that the most popular use for Google Images is for downloading copyrighted images....

    131. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the timing had less to do with SOPA, and more to do with last month's brou-haha over Megaupload's yanked video on youtube.

      After the judge slapped down Universal Music(?) and said they can't censor ads just because they don't like them, the lawyers probably called the politicians and threatened not to fund their upcoming 2012 campaigns. The politicians called Justice Department and demanded action.

      Thus action happened. And megaupload was shutdown. And now Universal is celebrating with glee because they' lost the initial battle, but won the war.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    132. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      I, for one, welcome our new Tom Cruise smashing alien overlords.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    133. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      I think the whole thing is ridiculous.

      I was in the middle of downloading old Alphas and One Tree Hill episodes, when megaupload got yanked. Will I suddenly go out and buy the DVDs??? Ha! Not likely. The shows were fun to watch when free, but I'm sure as hell not going to pay for them.

      I'll go find a different form of entertainment, like watch Free TV over my antenna, goof-off on youtube, or go read a book.

      The RIAA/MPAA just doesn't get it.
      They are NOT losing money because
      ost of us never had any intent of buying their shit in the first place

      .

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    134. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No encryption is stronger the a crowbar to the knee.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    135. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a better argument for why we don't need the USA.

      Iran certainly seems to need the USA. Who else will fish their sailors out of the Gulf?

    136. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Genda · · Score: 1

      The landing turned Tom inside out and made a crater.... negative height!

    137. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      So, shutdown the hosting company, was it so complicated???

    138. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      But they used server located in the US.

      If you stand in Mexico and use a remote control car to rob a bank in the US, the US will come after you..and visa versa.

      what does Visa have to do with all this?

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    139. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

      No, but there are many countries who have similar laws to and treaties with the United States. I'm pretty sure that this wasn't simply a case of the United States throwing it's weight around. The other entities involved, Hong Kong, Germany and New Zealand, were equally interested in bringing Dotcom down. Otherwise, they would have simply told the US to pound sand.

    140. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Kenshin · · Score: 2

      Let's think about this for a sec.

      Random account holder uploads large encrypted file with relatively meaningless name. They don't know who the uploader is and they don't have any sort of clue about what's in the file. Let's assume files like this get uploaded by countless users all the time, every day.

      Do they waste their time and resources attempting to decrypt it? Possible, but very, very unlikely.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    141. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be honest. Living in New Zealand, I'm not so sure any New Zealand citizen should be able to be so easily extradited to the US. Hardly a murder where talking about here, megaupload hosts files that users upload while this can be pirated files, they didn't upload them so not sure how they can be accountable for this its not like they are selling dodgy copies of photoshop or anything.

    142. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about hiding stuff from the government, or from people around you. We're talking about using a high-bandwidth, high-traffic foreign website (megaupload) as an intermediary for transferring sensitive files. The website is foreign (and from what I can tell, there aren't exactly a whole lot of workers involved there), and all the employees and officers live in various foreign countries. What are they going to do, send some goons over here to threaten you with a crowbar just to see what's in that encrypted file you uploaded there, named "file1.zip"? Please. How are they even going to notice it amongst the thousands or millions of files full of pirated (and other) material that people are uploading and downloading on there every day?

    143. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's funny, with a name like Dotcom, I expect him to be a douche.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    144. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by geekoid · · Score: 1

      And I made the mistake of thing m people would understand the context, since we are talking about an international event.

      Yeah, I guess I should have spelled it out and said the US will file paper work and make a diplomatic contact with Mexico, who will then respond. After which the government would contact the Captain of the police, who would then notify the Sgt, who would ask 5 police officers to come and arrest you.

      I just assumed you where above the median intelligence.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    145. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Ok, I think I correctly parsed (and error corrected) this.

      You are saying that the GP shouldn't send his data encrypted through Mega Upload servers because Mega Upload staff can get the keys by comming to his house and breaking his knees?

      Well, I have news for you. They can get the original files the same way, even if they don't pass through their servers.

    146. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Cederic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure that this wasn't simply a case of the United States throwing it's weight around.

      I'm pretty sure it was.

      (Slashdot: It's 13 seconds since you hit reply. Yes, that's because I'm not typing out an entire fucking essay and even after a bottle of vodka I can type five fucking words in under a minute. Come on Slashdot editors, fix this shit.)

    147. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, we think Ron Paul is crazy because he assumes Corporation will take care of the people, and wants to lock us beck up into the gilded cage.
      Many Good things came out of the Mideast, and many bad things. It's a far more complex issue then a one line statement.

      Also, its far more complex then sending in soldiers, but that's a different issue.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    148. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The concern is: Will people still make movies if they can't make money. It's a legit concern.

      However, it looks like piracy helps the media more then hurts it. Is there a tipping point were ALL people only download material for people who do not have authority to be distributing it?

      " Capitalism has no place in the future."
      don't be stupid, of course it does.
      We can revisit that when we have machines that do everything, and an infinite power supply.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    149. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      Mr AC, you and your friends are idiots because you can't bring up a single concrete example of Ron Paul being racist.

      The best you're going to bring up is comments in newsletters from the 80s that he didn't write and has disavowed. That's racism by association. By that account, Obama is just as racist as he is thanks to Rev Wright, etc.

      Please provide citation to his desire to have restaurants serve whites only. Show your work please.

    150. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by dotgain · · Score: 2

      While you can't be extradited from NZ to US for copyright infringement, you can for "sodomy"

    151. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Cederic · · Score: 0

      You're a cunt. Fuck off this website, it's a nice place and you don't belong.

    152. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Presumed indecent and sans Comic.
      ***NOTICE****

      Suspect was alerted by our presence by a Courier.

      If this Graphic designer appears on your porch, simply pay for your pizza and he will leave.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    153. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I would to if my countrymen were also breaking laws in other countries.
      oh wait.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    154. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      A central piece of evidence is the storage of a significant number of full-length feature films on a server in Virginia. There is other evidence that the accused utilized US banks for money laundering.

      Read the indictment. They are accused of violating US law in the US, whether they were physically in the US or not.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204616504577171180266957116.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    155. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I strongly agree, that, if especially, megauploads owners have been arrested due to material that users of the site had uploaded, this is a very ominous sign, really. If this is so, it will mean that it will be basically impossible to run a user generated content service such as youtube in the USA. it is impossible for site owners to police their sites, to arrest people for what others out of their control have done really brings us to a new letter of fascist insanity and is deeplyu worrying and concerning, it is clearly an outright attack on free speech in the US and will make operating any kind of site that allows for free speech, legitimate content, virtually impossible, as it would take only one illegal post which site owners have no way of being able to prevent, to give the feds a pretext to carry out their gestapo type sweep.

      We should all be very concerned and worried about this ominous and dark development.

      It seems like they are already trying to enforce SOPA before it has even been passed.

    156. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Informative

      They didn't just want to shut down the site! They wanted to prove that the operators knew that what they were doing was illegal, and that they were taking deliberate steps to hide the money! That is central to the indictment, that they knew (because they were told!) that they hosted infringing content, and that they did not comply with removing (very specific) items from a (very specific) server. There's a lot more to the indictment, which I encourage everyone to read before they take an activist position.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204616504577171180266957116.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    157. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by symbolset · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It should be pointed out that this was a business, with servers in the US - presumably with staff who had jobs. So if it turns out that this was not illegal, that's going to blow up in their face. Not everyone who is accused is actually convicted.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    158. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      MegaUpload apparently needed servers in Virginia, banks in the US, Paypal, etc. Read the indictment. If you read the actual charges and understand the evidence it might change your opinion on the case.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    159. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      In court, yes. Proof will have to be presented in court. This isn't court.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    160. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Okay, a useful business that stands accused of institutional copyright infringement, for which there is actual evidence.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    161. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of one of those "people" I can say that it isn't so much a matter of not "caring" about SOPA/PIPA, it's more a matter of having not a whole lot we can do about it. Seriously, what is the advice given to US citizens who care? "Contact your congresscritter". Unfortunately, those of us in the Rest Of The World don't get to have one of those. We *could* bitch to our own government about how we disapprove of some not-yet-passed legislation that's being debated by a foreign government, but I'll let you take a guess how much effect that's going to have.

    162. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      You should read the indictment, and become aware of the actual charges being raised and the evidence on which those charges are based. A lot of people have already gone into protest mode without even taking the basic step of reading the actual indictment. What they did with money turns out to be far more significant than the "piracy" components. Some of the things they did would be crimes even if there was no question of the legality or the controversial nature of the business.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    163. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by fishbowl · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I used to be a cryptographer, then I took a crowbar to the knee.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    164. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      And that has little to do with the indictment. It's way more significant what they did with the money (how and for what reasons they paid people cash rewards, how and from whom they took payments, the steps they took to move cash into and out of US banks, etc.) The "piracy" aspect is not the most serious of the charges.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    165. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Have you read the indictment? The feds gave them ample opportunity to remove a few very specific items from a very specific server (which was in Virginia). They agreed to do so, and then failed to comply. And that material wasn't any sort of gray area -- it was full length feature films, 39 of them to be exact.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    166. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      And you know this means war, right? The US is waging cyber war against the world in the name of corporate profit. We will not be subdued, we will never surrender.

      These actions only made the situation worse for you. The Pirate Bay went from being a way to get free stuff to an ideology, a political movement gaining ground fast in Europe and a symbol of hope for those who love freedom and democracy around the world.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    167. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "irregardless" ?

    168. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      Before anyone gets voted up to the stratosphere or down to oblivion here, we should remind ourselves that there is no way to tell how legitimately or illegitimately he made his money until a breakdown of his income is published.

      Is that how it's done in your country? Here in the U.S.A., we consider people innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Unless, of course, they piss off our owners.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    169. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. The US currently holds lands that once made up more than half of Mexico. Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California...

    170. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > From the same industry that says every download is a lost sale?

      Agreed.

      SHOW ME THE BOOKS!

      Oh wait, how come they _never_ list "Piracy" on their Expenses??

    171. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The MPAA, RIAA, et al exaggerate damage and claim unreasonable penalties for copyright infringement, but don't be obtuse.

      You posit, "Most people outside of the US don't see sharing files as illegal in the same way," and why do you think that is? Do you suppose if, instead of the U.S., a different country was the preeminent producer of films and had a substantial industry developed that they would be the ones demanding penalties the most?

      Yes, the MPAA and RIAA damage estimates to copyright infringement are ideas of sheer lunacy, but attitudes like yours are just as polarizing i.e., it's acceptable to share and distribute films from mega corporations because they are mega corporations.

    172. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, like "Saint" Steve Jobs....

    173. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      neither FightFreedomOfSpeach nor the AC who responded to his post can prove their assertions

      No, but applying the presumption of innocence, they don't have to. The onus lies on the person alleging wrongdoing to substantiate their claims, not the other way around.

    174. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Airline_Sickness_Bag · · Score: 2

      An article from The Wall Street Journal. Now, who owns the wsj? Good old Rupert.

    175. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Moonrazor · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think they would. They might demand that MEXICAN authorities go after you, and failure to do so would cause an international incident, but they can't come after you directly. This action is outrageous.

      Try telling that to Saddam Hussein or bin Laden or al-Awlaki. When the US wants you, they have ways of getting you.

      --
      Burn the land and boil the sea........
    176. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The newsletters were *HIS* news letters. *HE* published them. The title of the newsletters was "The Ron Paul Investment newsletter" and "The Ron Paul political report". Its not like he was on the board of some company that did something wrong. He the newsletters with his wife and Lew Rockwell to publish his own thoughts and earned millions of dollars from those racist newsletters.

      Next blatantly racist articles are published over and over again in this supposedly 'investment' newsletter. Many of the articles are written in first person. Phrases such as - "I voted against this as a congressman" or "my town of Lake Jackson, Texas" etc continuously indicate who the author was. No other writers name is mentioned AFAIK. Ron Paul claims that he did not write them. Seriously? So hes so incompetent as a manager that he has no idea who the writers are? Golly gee.. it just so happens that he has no idea who his employees are, he just happened to make millions of dollars while he wasn't looking. Yeah right.

      I wonder who wrote this - "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."

      Or who wrote this - "even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming"

      Whats even more damning is the statement "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." was *DEFENDED* by Ron Paul as taken out of context.

      He claims that his comments were in the context of "current events and statistical reports" Is this man retarded? Show me a single "current events" or "statistical report" that showed 95% of blacks are criminal. What a bag of horseshit.

      Can't wait for this Ron Paul racist lunatic asshole to lose yet again to another GOP mouth-breathing neanderthal. I bet its going to be someone loathsome like Gingrich or Romney. Its too bad that Obama is such a corporate whore too. This country is fucked

    177. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Fine, then seize the servers and other assets in the US. I'm OK with that. I'm not OK with arresting people who have never set foot in the country for laws broken inside the country. Arrest the companies operating the servers here in the US; they're the ones who enabled the crime, under request from some patterns of bits sent over wires from a foreign country (called "communications"). Those servers didn't set themselves up. Arrest Paypal for aiding and abetting.

    178. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      They didn't just arrest the directors of the company. Only two of the four arrested were.

    179. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC did not assert anything, though he points out a fact that supports the alternate possibility he described.

      FightFreedomOfPoorSpelling is the only one who asserted anything. I would mod the AC up too.

      -Another AC

    180. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an 'American' and I hate America. It may be true that I'm probably not much of a fan of other countires politics either although that isn't really an exscuse for America.

    181. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 0

      +1 well said

    182. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Above comment should be rated higher.

    183. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not everyone who is accused is actually convicted.

      True, but this is all about PR, about intimidation, about inducing fear, not about redress of any specific grievance. Everyone will remember that Megaupload got raided and their staff arrested. Nobody will remember that they got acquitted (if they do) and in any event, they're out of business for the time being.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    184. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Speaking of one of those "people" I can say that it isn't so much a matter of not "caring" about SOPA/PIPA, it's more a matter of having not a whole lot we can do about it. Seriously, what is the advice given to US citizens who care? "Contact your congresscritter". Unfortunately, those of us in the Rest Of The World don't get to have one of those. We *could* bitch to our own government about how we disapprove of some not-yet-passed legislation that's being debated by a foreign government, but I'll let you take a guess how much effect that's going to have.

      Actually, there's nothing preventing you from sending emails, written letters or phoning our Congresspeople. It's apparent to me (as an American) that Congress still has this U.S.-centric attitude towards the Internet, and I believe that needs to change, quickly. Hearing from a fifty or sixty million thoroughly incensed foreigners might very well be a good first step. Yeah, okay, we started the Internet ball rolling almost forty years ago, but this baby has gone global now. Time for Congress to accept that fact, and stop threatening to corrupt a piece of Internet infrastructure (e.g., the DNS root servers) that the economies of many other nations are now dependent.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    185. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ACTA rears its ugly head?

    186. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a better argument for why we don't need the USA.

      Comments like that serve no purpose. Citizens of this country are up in arms about what our government (at the behest of certain large foreign corporations, I might add: Sony and several European media outfits can take most of the heat for SOPA, after all, they paid for it.) wants to do with these stupid laws. If you want us to continue to fight to respect you and the freedoms you currently enjoy on the Internet (whatever your own government permits you in that regard, if anything) you should show a little respect in return.

      And you got a +5 Insightful for that. Remarkable.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    187. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by epyT-R · · Score: 0

      your mentality would do little than build a police state.

    188. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      neither FightFreedomOfSpeach nor the AC who responded to his post

      I want to know what "speach" is, actually.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    189. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      or they could charge sane prices and mitigate piracy instead of demanding the government bail them out.

    190. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new Tom Cruise smashing alien overlords.

      Yah. Me too. We should be so lucky. There are a few more Scientologists that I wouldn't mind seeing squashed flat as well, just on general principle.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    191. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      Then we can return him for being "not as described", like with ebay, right?

      Joking aside, I think politicians should publish a platform, which, if they later change their mind about, we can also change our vote. This being stuck with a bad choice for 2, 4, or 6 years is a holdover from the speed of 18th century transportation. For that matter, so is the two months between the main elections and swearing in of the new Congress. It simply took that long to count the votes locally, deliver the results to the state capitol, inform the winner, and then have them travel to where the Congress would be (which was Wall Street for the first one, ironically).

    192. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      If you stand in Mexico and use a remote control car to rob a bank in the US, the US will come after you..and visa versa.

      The constitution and of course understood American doctrine is that States (and States) should be allowed their own fiscal policy (which might be better than that in the U.S.) now we're seeing that attacked openly. The hypocricy is maddening.

    193. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If you want us to continue to fight to respect you

      I honestly don't care if you lose all respect for my countrymen. Since I'm a US citizen, that would be Americans, like you.

      Citizens of this country are up in arms about what our government

      And then they go vote for the same sociopaths they've always been voting for. As usual, people exactly get the government they deserve.

    194. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tarlong · · Score: 3, Interesting

      See this is where i hit a wall. I'm from Puerto Rico, a wholly owned pawnshop of the United States of America, i mean ... a territory or colony as you will. Even after 100+ years of occupation, we still use Spanish as our main language and English as a badly spoken/written second language. I don't pirate as a rule but the media outlets seem to think that EVERYONE here speaks and understands English fluently and that our preferred second and third languages are French and Mandarin. Go figure. What happens when me and my wife wanna watch a movie or a show? To me there is no problem, i sometimes forget what language i am listening to. My wife? she could not do English even if her son's life depended on it. Zilch, zero, nada. So, I'm forced to go out to the internet and get them freaking movies or shows in Spanish, or at least have them with captions.

      You know what? I've been a customer of mega upload/video/whatever since last year and use show and movie lists sites (that direct you to uploaded stuff at megaupload/video) to see or download the movies or shows we wanna watch. She could very well learn English, yes, but that is not the point. If they have the translations done for other countries, why wont they make them available for our zone too? What, suddenly there are no Spanish only paying legal customers in the US? Come on, puertorricans living in the one of the fifty states hit the mark of around 4 million people, about half of which do not speak English as a first language and are not required to learn it due to the fact that we were born US citizens and dod not need to take an exam to make the citizenship.

      Freaking absurd. I am a criminal cuz the basically have forced me to. Yeah, i know, her not knowing English is not their fault but it is their fault that, having the freaking translations already (they translate for Spain and South America), that i need to pirate them to enjoy the show. I can also stop watching the shows, but that wont stop piracy.

      There are many who pirate just because, but many more do so because they need to or are left with unacceptable choices. I would love to pay, if i could have use for the product.

      One last thought, the USA used to be a nice place to be and live but is turning so fast into another neonazy state that I have renounced all my annexionist views and want now independence for our Island. The US federal government has run amok and is trampling everything the bill of rights and the declaration of independence have stood for these past centuries.

      --
      What? A beutiful butterfly you say? And how exactly are you going to turn into a beutiful butterfly then?
    195. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      And you know this means war, right? The US is waging cyber war against the world in the name of corporate profit. We will not be subdued, we will never surrender.

      These actions only made the situation worse for you. The Pirate Bay went from being a way to get free stuff to an ideology, a political movement gaining ground fast in Europe and a symbol of hope for those who love freedom and democracy around the world.

      Are you truly that naive? Yes, yes I see you are.

      This has nothing to do with America. This has to do with several specific large corporations (Sony's media division, Vivendi, BMG, and several other foreign owned corporations) spending a paltry few million dollars on bribes^h^h^h^h^h^hcampaign contributions to members of our Congress. So far as I'm concerned, as soon as you idiots manage to put a leash on the sociopaths running your content cartel, maybe you'll find yourself without any more SOPAs. Believe me, Congress didn't think this up for themselves: this particular bit of corruption and malfeasance in office was bought and paid for by foreign influences. A good chunk of Congress should be up on treason charges for their involvement in this, but that does not excuse Japan and Europe for not reining in the bastard outfits that came over here and started raising hate and discontent. We're sick and tired of BMG, Vivendi, Viacom and the like suing U.S. citizens, filing false DMCA takedown notices, and generally behaving like multibillionare two-year-olds. Tell them to fucking grow up and learn how to make money in the Internet age.

      As for you, go back home and fix your own problems, keep your arrogant, self-serving, incredibly backwards corporations out of our government, and we'll happily leave you the fuck alone.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    196. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      How many people were killed by Megaupload?

      Actually, the question is how many people may be killed by shutting down Megaupload? Xray and other medical data is notoriously large files, a job for which file lockers are useful, because of size limits on emails.

      I use MediaFire to distribute graphics files to my customers for the same reason (size). That's not life and death, but there's certainly a lot of business uses for file storage and transfer.

      Obviously, some people use these kinds of sites for movies and games when they are not supposed to, but there are as many legitimate uses as you have big files on your hard drive.

    197. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, this is honestly one of the top comments I've read on Slashdot in I think 8 years

    198. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Does this me we can arrest gun shop owners for murder now?

      --
      ~X~
    199. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Xenx · · Score: 1

      Your logic is interesting. Since when has associating Apple with internationalism been hateful?

      Since when does iAnything solely pertain to Apple? While they're the most prevalent, in no way did the poster refer to Apple.

    200. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      well maybe we shouldn't be focused on creating things that depend on false scarcity. economies like that only exist in ivory towers.

    201. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Xyrus · · Score: 2

      And with a name like Kim DotCom, I expected him to be a Korean porn site.

      --
      ~X~
    202. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by penix1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the MPAA and RIAA damage estimates to copyright infringement are ideas of sheer lunacy, but attitudes like yours are just as polarizing i.e., it's acceptable to share and distribute films from mega corporations because they are mega corporations.

      Let's see, the copyright cartels have managed to get countries like Canada to implement a charge on blank media with the idea that that blank media will be used for piracy. So they have been not only paid for the infringement that may have occurred but for legitimate content they do not own. So how does your statement hold water there?

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    203. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism has no place in the future. Do you think aliens will respect our dollar? :P Our species knows where it has to go... Its a wonder why we fight against progress for selfish needs.

      Then the future has no place for humanity, greed is and always will be the greatest inescapable flaw of the human race.

    204. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that is what you'd call an "international incident".

      The US may even consider it an act of war (the victim illegally took ammunition across the border), and the Zettas would shit themselves.

    205. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by BrianH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The position of the U.S. government is that these are foreign nationals operating a criminal enterprise within the United States. From a legal standpoint, it's no different than issuing warrants for foreign drug kingpins who ship drugs to the United States. They're not prosecuting foreigners for their actions overseas, but they are charging foreigners for the actions they are initiating within the borders of the United States itself.

      Osama bin Laden never set foot in the U.S. either. We still had arrest warrants out for him, even before 9/11, for acts of terrorism he initiated on U.S. soil (the '93 WTC attack) and on foreign U.S. locations (embassies, Khobar, etc). While we're talking about two vastly different types of crime, the legal principle behind the charges is the same. If you direct criminal actions within the United States from a foreign location, you become subject to U.S. law because you are committing activities within the country.

      By placing a datacenter within the borders of the United States, MegaUpload's management placed itself within the jurisdiction of U.S. law for any actions occurring within that datacenter. This isn't a purely U.S. thing either...pretty much every country on the planet recognizes this same legal principle. When you choose to operate a business within a nation, you are also making a choice to subject yourself to that nations laws.

      There's only one way around this that I know of, and that's to insulate via foreign subsidiaries. Many multinational corps use subsidiaries to avoid this exact problem. In Megaupload's case, I don't see how they could have fit that into their business model.

      If there's one lesson to take away from all of this, it's simply that you should check a nations laws before opening up a business there. If something is legal in your home country, and illegal in the country next door, it's probably a BAD IDEA to start opening offices in the neighboring country. MegaUpload was stupid to open a datacenter in the United States, the MPAA/RIAA's home turf.

      --

      There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
    206. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2

      I honestly don't care if you lose all respect for my countrymen. Since I'm a US citizen, that would be Americans, like you.

      Sorry ... the knee-jerk anti-Americanism that floats around social networks irritates me sometimes, especially when dealing with copyright abuse since it's foreign outfits that are mostly responsible for the likes of the AHRA, Sonny Bonehead Copyright Extension Act, the DMCA, and now SOPA/PIPA. Congress isn't smart enough to come up with this on their own: they need someone else to give them these bad ideas and then pay them for the privilege of turning the things into law.

      And then they go vote for the same sociopaths they've always been voting for. As usual, people exactly get the government they deserve.

      Sure. Just like they do the world 'round. The human race has been doing that for ten thousand years, and until we figure out that you don't put people in power who actually want to be there (or who, in the worst cases, are fucking insane) it's not going to change.

      Personally, I believe that we should come up with a profile of what kind of person would be required to properly serve in the office of Senator, Representative or, for that matter, President. I mean, we do that for every other kind of job, don't we? Why is high political office an exception? Shouldn't we know if a candidate is actually qualified, rather than his just saying he knows what he's doing?

      Then we search for those people, and when we find a bunch of them, we let the people vote on which ones we think will best serve the country. Just like being picked for jury duty, which is actually not far from what the Founders wanted Congressmen to be. That is, civic-minded individuals who would serve their term, and then go back to their regular lives and live under the laws they had made.

      ... and then, if they do a good job, we let them out when their term is up. As of right now, the system selects for people who are good at acquiring the job (e.g., getting elected) and maintaining the position (e.g, getting re-elected.) It does not properly select for individuals who are actually good at the job itself.

      Alternatively, we could require that several detailed psychological profiles be taken of every candidate running for the Presidency or Congressional office. Then we post those profiles conveniently online at www.psychoswhackjobsandheadcases.gov for every voter to see in blazing red, white and blue. That might help keep the obvious low-hanging-fruitcakes out of the system anyway.

      There are a few people running for President right now whose psychological makeup I would dearly love to know more about.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    207. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      then let Iran have the USA, and maybe they'll both leave the rest of the world alone.

    208. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      that would be so much worse than the current state of affairs...

      better a police state than a police world.

    209. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is going to be a movie soon where Tom Cruise smashes alien overlords. It's inevitable.

    210. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by BrianH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It occurred to me that demonstrating the NEED for SOPA might be the point of this entire exercise. Megaupload unquestionably aided piracy, but it was also a legitimate business that had millions of legitimate users. The owner and operators of the site may be able to convince a judge or jury that the primary purpose of the site was NOT piracy, but was simply incidental to the operation of that type of service. If they can convince the judges in their home countries of that, they won't be extradited. If they can convince U.S. juries of that, they won't be convicted. In order to prosecute these guys, the U.S. will have to prove that piracy was the primary reason for the sites existence, and that could be tough to do. They still have a pretty decent shot at walking away from this.

      And if they get off, you can bet the halls of Congress will echo with, "See, we DO NEED SOPA! Our laws are obviously inadequate if we can't even shut down a pirate site like Megaupload!"

      That may the plan, after all.

      --

      There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
    211. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      the problem here is the sticky issue of the USA attempting to act outside it's borders for something that should be a civil case, not a criminal one.

      i wish them luck with extradition here though.

    212. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      Because they had very good reason to believe that Pakistan officials were protecting him. There's no way Bin Laden lived there for years without some public officials knowing about it. Tipping them off could've lost him.

    213. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Iran is shia. Rendering an image of the Prophet is not illegal in shiism.

    214. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Zibodiz · · Score: 2

      If downloading child pornography supports child pornographers how can downloading music destroy the music industry?

      That, my friend, is the best comment regarding filesharing I think I've ever seen.

    215. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What would give them the right to? Even the government does not/should not have the right to inspect all personal data. If I draw my curtains so no-one can see what I am doing in my home then well, tough shit. I don't know where this idea that everyone should be monitored for possible criminal activity all the time comes from.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    216. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      Yes, and his ideas about economics are balderdash too, but he is the only candidate who, if elected, would bring the troops home! The rest is trivial. Every Democrat should be registering as a Republican and voting for Paul in the primary!!

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    217. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by poity · · Score: 1

      DDL sites mostly make money on paid membership. Much like porn sites, the operators all have a revenue sharing model whereby 3rd parties funnel traffic to the main site, encouraging those people to join the paid membership plans for a cut of the sign up fees. What pirates would do is to pick a high paying site and put all their content exclusively on that site. There are usually very low daily or hourly download limits, with various wait times, so as to encourage paid membership. When you post 0- 1- 2- or 3-day content in a popular warez or porn forum and link to a site that pays up to 40% of sign up fees, the money can add up. Over time, there were newer incentives like certain amount of money per 1000 downloads (calculated based on how many sign ups they typically get per 1000 visitors)

      Yes I have done this in college years ago, when I wanted money and didn't give a fuck how. I take no pride in it.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    218. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And in the meantime they won't be competing with the record labels, connecting direct to artists and paying 90% like they proposed. Which is what this seems to be about.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    219. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1
      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    220. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the Occupy Movement on this? Is this not also Big Money? Is is that it is the ENTERTAINMENT sector that it gets a pass?
      May I present a boilerplate voir-dire questionaire:

      Do/Did you ever work for a company that produces and/or manages IP?
      Do/Did you have a business that creates and/or manages IP?
      Do/Did you possess investments in companies that create or manage IP?
      Do/Did you possess investment vehicles that invest in companies that create and/or manage IP?
      Do/Did you work for the federal government in any capacity?
      Did you serve in the armed forces of the United States? (redundant?)
      Do/Did you have immediate relations and/or people who have influenced you that fit any of the above?
      Do you feel that the culture of the area would disallow you from reaching an impartial verdict?

      A yes answer behooves the removal of that individual from the jury pool.

      ==//==

    221. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Formalin · · Score: 1

      I think most of former Yugoslavia (probably not Slovenia. as it is EU member now), as well as a lot of ex-USSR states as well (Belarus, Ukraine, bits in the Caucasus, *istan - basically everything except the baltics), aren't on that list.

      Hey, looks like that's probably right. map.

    222. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Kalriath · · Score: 5, Informative

      Then read the actual Indictment. It looks pretty bad for MU. Especially since the government keeps calling Megaupload "The Conspiracy". You can't support a Conspiracy can you? That's just downright criminal!

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    223. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Starving indeed. A source tells me a couple of RIAA executives lost corporate lunches over this.

    224. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Confusador · · Score: 1

      No, but he would be presumed so in a court of law. Whether or not it is provable, his guilt or innocence is a fact. And even if this were a courtroom, the whole point would be to debate the fact. Since we're just in a web forum, it's perfectly reasonable to do so with a much lower standard of evidence.

    225. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Canada, eh?

    226. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by fnj · · Score: 1

      I'm curious. Just what kind of money making do you consider "illegitimate"?

    227. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a US citizen you are responsible for your country's actions. You need to fix your democracy. The US is a haven for these scum because you let them buy your politicians.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    228. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by fnj · · Score: 1

      Interesting...with a name like 'Kim', I'd assumed it was a chick....

      Or a male of Asian heritage. But with the name Schmitz it doesn't appear so.

    229. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by lexsird · · Score: 1

      Just think about all those little evil treaties that get signed in that supersede the laws of the land where you live. Sovereignty is just another word for nothing left for them to take.

      I look at this as a flexing of their powers. They are saying "We don't care if you don't like SOPA, we will do what we want anyway." Seriously, how else are we to take this?

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    230. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by rust627 · · Score: 2

      Making Money from exploiting workers is the backbone of our capitalist system.

      --
      da da da dum indeed.
    231. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by twebb72 · · Score: 1

      In court, yes. Proof will have to be presented in court. This isn't court.

      Exactly. And while MU is down, there are 100s of other sites clamoring for that #1 Google organic top seat.
      They will have gained absolutely nothing (except, of course, when the Senator's son coincidentally runs the #2 site).

    232. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well to counter your arguement, the government here in California at least is requesting preferred language information for voting in English, Spanish, and Chinese. Additionally, the DMV in many areas has up to 15 other languages available for various auto-related testing and such (I've seen Tagalog, Vietnamese, Korean, and that's just the ones I could read/were identified.)

      Commercially however I agree with you about the 'second class citizen' standard for Spanish speakers. However don't you guys have Univision or one of the other two or three major spanish stations there to recieve programming off?

    233. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by alreaud · · Score: 0

      Nothing new. Does anyone remember Sherman Austin?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Austin

      They haven't even set foot on US soil yet, and that Fat Lady has to sing first, before any other.

    234. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by debest · · Score: 1

      Damn! You beat me to it, that was going to my comment! Tip of the hat to you, good sir!

      --
      Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
    235. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was not helpful. to your parent, please use

      regardless

      or

      irrespective

      thank you.

    236. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, whoever you are, take care of yourself and hopefully you have a little bit of fundage tucked away for 'retiring' somewhere without an extradition treaty. I know I wish I did (but then again I haven't done anything to get the divine hand of corporatocracy down on me.) But at the rate things are going I wonder how long until they'll be getting us for speaking out against such things too.

    237. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      This is old school front line policing taking down criminals responsible for fraud, racketeering, money laundering and worst crime of all internet PIRACY!!

      The timing is deliberate, the intention to mislead the public is obvious, however I wonder if the FBI is putting on a big show of how this real-world work can't be replaced by censorship.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    238. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their work was either paid or not, either way they chose to perform it without any involvement of anyone at megaupload. What most of them do have in common that their work is easier to obtain by wading through crappy forums, than legitimely for a decent price in most of the world. But go on, do compare that to the people who pay pennies on the dollar to people by exploiting the economical differences they fight to keep in place...

    239. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If no one can prove either way, isn't he innocent until proven guilty?

      ...or suspected of terrorism

    240. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tarlong · · Score: 1

      Univision could blow up for all i care. I have Mexican friends and i like them well enough, but Univision is a waste of decent engineering. ONLY promotes Mexico as anything Latino. Plus is just bad TMZ like news and soap operas. IT SUCKS, all the way to kingdom come. Nothing of value there, at all. If you want a semi decent show you need something higher up in the food chain, like something out of A&E. See? it sucks when even A&E is better. And when i say better i mean programming that might have one or two neurons behind it.

      Telemundo North America, even with NBC behind it, is not a whole lot better. The only one that is just a bit better is MegaTV from Miami and halve the shows i don't get cuz they are too Cuban centered. While most (if not all) shows on USA Cable and over the air TV are very US centered, at the least they are entertaining, with decent to good drama and semi decent to decent scripts. Vme, the sort of Spanish PBS is decent. Lost of shows from Europe and Latin America. Decent ones too and best is that there are NO SOAP OPERAS on Vme. Thanks to the Gods for that one.

      Latin America needs to kill all soap operas, except comedy centered Colombians and Brazilians. These last ones, the ones from Colombia are usually like American slapstick with more wit and less absurd and the Brazilians always feel more like a long and in parts movies than a soaps. In any case, i understand in part why they don't do it. They are really ignorant of their audience and commit the ultimate sin, they assume. They assume that everyone understands English, some people talk French in Louisiana and well, the Chinese, those are taking over the world, so might as well include them. Spanish? nah, let them wetbacks sort themselves out. Sheesh, i can just picture it. When all they have to do is, look around, if a place speaks Spanish, send the drones to make sure that those shows continue to support Spanish. NCIS, Sex and the City are but a sample of shows that were translated and sold with those translations in Spanish or at least had captions and then for some unknown reason they stopped supporting it but added French or Chinese or some other language. Absurd. Until they have some sense, i will have to direct my needs to the internet. Even so, less and less do I go looking for them. I watch more European stuff anyways.

      --
      What? A beutiful butterfly you say? And how exactly are you going to turn into a beutiful butterfly then?
    241. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why a criminal case?

      he pissed off the media mafia. And was going to work to directly connect artists with their customers. cutting the media mafia out of their cut.

      that's a big deal. can't be allowed to happen. so the media dons got their buttbuddies in the department of justice and law enforcement to go after him directly.

      Problem solved.

    242. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 1

      Should a landlord be liable when a tenant infringes copyrights?

      Thank you, this argument is the simplest explanation of issue's core. I've read blogs of certain judges in Spain claiming for Youtube and Google to compensate musicians for their users linking to copyrighted content. Some people just can't adapt.

    243. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by hitmark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hiding money, eh? Reminds me that a certain actor has not been payed for a couple of movies because the studio is using accounting tricks to hide their profits. Sometimes i wonder if not organized crime is the more honest of the bunch.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    244. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      Oh god! I had hoped never to hear another story about Kim Schmitz again. He is a fraud. He claims to be an expert hacker, financial genious(even had his own dodgy investment company KimVestor...) and all around wonderful person when all he is is a globulous fraud.

      He is at the bottom of this? That explains a lot. The only surprise is that he is out of prison or not bankrupted beyond all financial redemption. The only reason he isn't a German citizen anymore is because he is a household name here and nobody would touch him with a 10' pole or throw money his way.

      Whatever the leagal status of Megaupload.com was and if what they do is legal or should be legal, all these questions aside:
      Given his track record it is safe to assume it was set up with fraudulent intent or has shifted to fraudulent operations because this fat fly only gets attracted by the biggest turds.


      The bummer is, if you want copyright law reform of any kind you'll have to stand in his corner of the ring even if you'd feel like having a shower afterwards and are constantly vomiting into his direction.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    245. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Never mind that US politics seems to treat non-national TLDs as if they are US national TLDs...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    246. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by spectro · · Score: 2

      Indictments are one-sided towards the prosecution distorting everything and bending facts to make it look way worse than it really is. That is why you need a good lawyer if indicted.

      Did you believe everything SCO claimed in their lawsuit against IBM?

      --
      HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
    247. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by hitmark · · Score: 1

      I Think his point is that if he broke German law via the net, and Germany dialed up Washington to have him handed to them as air freight, they would simply be dismissed as nuts.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    248. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by hitmark · · Score: 1

      And this is why a "leftie" president has implemented more "rightie" laws than ever before.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    249. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by hitmark · · Score: 2

      It is the great ironies of all this. If two kids fight over a toy, they are told to share. But if two adults share a computer file, it is prison time for both.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    250. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Heh, maybe Somali pirates should stop hijacking ships and start providing file locker services?

      I wonder how long before a US lead coalition invades "for the good of the people of Somalia"...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    251. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by hitmark · · Score: 1

      No, because he did not kill, rape or steal, he aided in infringing copyright! /s

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    252. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by hitmark · · Score: 1

      That, and uploading to 2-3 different sites in case one of them goes suddenly dark.

      Btw, there is a whole bunch of non-encrypted private files floating around on dropbox. And i think the company has basically said that if FBI comes knocking, they will hand them over...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    253. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by aztektum · · Score: 1

      I expect Venezuela and similar countries will be gaining a lot of hosting companies in the next few years.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    254. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by spectro · · Score: 1

      Of course they are, their business model is all about controlling all phases of distribution, even artificially keeping supply low to increase prices (Disney Vault).

      MU offered artists a system to cut the RIAA middlemen. RIAA members of course will do anything in their power to preserve their revenue streams, including calling political favors to remove the competition.

      --
      HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
    255. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Careful, he might draw a gun!

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    256. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/venn-ron-paul
      Ron Paul not the sort of ally we want.

    257. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I strongly agree, that, if especially, megauploads owners have been arrested due to material that users of the site had uploaded, this is a very ominous sign, really. If this is so, it will mean that it will be basically impossible to run a user generated content service such as youtube in the WORLD. it is impossible for site owners to police their sites, to arrest people for what others out of their control have done really brings us to a new letter of fascist insanity and is deeplyu worrying and concerning, it is clearly an outright attack on free speech in the WORLD and will make operating any kind of site that allows for free speech, legitimate content, virtually impossible, as it would take only one illegal post which site owners have no way of being able to prevent, to give the feds a pretext to carry out their gestapo type sweep.

      We should all be very concerned and worried about this ominous and dark development.

      It seems like they are already trying to enforce SOPA before it has even been passed.

      FTFY

    258. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      As a New Zealander, I can assure you that I am both pissed-off and concerned about the implications. I love the land here but if anyone has a sane and safe country to emigrate to, please let me know, because I fear that our politicians have sold it out from under us.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    259. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't support a Conspiracy can you? That's just downright criminal!

      Actually it is. The government is accusing them of real crimes, its just a question of whether it can be proven that they are guilty.

    260. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I have never not heard of encryption.

    261. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by sakari · · Score: 1

      Thank you for writing this. One of the best comments I have read for a long time. Very informative and bold of you to say this stuff out loud, thank you sir. We are being pulled into this big control scheme, and those who have control of the music industry and movie industries have enough money to pull it off. The thing that can stop this is ACTING ON IT, doing something about it, when it hits our countries, we hit the streets and make it CLEAR AND LOUD that we are not taking this shit!

    262. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by martijnd · · Score: 1

      Seems the DOJ has gotten tons of their internal e-mails... they make for fascinating reading in the indignment from around page 40.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204616504577171180266957116.html

    263. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      You are confusing the separate realms of armchair discussion and the court of law.

    264. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I want to know if the actual crime he's being charged with is "Piracy".

      --
      No sig today...
    265. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      If the landlord is helping to launder the money that the tenant made by selling access to pirated content, yes, the landlord should be indicted.

      Did you actually read TFA, and the links from it that cover thing like what the charges are and their justification? (Why do I even ask?)

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    266. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Splab · · Score: 1

      Go rent south of the border.

    267. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I strongly agree, that, if especially, megauploads owners have been arrested due to material that users of the site had uploaded, this is a very ominous sign"

      It's worse than this, this is a bunch of non-US citizens, situated outside America, running a business from Hong Kong, having their international domain names hijacked.

      Worse, MegaUpload is even used by some businesses, I know a handful of companies first hand, but I suspect there are thousands, who use it as a method to distribute large, legitimate files.

      This goes beyond any US action that has ever happened before as the US in this case has effectively just shut down a legitimate foreign business that it simply does not like, and has had arrested everyone who works at that business.

      This can now only be resolved by the following two things:
      - Countries must start ignoring US requests for arrest of their citizens where the crime has happened outside the US and/or is not illegal in the country of arrest

      - The US must lose all control of the internet, it must now be internationally controlled by something like the ITU where majority consensus is needed globally for this kind of thing to be possible such that no single country or small group of countries can impose their will on the rest of the internet

      America is now effectively just unilaterally deciding which businesses are allowed to do business on the internet, and the worst part, foreign sovereign nations are allowing it to happen.

    268. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Shut down by the FBI for breaking a law, with court orders and due process.

      Do you think it's somehow anti-democratic to have a police force?

      Is your advocacy of mob rule so hard-line that you actually want mob rule, with no laws at all other than the "law" of superior strength?

      The self-determination of the Internet is /b/ and 4chan. It is Anonymous, DDOSing websites of people they do not like. It is the nihilist philosophy of "teh lulz".
      This is what you ask for; you are fortunate that other, more grown-up people still think that this sort of lynch mob is a bad idea, and will fight it on your behalf. Though you may call them fascists, it is thanks to them that you even have an Internet with which to read this.

      By the way, I think you'd make a great politician. You obviously prioritise pleasing a crowd over telling the truth, hence the love you are getting from everybody else on this site. Your secret, like that of all the worst politicians, is that everything is true within your head. You're not actually lying about anything - you really believe this rubbish. Alas that is not going to cause the under 30s to re-engage with voting. If we gave up because of New Labour, we're not going to get back into it for you.

    269. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by LittleLui · · Score: 1

      Kim Dotcom, aka Kim Schmitz and Kim Tim Jim Vestor

      Kimble, may I suggest another name change? "Kim '); DROP TABLE CHARGES;" seems appropriate.

    270. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Blahah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If I could mod this up, I would. The indictment claims that the Mega sites (which they call the "Mega Conspiracy") is a group of sites designed to profit from the sharing of content. They they go on to say that each named "conspirator" has knowingly used the network for copyright infringement, and after being told about specific infringing files, failed to remove them. The case they are trying to establish is that the MU staff allowed infringement to continue because it profited them.

      Everyone should read the indictment summary before knee-jerking in defence of the site, it does actually look quite bad for them.

    271. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload.ars

      "Employees also had access to analytics. One report showed that a specific linking site had “produce[d] 164,214 visits to Megaupload for a download of the copyrighted CD/DVD burning software package Nero Suite 10. The software package had the suggested retail price of $99.” The government's conclusion: Megaupload knew what was happening and did little to stop it."

      "In a 2008 chat, one employee noted that "we have a funny business... modern days [sic] pirates :)," to which the reply was, "we're not pirates, we're just providing shipping servies [sic] to pirates :)." "

      "Megaupload employees apparently knew how the site was being used. When making payments through its “uploader rewards” program, employees sometimes looked through the material in those accounts first. "10+ Full popular DVD rips (split files), a few small porn movies, some software with keygenerators (warez)," said one of these notes. (The DMCA does not provide a "safe harbor" to sites who have actual knowledge of infringing material and do nothing about it.)"

    272. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Old+Wolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a New Zealander I'd really like to know why our taxpayer money is being spent on enforcing U.S. laws

    273. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      Is an ISP responsible when its users infringe copyright?

    274. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      I suppose its like a landlord who rents out rooms in his property by the hour, and then gets busted for supporting prostitution.

    275. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not why everyone thinks Ron Paul is crazy. He is to libertarians what PETA is to animal-rights groups: a flung-off piece of shit that has somehow latched itself onto mainstream America while the rest of the movement dies. Like PETA, his ideas are based on good principals, but they both have gone overboard and have lost whatever logic created them.

    276. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful? This is short sighted, reckless, and off topic. Eliminating any one major country would have catastrophic effects on the already weak global economy.

      Quit assuming that the U.S. government represents the majority of the U.S. people. It does not.

    277. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genjix, please stop SPAMMING the same post in multiple slashdot articles, you did it 3 times already (http://slashdot.org/~genjix).

      Official moderators, please take action.

    278. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      Wait, so its the companies fault that your politicians are so easily bribed, and your democracy leans ever further towards laughing-stock status?

      We'll fix it once you make campaign donations in that form illegal, as our own bribery laws cover it.

    279. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      half to say that i used this site alot,. Mainly due to the fact the when a show is release in the usa its generally not available in europe for at least 8-9months later. That also applies to films! Will be moving to other websites now. For every 1 shut down there are 3 new 1's set up.

    280. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Megaupload executive team went ahead and referred to itself as The Mega Conspiracy. An incredibly ironic (and foolish) nickname in the end.

    281. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Compiler error: fake dichotomy at line 3.

      Jurisdiction and law coming from the will of people and proportional punishment are Basilar concepts just as the presence of a police force enforcing those and other aspects of justice. In other words, you've been hypocrite too.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    282. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are facilitating copyright infringement with comments like that. Prepare for extradition!

    283. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn it!

      Fox is one of the worst things the human race has ever exported into the intellectual space we all inhabit. I fu**'n hate that gang of psychopaths.

    284. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anyone that has tried to access stuff posted on MegaUpload more than a few days ago knows that MegaUpload are very efficient at removing stuff due to complaints. They're probably the best or fastest of all the file hosting providers in this respect.

      On another note... this means war... Anonymous is just the beginning... the goal is to kill off the online presence all the companies involved in this - permanently.

    285. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just don't get it. Mega-whatever didn't sell the pirated stuff. They did charge a fee for general premium access but that was labeled as covering the expenses (bandwidth, hosting) involved, perhaps with a profit for the owners/investors. Nothing wrong or illegal with that.

      I just cannot see why they're being blamed for what third parties are using it for? - It's the uploaders that are infringing; the downloader just find a link to the stuff on the net and we all know that stuff found on the net that you can download without breaking and entering in some form are the public domain per definition. Maybe not legally but traditionally. That was the way the web worked for more than a decade in the beginning. If something was copyrighted there would be a notice nearby. MegaUpload had a comment field where the uploader could have put a copyright or similar but it was never used as such.

    286. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying US citizens should work to make movie/music content but not get paid for it?

      If you steal from US citizens -regardless of your nationality- you should be punished!

    287. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We DO care, but what can we do? We don't have a vote! ("No legislation without representation" or something like that, but unfortunately ...)

    288. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by webheaded · · Score: 1

      Seriously...why the hell would you arrest the graphic designer? What the hell would he be guilty of? o_O

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    289. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      That is true for all countries. Extradition generally requires your actions to be considered crimes by both countries. Also, countries don't generally extradite their own citizens, either. The MegaUpload people aren't citizens in NZ, and their actions were considered (I'm guessing) criminal in both. MegaUpload was blocked in other countries too, it isn't like the US was the only people out to get them.

      Of course, I don't think they really were criminals, although I have no strong convictions in this case (I don't know enough of the details to say).

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    290. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An indictment that makes up a sensational name for the defendant is a joke. Proving that the operators made money and knew that there were illegal uses of the service is like proving gun manufacturers make money and know that guns are used in stickups.

    291. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      [...] incorrect DMCA letters.

      What, the other 22? (It's an alphabet joke, my apologies.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    292. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tqk · · Score: 1

      Since when has associating Apple with internationalism been hateful?

      Hey Sam. :-) I'm confused. Is "hateful" a bad thing? Was the Nazi "Thousand Year Reich" Internationalism (Wikipedia is pretty confusing on this)? Is pointing out that Apple's abusing the patent and copyright systems "hateful"? Is acknowledging Foxconn's abysmal employee relations "hateful"?

      Fourteen year old kids working sweatshop jobs for pennies per day so my sister can download iTunes to her iBauble? Is the world really a better place for this?

      I don't think the world really needs the word "hateful". "Judgmental" is perfectly capable of handling this situation, IMO. For myself, I judge Apple to be lacking, overall, but perhaps I'm too judgmental. :-P

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    293. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Xray and other medical data is notoriously large files, a job for which file lockers are useful, because of size limits on emails.

      At least in the US, transmitting medical data by either means is illegal. In other countries, it certainly should be. Posting your medical data on Megaupload? What the hell?

    294. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Sad thing is they are in the red due to "hollywood" accounting. There is no way for them to make a profit, because the industry itself does not want them to make a profit, to limit how much they pay to people like Jackson.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    295. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      That's because we control them. Seems like kind of a dick situation now that the Internet is international, but it was reasonable at the time, when we were building the Internet.

    296. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      No. That's the situation in which you're almost guaranteed to be extradited. (Well, if it's illegal in both countries and the one country believes the evidence of the other.) You can still be extradited for acts that are not crimes in your current country.

    297. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      The only objection you can come up with is "crazy" because you are an ideologue. That you can even doubt that a human fetus is human indicates how far from rationality you are.

    298. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by CaseCrash · · Score: 1

      What? so you'd vote for Lord Xenu as long as he said he'd bring the troops back from Afghanistan? WTF? Ron Paul is a fucking whack-job.

      BTW, I'm a Democrat and I supported both wars, so your argument is off again.

      --
      No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
    299. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by symbolset · · Score: 1

      I don't believe they can extradict NZ citizens for conspiring to do things that are, in NZ, not illegal. Could be wrong about this.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    300. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the logical argument that Widowwolf snarkily made was more along the lines of:

      1. "iDMCA" = "take the DMCA Takedown system to a worldwide level"
      2. "iDMCA" = "sounds like something Apple would do" (Widowwolf considered this self-evident)
      -->
      3. "take the DMCA Takedown system to a worldwide level" = "sounds like something Apple would do"

      ...which makes "iDMCA" sound like something an Apple-hater would say.

    301. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tmosley · · Score: 1

      The fact that the law can be broken does not mean there is no law. Also, those charged with enforcing the laws are fully capable of breaking them. And they can be pretty in-your-face about it as well.

    302. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Countries aren't "eliminated". When has a country ever been "eliminated" in the last couple hundred years or more?

      The Soviet Union was "eliminated", by your thinking, 20 years ago. Overnight, it was replaced with a bunch of new countries, most with much stronger economies (maybe not Belarus...), and the global economy is much better off with the former Soviet places now participating in global trade. That's the same thing that needs to happen in the USA.

      As for the "weak" global economy, that's a laugh. The global economy is much better now than probably any time in history, and certainly much better off than it was 40 years ago during the Cold War and with China being so undeveloped at the time. Just because the USA is on the brink of disaster, and Americans are worse off than they were a generation ago, doesn't mean it's the same for everyone else.

    303. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does being monitored have to do with being extradited?

    304. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Technically it's dimes a day, and in some cases even whole dollars! (Actually, I looked it up, and it's about $5.80. Woo-hoo. Extra 'hoo.')

      My comment was merely pointing out that it was Widowwolf's interpretation that created the association, and that no one else cared or was overtly looking for it. Most people might pass over it with a "Heh, mild jab, that resembles an Apple 'i-' prefix" but they certainly wouldn't suddenly ricochet into busting out gang signs and making accusations of hate (which, I agree, is a rather strong word.) It's all very silly. Widowwolf is silly.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    305. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tqk · · Score: 1

      Don't steal American property and you won't have American law enforcement on your ass. Don't hurt American citizens and you won't have American cruise missiles in your capital cities.

      Chyaa, right. Nice try. You don't need to be a genius to remember Salvador Allende, or Reagan's mining the Nicaraguan harbours. Which Americans were being hurt by Sadaam Hussein? Oh yeah, those were Kuwaitis and Kurds. I dare you to even try to explain the invasion of Panama. And soon, Iran! You guys can't keep your noses out of anything, can you?

      Open your eyes. You're lying to yourself.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    306. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by RussellSHarris · · Score: 1

      Mexico has jurisdiction over the body.
      The US has jurisdiction over you, to decide whether you had violated any US laws.
      Mexico also has the right to ask the US to extradite you to Mexico to face trial if they believed you had violated Mexican laws (e.g. firing across their border, murdering a Mexican citizen on foreign soil).

      Wait, was that not a serious question?

    307. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by cdrguru · · Score: 0

      If it is impossible for sites like YouTube to keep pirated materials off their site, well maybe they should not be operating.

      The problem with YouTube is they are actively making money (lots and lots of money) from materials that other people have uploaded. When these people have the rights to upload that content, fine. When they do not and the content creators/owners have their materials usurped from them and used to make some disconnected third party money there is a problem. Saying this cannot be prevented that people MUST be allowed to post copyrighted content without permission, without compensation and without the right to do so means something is broken.

      I do not understand entirely how Google got away with this other than the rather misguided DMCA seems to allow it. This is pretty much the same as someone "borrowing" your daughter, selling her services for a few hours and then giving her back when you finally notice she never came home from school. After all, no real harm was done and nothing was really stolen, was it?

    308. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tqk · · Score: 1

      Bhutan Botswana Brunei Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad China Comoros Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Gabon Guinea Guinea Bissau Indonesia Iran Ivory Coast Jordan Kuwait Laos Lebanon Libya Madagascar Mali Maldives Mauritania Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Nepal Niger Oman Qatar Russia Rwanda Samoa Sao Tome e Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Somalia Sudan Syria Togo Tunisia Uganda United Arab Emirates Vanuatu Vietnam Yemen Yemen South Zaire

      Wow... that's like a Who's Who of suck.

      And you must be a US Citizen. Tell me, who the !@#$ hates Ethiopia, or Equatorial Guinea, or Gabon, or Indonesia?

      Can you even point to them on a map?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    309. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> This sort of thing is going to spark widespread international hatred for the United States.

      They were STEALING (intellectual) PROPERTY from the United States. Why is that cause for hatred?

    310. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How very interesting... just like how allofmp3.com (aka mp3sparks.com, aka many other sites once they started getting squeezed and had to move around) was running a fully legitimate mp3 purchase site (they paid royalties for all sales to the Russian equivalent of ASCAP/BMI), but they were selling TOO CHEAPLY, according to the big record labels, so they got all of their payment systems (Visa, MC, Paypal) to ban them.

      God forbid someone come up with a system that actually lets the artists have more than .15% or whatever iTunes does.

    311. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Sure, except then you get to experience extraordinary rendition instead of extradition.

      Interesting that it's the same "phrase", except with "ordinary ren" inserted. (No Stimpy.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    312. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      A method of telling Echelon "I know you are reading me."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    313. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a better argument for why we don't need the USA.

      I don't even know what to make of this comment. What is the appropriate response to a statement like that? "Okaaay.......and, uh......I guess then we'll um, need to find someone else who's uh, willing to try and ahhh, take up these myriad responsibilities instead. We'll just call a time-out while we restructure the uh, complex global economy and stuff. Say, who wants to play credit card roulette for McDonald's today?" It reminds me of something a child would blurt out during a disagreement with the other neighborhood kids; "Oh yeah, well I hope you all disappear!" ".......Okay.... so guys, we're going to need a permanent kickball pitcher since Timmy left, 'cuz the teams are uneven now."

      It's also somewhat ironic, given your most recent comment, which states, 'Countries aren't "eliminated". When has a country ever been "eliminated" in the last couple hundred years or more?'. Quite frankly, it's the same sort of tone that pervades nearly all of your comments - angry, bitter, and condescending. You're a perfect example of the type of person we all refer to when describing the snarky, supercilious attitudes that fill IRC chatrooms. You need to get some. And if you already have a wife/girlfriend, you need to ask for it more regularly.

    314. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Actually, that repetition wasn't accidental. Yemen South (South Yemen) has not been an independently recognized country in the international community since the unification of Yemen in 1990, so perhaps the list was wrong. Although South Yemen did attempt to secede (unsuccessfully) in 1994 and the South Yemen Movement has existed since 2007 and still demands secession of South Yemen.

      Zaire is just Zaire; there is no South Zaire. But the list was badly formed in that there's no way to tell divisions between the names of the countries, other than just recognizing the names.

    315. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Heddahenrik · · Score: 1
      Yes, exactly like the post is profiting by sending drugs between people (As if copying movies is harmful!).

      The entire close-down stinks with corruption and the US corporate dictatorship misusing it's powers much like drone-attacks in foreign countries.

    316. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      And now I understand. I had indeed assumed that there was a South Zaire and that the list was being collated by noun, somehow. Thanks.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    317. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      How about a certain vulture capitalist trying to become president. It's not hiding when you put in it a tax haven and your politically connected.

      Confiscating assets in this case seems to have more to do with denying the ability of the accused to pay for a proper legal defence.

      Notice how US mass media has all jumped on the guilty until proven innocent bandwagon, trial by idiot box. There is very little pretence of justice, just a straight politically motivated attack by the DOJ driven by the administration in an ultimately self destructive attempt to badger their own politicians into voting in faulty and democratically dangerous legislation.

      I wonder how many of those politicians where photographed in politically inconvenient actions involving young hollywood et al hopefuls and drugs, at various times in those politicians careers.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    318. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Well, I'll give you that it was a funny comment but it sent me on an interesting stumble through Google/Wikipedia, so I should be the one thanking you.

    319. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tqk · · Score: 1

      Actually, I looked it up, and it's about $5.80.

      Five hundred and eighty pennies a day now. Wow! Damned inflation. :-)

      Other than that, ACK. Love the way you write; "... suddenly ricochet into busting out gang signs and making accusations of hate ...). Funnee!

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    320. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DNS provider to get it shut down, you can bet it would have happened long ago.

      I would still be in business if that had happened. And likely had at least one, maybe two others working for me.

    321. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Feel free to try to download your encrypted files from Megaupload now. Another reason not give a convicted criminal's business your data - you may not get it back. (I assume most /. users would be smart enough not to use it for a sole location of their important data, but apparently many customers were not so savvy...)

      Many of those customers actually paid for increased storage or bandwidth. And what did many of those give to Megaupload to pay the fee? Wait for it... their credit card info. Right back into "bad move" territory...

    322. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not usually, no. Usually the mitigator is that you're only supposed to sign extradition treaties with countries who's legal system you trust. So the UK has an extradition treaty with the US on the basis that US law is supposed to be of a shared level of quality as our own.

      It's precisely the other way around. An act normally needs to be a serious crime in both countries for extradition to occur (dual criminality), and specifically, the US-UK extradition normally requires dual criminality.
      (http://opiniojuris.org/2010/12/01/how-to-extradite-julian-assange-to-the-united-states)

    323. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect... dual criminality is usually required for one state to extradite to another (the act needs to be a serious crime in both countries). There are exceptions to this, such as extradition between two EU nations, but dual criminality is the rule.

      In addition to dual criminality, there are other bars to extradition in many treaties, such as: Will the accused receive a fair trial? Will the accused risk the death penalty? Will the accused risk being extradited to a third country? But these are in addition to the dual criminality requirement. It doesn't help if the act is a serious crime in both countries, if one of the other requirements fails.

    324. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      why the hell would you arrest the graphic designer?

      Did you see those graphics?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    325. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi Amir

      I strongly agree with you. Just for information: Copyright came about in the 1800's so that PUBLISHERS would get paid - not the artists. As the nae the suggests - "the right to copy".

      Just thought I would point that out.

      Best regards,
      BattleBlazer

    326. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on whether what he's accused of is considered copyright infringement in NZ. For example, in the US it's sufficient to fail to comply to a DMCA request. I don't know what's required in NZ.

    327. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tqk · · Score: 1

      That's not why I think he is crazy. I think he is crazy for advocating 18th century monetary policy and "states rights," which has basically always meant the right of southern states to remove the rights of minorities.

      So move to Oregon, or California, or Idaho (my preference). If Alabama/Arizona becomes depopulated due to its politicians bad ideas, what's it to you? Ron Paul's your best chance, compared to all the rest of the contenders. They're just Demopublicans/Republicrats. Paul actually believes in things other than just getting elected.

      Sheesh!

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    328. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, maybe a solution to two problems at once. What would CNN do if we started copyrighting our voice mail boxen?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    329. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That was a very good comment (well done, moderators!) but there are a few points...

      If they truly believed in democracy, we could have a direct-democracy tomorrow.

      We could have had a true representational democracy from the beginning, without the internet. Same setup as now, with an elected President and representatives, but have no bill the President signs to become law until the citizenry votes it up or down. No need for the internet for that. It's no harder to have a referendum than it is to elect a President.

      We let them off the hook on the truth like Cameron pretending to be pro-NHS or Obama pretending to be Christian

      You could have used a far better example than Obama. I've seen no evidence (besides his being a lawyer, running for President, and wearing a necktie) that he's a fake Christian. Mr. Newt, on the other hand... well, he handed his first wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital dying of cancer. He was cheating on his second wife while impeaching Clinton for lying about cheating on Hillary. He's been cencured by his own party for ethical violations. Yet he would have fools believe he's a Christian; I don't think the asshat even believes God exists. He certainly doesn't follow the teachings of Christ. You should have used Gingrich, OBVIOUSLY not a Christian, as your example.

    330. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a landlord knows that their tenants are doing something illegal, and they don't report it, then they can be held accountable as an accessory to the crime. The indictment seems to show that they knew what was going on, and we accessory to the alleged crime.

    331. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      Not to defend Newt's record of marital fidelity, which is pretty horrible, but you don't help the case when you inflate that horrible record with things that are not true.

      "Dying of cancer".... No. Jackie Battley is still alive, actually. And regarding the "serving divorce papers in the hospital" thing, Newt's daughter by that first wife says "I was there. It did not happen."

    332. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by aonaran · · Score: 1

      It's not just MegaUpload, MegaVideo is also part of the takedown, I'm not sure how legal that was. The charges are not strictly related to piracy either. Money laundering and racketeering are also in there. I think that they had a lot more on these guys than just hosting pirated content and not taking it down when asked via DMCA takedown letters.

    333. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We care, we just can't do shit about it.

      Captcha: regulate

    334. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you think it's somehow anti-democratic to have a police force?

      It shouldn't be, but it is. Break in to a tavern and steal a few cartons of cigarettes and some booze, and it's almost certain that they'll track you down somehow. But break into my house and you're almost certain to get away scott free. How is that democratic?

      When I was young, somewhere between 25 and 30, my home was broken into and my killer stereo I brought back from Asia when I was in the USAF was stolen, along with all my records. I found out later from a cop I knew that they caught the guy, but let him go when he Judased on a dope dealer, and they even let him keep my stuff!! That''s democracy? If you're not a businessman, the police will NOT help you. And I say that as someone who has been a crime victim many times in my six decades; not once has the perp ever paid, and not once have I ever gotten any stolen goods back.

      Having a police force shouldn't be anti-democratic, but it is. It's not that mob rule is good, it's that classism is bad. When they start writing respectable laws, I'll respect the law (I used to in my naive youth).

      This is what you ask for; you are fortunate that other, more grown-up people still think that this sort of lynch mob is a bad idea, and will fight it on your behalf.

      I think someone said that to George Washington and Ben Franklin, too.

      Alas that is not going to cause the under 30s to re-engage with voting.

      You can vote for a Republican who is for the marijuana laws, PIPA, DMCA, long copyrights, and Gitmo, or you can vote for a Democrat who is for the marijuana laws, PIPA, DMCA, long copyrights, and Gitmo, or you can vote for someone the media refuses to discuss, making it impossible for them to win. And you think we have a democracy? Our two party system is twice as good as the communist one party system! Or... actually, we only have the Republicrats. Or is it the Demublicans? Not much difference between either one. Both are corrupt to the core.

      Ah, youth... if there's one thing I miss about being young, it's being naive.

    335. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, expect Congress to get thrown out on their asses just like Obama if they fail to implement the *people's* will. The days of the American empire and American politicians' tyranny are coming to an end, even if the fat cats don't realize it yet.

    336. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Google "getting away with it" is the only non-evil part of the DMCA. You, sir, are unfortunately misguided. It's understandabe from your user name, which RIAA abel do you work for?

    337. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by operagost · · Score: 1

      Why, yes I can, Dora, as if it mattered. And this isn't a popularity contest, where the countries you like are the ones that matter. Here's why Indonesia sucks, and here's why Ethiopia sucks, and why Equatorial Guinea sucks, and why Gabon sucks. I haven't even touched on their poor economies, or poor literacy. And BTW,this is why YOU suck.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    338. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by HereIAmJH · · Score: 1

      As a New Zealander, maybe you could explain the helicopters. Is it common for police in New Zealand to conduct raids from helicopters? I have visions of SWAT teams in kevlar with assault rifles storming this guy's 'mansion'. We are talking about a non-violent crime here. Would calmly walking up to the front door and knocking be out of the question?

      --
      Another day, another update to a Google android app.
    339. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      That depends. Which child does the toy belong to? And many computer files are completely legally shared.

      Your clever example isn't very good, actually.

    340. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Obama is more of a corrupt crony capitalist than a 'leftist.' His roots are in the Chicago political scene, after all. He has many buddies and wealthy supporters in the corporate structure.

    341. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by psiclops · · Score: 1

      From the indictment:

      22. When a file is being uploaded to Megaupload.com, the Conspiracy’s automatedsystem calculates a unique identifier for the file (called a “MD5 hash”) that is generated using amathematical algorithm. If, after the MD5 hash calculation, the system determines that theuploading file already exists on a server controlled by the Mega Conspiracy, Megaupload.comdoes not reproduce a second copy of the file on that server. Instead, the system provides a newand unique URL link to the new user that is pointed to the original file already present on theserver. If there is more than one URL link to a file, then any attempt by the copyright holder toterminate access to the file using the Abuse Tool or other DMCA takedown request will failbecause the additional access links will continue to be available.

      23.The infringing copy of the copyrighted work, therefore, remains on theConspiracy’s systems (and accessible to at least one member of the public) as long as a single link remains unknown to the copyright holder. The Conspiracy’s internal reference databasetracks the links that have been generated by the system, but duplicative links to infringingmaterials are neither disclosed to copyright holders, nor are they automatically deleted when acopyright holder either uses the Abuse Tool or makes a standard DMCA copyright infringementtakedown request. During the course of the Conspiracy, the Mega Conspiracy has receivedmany millions of requests (through the Abuse Tool and otherwise) to remove infringing copiesof copyrighted works and yet the Conspiracy has, at best, only deleted the particular URL of which the copyright holder complained, and purposefully left the actual infringing copy of thecopyrighted work on the Mega Conspiracy-controlled server and any other access linkscompletely intact.

      24. In addition to copyrighted files, other types of illicit content have been uploadedonto the Megaupload.com servers, including child pornography and terrorism propagandavideos. Members of the Conspiracy have indicated to each other that they can automaticallyidentify and delete such materials on all of their servers by calculating MD5 hash values of known child pornography or other illicit content, searching the system for these values, andeliminating them; in fact, such files with matching hash values have been deleted from the MegaConspiracy’s servers. Members of the Mega Conspiracy have failed to implement a similarprogram to actually delete or terminate access to copyright infringing content.

      25. On or about June 24, 2010, members of the Mega Conspiracy were informed,pursuant to a criminal search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, that thirty-nine infringing copies of copyrighted motion pictures were present on theirleased servers at Carpathia Hosting, a hosting company headquartered in the Eastern District of Virginia. A member of the Mega Conspiracy informed several of his co-conspirators at that time that he located the named files using internal searches of their systems. As of November 18,2011, more than a year later, thirty-six of the thirty-nine infringing motion pictures were stillbeing stored on the servers controlled by the Mega Conspiracy

      if you're particularly lazy just read 22 and 25.

      although none of this is proof of anything i would assume the had evidence to back this up.

      there's other stuff in there regarding their business model about how they profit of files but there's a lot of it. and it's all advertising/subscription based and would also cover legitimate files. so no single dollar would come from infringing files alone (according to indictment their advertising is sold at an upfront cost not a per click/view basis)

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    342. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by hitmark · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many of those politicians where photographed in politically inconvenient actions involving young hollywood et al hopefuls and drugs, at various times in those politicians careers.

      Now that is a interesting angle.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    343. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a citizen of a EU country, and you are right. This *is* slowly converting me into somebody who wishes to nuke the USA from orbit. "It's the only way to be safe."

      Of course, I know that there are still a lot of great people in the USA (mostly thanks to The Daily Show and US scientists), and it's wrong to judge a whole nation by their craziest people. But the problem is that the whole nation lets those crazy people rule! Which makes them just as much guilty. Like walking away when you see somebody killing someone else. It's a crime for a reason!

      It's really, seriously hard, to not just go full rage mode, and think about how to punish those criminals that you call your government. (If you have/had relatives in New York, think about how you felt during 9/11. We knew that most Arabs are just normal guys, and it's a few crazy evil ones influenced a couple more poor shmucks. Yet, in that very moment, you just wanted to... well, there you have it. See? That's the thing.)

      Guys and girls! Please come over! We send our politicians there in return, and then we nuke all of them from orbit. OK? ^^

    344. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by makomk · · Score: 1

      What they did with money turns out to be far more significant than the "piracy" components.

      Errm, they paid their hosting companies and they paid a share to some of their uploaders. As far as I can tell, this is the entire basis of the DoJ's money laundering charges - it's not even anything to do with how they paid them.

    345. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      How do you cope with it? I fall asleep crying many nights for the same reasons, and I'm only 18. How the hell am I gonna get to 30, let alone anything else.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    346. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stay determined to neither fall victim nor become corrupt. And spread these ideas to others. If you live in a "democratic" country, tell your representatives your views. They probably won't listen, because most "democracies" are classist--laws are written for the rich, or applied selectively to benefit the rich. So--you vote with your dollar.

      *Do not buy products or services* from companies that support or sponsor legislation that you disagree with, or that engage in practices that disagree with. It takes a lot of research to find this all out, and while you're looking up all this stuff, you'll need to be using a computer or at a library, using electricity and water. You'll die of starvation before you have the time to research every company you buy food from.

      But do *something*. Pick a few laws or proposed legislation that you feel strongly about, and find out which politicians proposed it, which companies supported it, which well known rich private citizens supported it, and try to find a common link--figure out why. If it's legislation that is even slightly well-known you can probably find editorials, essays, opinion pieces, etc.online in which more qualified (but possibly biased/corrupt) journalists have already done this research and published their opinions.

      Pick a few companies whose products you frequently use and look up how they influence politics; determine if you agree with those views and if you want to effectively vote for these ideas by spending money on these companies products/services. Again, you can probably find a lot of this information online that other people have already gathered together. Tell other people what you find out, and tell them to do their own research.

      Thoroughly looking into the money trail and backscratcher train behind every company and every law takes far too much time to be realistically feasible for anyone who's not a professional politician, lobbyist, etc. This is the one way the system stays inherently corrupt--you have to already be part of it in order to fully understand and affect it. But you can do *something*. Just pick your battles.

      So--the way you cope in a corrupt and depressing world is by resolving to not add to the corruption, and to spread whatever you believe to be truth, to be good, to other people. It is also crucial to accept your human limits in creating change instead of hating yourself for failing or being corrupt. Unless you are actually pursuing a career as politician, understand that you will inevitably and unwittingly buy a product from a company whose stance on some issue or political influence you disagree with, or let slide a piece of legislation that you think will have negative effects. These instances of corruption are not okay, but it's okay for a single individual to not act upon every instance of corruption that they perceive. You have to live your life too. It's pointless to make the world a better place if you have no time to enjoy your life.

      That is how you cope. Or at least how I cope. Good luck.

    347. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The naiviete here is not really mine. It is that of the advocate of "real democracy" who thinks that arresting Kim Dotcom is somehow "fascism" and a reactionary attempt to preserve an old world order. That's what I was replying to. It attracted my attention because it was moderated so highly. Such rampant idiocy really should not go unchallenged.

      I would say that democracy is nonsense, that we don't have it, that it can't ever work, and even if we did, that would be an entirely bad thing, but I find it best to merely hint at these facts, in the hope that others will independently discover them. I don't think this is specially naive behaviour in a world where democracy is worshipped.

      But I do think it is well worth asking exactly why busting an organised criminal is not democratic.

      The popularity of mafia-run pirate sites is an indication of the people's inability to see the big picture, rather than an indication of any desire to keep crooks in business, and is therefore a good example of why democracy cannot work, because small-scale self-interest leads to really crappy decisions on a larger scale.

      By the way, I entirely sympathise with the trouble you had with the police. Be glad you don't live in Britain. They wouldn't even have bothered to arrest anyone over here. Our police force is crap because democracy demands it be so. The old law-enforcing variety was deemed racist and corrupt, and democratic "reforms" replaced it with a pointless bureaucracy of social workers who act as mediators between victim and villian.

    348. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tqk · · Score: 1

      Why, yes I can, Dora, as if it mattered.

      Oh, good. I only mentioned it because it's often said that US-ians only learn of geography via invasion. Cool. You're improving.

      ... here's why Ethiopia sucks

      Haaaa, ha, ha, ha, ha, funny. Okay, I'll see your "poisoning the well" and raise you "argument from authority", here and here.

      Amnesty International is an advocacy organization. They advocate. It's what they do for a living. I see nothing wrong with that and applaud their efforts, but they're going to find something wrong with everywhere, including some of the most benign regions out there (Canucks and Danes are generally not known recently for Imperial ambitions).

      Maybe I should have asked, "who hates Ethiopia enough to want to invade it and kill 200k civilians doing it?" Nobody! So, I think I'll stand by my condemnation of your, "Wow... that's like a Who's Who of suck." I've actually even been to Sudan, and loved the place so much I didn't want to leave. No, I'm not a fan of Bashir, but I found it fairly easy to ignore him, and soon he'll be dead. :-)

      Love the country and its people, but hate the assholes that're ruining the place.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    349. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tqk · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul not the sort of ally we want.

      Mother Jones is hardly a bastion of objectivity in reportage.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    350. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by hawk · · Score: 1

      >Most will confuse this with a SOPA action, which
      > will make it that much easier to hype.

      No, this is a piracy action and it's well known that pirates loath sopa and water . . .

      And it is long established that Captains of any nation may capture pirates of any other nation and hang them.

      More seriously, there is nothing new or novel about deliberate events and actions projected into a country granting jurisdiction. Stand on the US side of the border and shoot a Canadian, and Canada will certainly claim it has jurisdiction.

      The company had servers in the US; claiming jurisdiction over those directing them is not novel. For that matter, deliberately targeting the downloads into the US from a foreign server really isn't a stretch under traditional notions.

      Whether the law is a good idea or not is another question, as is whether the law should be changed to limit jurisdiction.

      hawk, esq.

    351. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tqk · · Score: 1

      That's not why everyone thinks Ron Paul is crazy. He is to libertarians what PETA is to animal-rights groups: a flung-off piece of shit that has somehow latched itself onto mainstream America while the rest of the movement dies.

      Yet, compared to the alternatives (Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Bachman,...), he stands far above the crowd in pretty much every way. You may have to hold your nose to support him (how's this different from any politician?), but all the others are just a crap shoot. IOW, career politicians willing to say or do anything to get, or stay, elected. Yuck. They all remind me of Hillary.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    352. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tqk · · Score: 1

      They were STEALING (intellectual) PROPERTY from the United States.

      So, the US has less Intellectual Property now? No? I think you're just making the situation more confused, and your laws suck. HAND.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    353. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tqk · · Score: 1

      I wonder how long before a US [led] coalition invades "for the good of the people of Somalia"...

      I think they tried that, and it didn't work out all that well.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    354. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tom Cruise was unavailable for comment as he was squashed flat by the alien ship landing.

      Rendering him several inches shorter.

      But hey, not so many, just a couple of inches.

    355. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      The bit that's important is that they were aware of the pirated content - first because they on several occasions deliberately searched their servers looking for it so that they could view it themselves, second because they emailed pages with pirated content on it to their advertisers for demo purposes, and third because Google, PayPal, the movie companies and the government all told them so, and they ignored it. That the guy in charge issued a specific directive to ignore removal requests that came from anyone other than a big movie company is pretty bad too. As a general rule, once you become aware of your service being used for criminal acts, you're meant to do something - they did not.

      There's a right way and a wrong way to run a file upload site - MegaUpload did everything the wrong way.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    356. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Also, the penalty for the offense must be imprisonment of 12 months or more (source).

      Technically, money laundering is an offense with a 7 year prison term, so it qualifies. The US government have to prove to the district court that there is a reasonable belief that they were in fact money laundering. Conspiracy to commit the crime appears to have very similar penalties to actually performing it as well.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    357. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Elldallan · · Score: 1
      Google gets away with that because they're not an active participant in the crime committed any more than the ISP's involved in transmitting the data are.
      Yes YouTube is benefiting from the crime but they are not participating any more than every single ISP is as they by your logic are also directly making money off the crime.
      Do you for example honestly think that they USPS should be blamed whenever someone sends something illegal by mail?

      This is pretty much the same as someone "borrowing" your daughter, selling her services for a few hours and then giving her back when you finally notice she never came home from school. After all, no real harm was done and nothing was really stolen, was it?

      Uh no that is not comparable in any way shape or form. In your example someone is being coerced to do something against their will, that is simply not true in the case of YouTube. For one thing the copyrighted work which is what you are trying equate with someones daughter is neither alive, sentient or even a physical object and as such the two is simply not comparable).

    358. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by gmanterry · · Score: 1

      Sir:
      I sure as hell hope you vote. Right on.

      --
      Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
    359. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by psiclops · · Score: 1

      from the top of page 42 of the indictment (69. jjj.)

      jjj. Starting as early as August 9, 2009, a member of the Mega Conspiracymade multiple transfers in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce through PayPal, Inc. toCW, a resident of Moseley, Virginia, which is in the Eastern District of Virginia, as part of theMega Conspiracy’s “Uploader Rewards” program. CW received total payments from theConspiracy of $2,900, including payments of $100 and $600 on August 9, 2009; a payment of $500 on October 8, 2009; a transfer of $1,500 on December 23, 2009; and a payment of $200 on June 21, 2010.

      from the bottom of page 4

      7. Megaupload.com advertises itself as a “cyberlocker,” which is a private data storage provider. However, as part of the design of the service, the vast majority of Megaupload.com users do not have significant capabilities to store private content long-term .Unregistered anonymous users (referred to as “Non-Members” by the Conspiracy) are allowed to upload and download content files, but any Non-Member-uploaded content that is not downloaded within 21 days is permanently deleted. Similarly, registered free users (or “Members”) are allowed to upload and download content files, but each uploaded file must be downloaded every 90 days in order to remain on the system. Only premium users have a realistic chance of having any private long-term storage, ...

      (i never used the service so can't say how it was, but this is the allegation)

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    360. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      First, technically it's not being spent on enforcing U.S. laws; it's being spent on answering a cooperation request.

      Secondly, as a New Zealander (who currently resides in the U.S.), this is part of being part of a good community. You have agreements with other countries, you play nice, and you expect the same in return. Good example - the ANZUS treaty which stipulated mutual defense pacts between Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S. (or at least it did until David Lange banned nuclear vessels from visiting NZ ports and the NZ/US branch went down the drain).

      How would you have felt if Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur had escaped to the U.S. after bombing the Rainbow Warrior and U.S. officials refused to pick them up when New Zealand officials made that request?

    361. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by neonsignal · · Score: 1

      Wow, you should be writing anti-piracy ads. "Downloading a movie is human trafficking".

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

    362. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Like the depression-era humorist Will Rogers said, "All I know is what I read in the papers."

    363. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it is impossible for sites like YouTube to keep pirated materials off their site, well maybe they should not be operating.

      I hereby revoke your 5-digit UID, because I apparently must remind you that Slashdot has also failed to keep pirated materials off its site.

    364. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Reefer. Lots and lots of weed.

    365. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I should have asked, "who hates Ethiopia enough to want to invade it and kill 200k civilians doing it?" Nobody!So, I think I'll stand by my condemnation of your, "Wow... that's like a Who's Who of suck."

      Where exactly did operagost imply that a "who's who of suck" means a "who's who of countries I'd like to invade and kill 200k people"?

      I though he meant a "who's who of nations which would really suck to live in".

      I've actually even been to Sudan, and loved the place so much I didn't want to leave.

      Yes you did. Know how I know? You left. Your desire not to stay there clearly overpowered whatever desire you might have had to stay there.

    366. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tqk · · Score: 1

      Where exactly did operagost imply that a "who's who of suck" means a "who's who of countries I'd like to invade and kill 200k people"?

      I [thought] he meant a "who's who of nations which would really suck to live in".

      Six of one, or a half a dozen of the other. Your thought was more valid than my thought, why? To me, "Who's Who of Suck" means what GWB thought of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

      I've actually even been to Sudan, and loved the place so much I didn't want to leave.

      Your desire not to stay there clearly overpowered whatever desire you might have had to stay there.

      I was a contractor working for a multinational that owned property there. I completed the job and only had a limited stay work permit/visa. Yeah, I suppose if I was really motivated to stay, I could have gone native and run off to Darfur or the south, but that would have been wrong. I thought I owed it to my employer to return and finish the contract I'd signed up for, silly me. Scruples can be so limiting!

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    367. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your thought was more valid than my thought, why? To me, "Who's Who of Suck" means what GWB thought of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

      Because to anyone other than a psychopath, the statement "you suck" does not imply "and I'm going to kill you and take your stuff".

      P.S. You suck.

    368. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by tqk · · Score: 1

      To me, "Who's Who of Suck" means what GWB thought of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

      Because to anyone other than a psychopath, the statement "you suck" does not imply "and I'm going to kill you and take your stuff".

      We're talking about the "Who's Who of Suck" here, as in the very bottom of the barrel, not just "you suck". Try to keep up, ffs.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    369. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you try to keep up.

      To anyone other than a psychopath, no matter how much someone sucks, "suck" still does not imply a desire to kill them and take their stuff. We have other words for that. Such as, "hate".

      No amount of suckage makes me want to invade and take their stuff. In fact, as I use the word "suck", the more their country sucks, the less likely it is to have anything we'd find useful anyway.

    370. Re:U.S. law is the new international law by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      Like the depression-era humorist Will Rogers said, "All I know is what I read in the papers."

      <voice=AdamSavage>Well, there's your problem right there!</voice>

  2. File Lockers don't work... by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anybody surprised by this story must be new here. File Lockers like MP3.com have been shut down regularly for ages now. You can't have an online database of content that isn't secured right...

    1. Re:File Lockers don't work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yeah, what about youtube then?

    2. Re:File Lockers don't work... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      As I recall, youtube was on the verge of being shutdown (via bankruptcy) before they were bought by Google, who had the deep pockets to defend against the lawsuits.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    3. Re:File Lockers don't work... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      So all the lawsuits did was get google a really good bargain and made some lawyers rich?

    4. Re:File Lockers don't work... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the outcome of most major recent lawsuits, doesn't it? (ie, got a big company a good deal and made lawyers rich)

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    5. Re:File Lockers don't work... by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      MP3.com wasn't a "file locker". It let you listen to copies of the music you didn't own. Compare MP3.com with, say, Google Music. On Google Music, you upload your own music yourself and use it on all of your Google Music-capable devices. There's no easy way to prove one way or the other that your files are illegal, so it's safe. MP3.com, though, had you just register your physical CDs with the website and then it let you stream copies of the music that you didn't make from their website. It was, in no way, a file locker for that reason.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
  3. right. by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "holders including record labels and movie studios more than $500 million in lost revenue."
    my ass.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:right. by Anrego · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was actually surprised by that figure. It actually seems low given the people who came up with it.

      Considering the past history of ludicrously high damage claims and the huge amount of infringing content they probably actually have, I figured they'd be making up new words to describe the number they came up with...

    2. Re:right. by Jawnn · · Score: 2, Informative

      You bet your ass they make sure that the lamestream media parrots those numbers as often as possible. Never mind that they've been proven, over and over again, to be utter bullshit. And notice how Chris Dodd et al keep referring to it as "theft"? Heaven forbid that CBS, or CNN suddenly grasp the real issue is an industry that is genuinely threatened by advancing technology and that industry's choice to pursue legal measures to prop up their outmoded business model instead of actually competing.

    3. Re:right. by Oakey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well this is the same industry that can't even make a profit from massive Blockbusters like Star Wars and Forrest Gump. I mean, every film released is just a huge unprofitable loss after unprofitable loss which is why people like David Prowse and Winston Groom have yet to see their share of the profits. It honestly makes you wonder why Hollywood bothers making films when a film that costs £55million to make and takes in $657million in sales still makes a $64million loss.

      I think Hollywood has bigger things to worry about than piracy, like maximising profits as any legitimate business would.

      --
      "Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
    4. Re:right. by shentino · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      Your own ass is more valuable than the garbage they try to sell me.

    5. Re:right. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's entirely accurate. In related news, people who quite my Slashdot posts owe me $1m in lost revenue.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:right. by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Considering the past history of ludicrously high damage claims and the huge amount of infringing content they probably actually have, I figured they'd be making up new words to describe the number they came up with...

      Just because they only claim $500 million in lost revenues in no way prevents them from seeking $500 million trillion dollars in damages.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    7. Re:right. by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Considering that they state the CEO made $42 million in 2010 I would not be surprised if it turns out that the $500 million amount might actually be what Megaupload made.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    8. Re:right. by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      Newsflash. You don't pay taxes or actors dumb enough to accept a cut of net profits when you have a "loss".

      If you think those movies actually lost the makers money, I've got a nice bridge to sell you.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    9. Re:right. by Oakey · · Score: 1

      I know the movie studioes didn't actually make a loss but it's a bit hypocritical to put out adverts stating piracy is taking food off the tables of actors, etc when the studios are the first to screw them out of their dues.

      It doesn't make it acceptable just because those people are naive to the way the industry works

      --
      "Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
    10. Re:right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must be a fine ass to cost $500 million.

    11. Re:right. by chronoglass · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's entirely accurate. In related news, people who quote my Slashdot posts owe me $1m in lost revenue.

      that's bum duh duh duh dum bum, not bum duh duh duh DUM bum.. sounds nothing like "under pressure"

    12. Re:right. by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      I was actually surprised by that figure. It actually seems low given the people who came up with it.

      Considering the past history of ludicrously high damage claims and the huge amount of infringing content they probably actually have, I figured they'd be making up new words to describe the number they came up with...

      I half expected to see a little bald wanker holding a bald cat shoving his little finger in his lips saying "They cost us 900 SQUADZILLION DOLLARS and we want it BACK!!!"

      I think Hollywood has bigger things to worry about than piracy, like maximising profits as any legitimate business would.

      Naw, they got the best accountants alive. Those guys make the accountants at Infernal Revenue look like Cub Scouts tossed over the waterfalls.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    13. Re:right. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      No need, did you know there's an "octillion?" Real thing.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    14. Re:right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "holders including record labels and movie studios more than $500 million in lost revenue."
      my ass.

      Indeed. I want to see where these fucks declared those "losses" on their SEC filings, and if they didn't there should be FUCKING JAIL TIME for defrauding investors.

    15. Re:right. by danomac · · Score: 1

      Considering the past history of ludicrously high damage claims and the huge amount of infringing content they probably actually have, I figured they'd be making up new words to describe the number they came up with...

      Yes, but this is an actual company they brought down, not an individual; they have arrested the owners of said company. Otherwise it would have been 80 trillion dollars.

    16. Re:right. by Chewbacon · · Score: 3, Funny

      So that's about 5 Metallica songs?

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    17. Re:right. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      I think Hollywood has bigger things to worry about than piracy, like maximising profits as any legitimate business would.

      On the contrary, they are extremely good at not paying taxes and minimising the amount they owe the artists involved in creating their content.

    18. Re:right. by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about the amount, but I'm pretty sure the companies suing actually have only a fraction of the pirated material on MegaUpload. You can get the latest crap from Lady Gaggag on any old (and new) torrent site, while these hosting download sites tend to have more software and books from smaller publishers. If the numbers are realistic those amounts would be much more helpful in the hands of indies ;)

    19. Re:right. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Although, you know what... hasn't "suing the new, innovative competition" been par for the course in America for a couple hundred years now? How often has it actually stopped a superior technology from eventually winning? This is just the organizations that are failing to adapt sounding their death knell.

    20. Re:right. by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      When Twentieth Century Fox is owned by the same company that owns Fox News Channel, and the Wall Street Journal, it's pretty easy to get them to parrot whatever you want.

      One thing I noticed is many of the top sites reporting on this story have comments turned off in the articles, when they usually have comments enabled. Smells like pre-emptive silencing, because they know how unpopular this is.

    21. Re:right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now i know where all the appraisers from infomercials go for more work...

      "...an $82.20 value, yours for only 2 payments of $12.87."

    22. Re:right. by tqk · · Score: 1

      ... people who quite my Slashdot posts ...

      What? "Preview", people. Proofread, demmit (rasafrackin, jiggafriggin ...)!

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    23. Re:right. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      That's what we in the creative industry refer to as an embedded watermark.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    24. Re:right. by tqk · · Score: 1

      That's what some of us in real life consider incompetence. This isn't even hard.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    25. Re:right. by Agronomist+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: whooosh!!

      Check your sarcasm detector, as it seems to be completely broken.

      --
      -DwS
    26. Re:right. by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      I was actually surprised by that figure. It actually seems low given the people who came up with it.

      Considering the past history of ludicrously high damage claims and the huge amount of infringing content they probably actually have, I figured they'd be making up new words to describe the number they came up with...

      You're assuming they'd calculate them in a logical, proportional way. They're choosing the numbers from a political perspective.
      They deliberately chose a number in the millions because its large and believable. Had they applied the same kind of valuation used in previous cases, the result would have eclipsed the GDPs of some small nations, and it would raise the courts' suspicions. As long as they remain believable (to the courts), there's not as much risk of their calculations being questioned.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  4. Dick Morris by bonch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It almost comes off as intentional that this occurred the day after the SOPA protests. It looks like the battles over copyright infringement are finally coming to a head. This will all get resolved one way or another.

    Dick Morris is a former Clinton advisor and a regular Fox News commentator, but he actually wrote what I think is a rational, well-worded message about everything that's been happening:

    ---

    Dear Friend,

    The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is just the kind of bill that could cripple Internet freedom in the name of a good cause. Everybody agrees that we need to battle online piracy of movies, books, TV shows and such. If piracy spreads, nobody will create anything because their work will be pirated as soon as it is finished.

    But...this legislation, with its draconian enforcement powers, uses an atomic bomb to solve a problem best left to educated action by responsible individuals and normal litigation. The collateral damage from this bill could destroy Internet freedom.

    The bill would let the Justice Department and copyright holders to get court orders against websites they accuse of enabling or encouraging copyright infringement. It could stop search engines from linking to such sites and require service providers to block access to them.

    It should be called the Camel's Nose In the Tent Act (CNITA). It would criminalize the Internet and make search engines the enforcers of copyright laws. It opens the tent to federal regulation and judicial activism that could drive search engines and internet service providers into bankruptcy through excessive court judgments and liability.

    There is a remedy: Public education. None of us wants to kill off artistic creation. Each of us realizes that by abusing the system to get the goodies for free, we risk eliminating the goodies. We don't litter because we don't want to ruin our environment. We don't run red lights because we don't want traffic chaos. We wear seatbelts because we want to live. Law enforcement plays a role, but the greater influence is an educated public.

    Copyright infringers can't make it if we don't buy it. Consumers need to realize that we will kill the golden goose if we steal his eggs! The way to regulate the internet is to use it sensibly and wisely and not to let Congress and the Justice Department in the door.

    Thanks,

    Dick Morris

    1. Re:Dick Morris by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      It almost comes off as intentional that this occurred the day after the SOPA protests

      I highly doubt one had to do with the other. The Feds don't casually put together a criminal case; they take their time and line up all the ducks before they pull the trigger. That's one of the reasons why Federal cases have a substantially higher conviction rate than State ones. One of the lawyers around here could provide an exact number but if I recall correctly >90% of Federal indictments wind up with either a conviction or guilty plea.

      This investigation was in the pipeline for months. The indictment was likely handed down by a Grand Jury some time ago.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Dick Morris by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Everybody agrees that we need to battle online piracy of movies, books, TV shows and such.

      I'd like to know how they propose to "battle online piracy" without draconian laws.

    3. Re:Dick Morris by SirGarlon · · Score: 2

      Law enforcement plays a role, but the greater influence is an educated public.

      This is the most impressively rational thing I have read in relation to public policy in a long time.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    4. Re:Dick Morris by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the FEDS never engage in POLITICS.

    5. Re:Dick Morris by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If piracy spreads, nobody will create anything because their work will be pirated as soon as it is finished.

      I don't find the support of figures who say things like this entirely welcome. It shows a great ignorance of history. Copyright is a fairly recent concept, popping up only 500 years ago and mainly limited to the West. So much of the Western canon -- the Greek and Latin classics, Dante, Chaucer, even Shakespeare, arose in a time when content creators were not compensated for each and every copy (and non-Western traditions contain further riches).

      And there was a lot of copying going on. In ancient Rome, it was common for audience members to transcribe poetry recitals, have many copies generated by amanuenses, and then sold in the marketplace with no money going back to the original author. As far as I know, the sole example of someone complaining about this was Martial in one of his epigrams, and he only had a problem with people passing off his work as their own -- so plagiarism, not "copyright infringement". Content creation flourished without copyright, and even in recent times, when copyright was in full force, so many classic films and musical compositions were produced with a boatload of private patronage or state arts subsidies, so the ability to be paid royalties for each copy made didn't really factor into their creation.

      In order to quicken the rise of an inevitable new economy, it's better that people just say straight out that copyright is an untenable concept and not a moral universal. No more of this wishy-washy "Piracy should be fought, but this law goes too far."

    6. Re:Dick Morris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, that's the nice way of putting it. Or maybe they threaten innocent or mostly-innocent people into pleabargains. Really, it's both. Celebrate the fact that some law enforcement agencies are better at lining up the ducks, but don't assume that everything's as nice as their PR would make it sound.

      Here's a great post from six years about about this topic
      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=138509&cid=11594923

      This Megaupload case seems to be pretty political too (after all, we're having political discussions around it), so talking about how the Feds are in general isn't going to be as meaningful this time. And I don't know how US Federal courts can shut down a Hong Kong company (Hong Kong is a former colony of the British Empire, but was given back to the People's Republic of China around ten years ago). I guess they just stole the DNS record, because .com belongs to the US. Can Megaupload set up a .co.hk or something?

    7. Re:Dick Morris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If piracy spreads, nobody will create anything because their work will be pirated as soon as it is finished.

      OK, so how about we all agree we will only "pirate" it 20 years after it's released? Might as well make that the legal limit, too instead of "add 2 decades, every 1.9 decades, rinse, repeat".

    8. Re:Dick Morris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "artists" that create art for the sole reason of revenue are not artists and i don't want to hear their music or read their books. there is a huge collective of musicians online that collaborate, trade their music and go to their day jobs, not one of them cares about money.

    9. Re:Dick Morris by operagost · · Score: 1

      Need to do a little better than "DON'T COPY THAT FLOPPY!" and "You wouldn't copy a car, right?" It's also nice to not accuse someone who just bought or rented a DVD of being a potential thief as soon as they pop it in.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:Dick Morris by operagost · · Score: 1

      Printing press. Once it was invented, writing become both more lucrative and more vulnerable to copying. That's also about when copyright protection began.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    11. Re:Dick Morris by shaitand · · Score: 2

      "Everybody agrees that we need to battle online piracy of movies, books, TV shows and such"

      Since when? Most of us don't agree with this at all.

    12. Re:Dick Morris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had read the rest of it, you'd already know--an educated public.

    13. Re:Dick Morris by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      Everybody agrees that we need to battle online piracy of movies, books, TV shows and such. If piracy spreads, nobody will create anything because their work will be pirated as soon as it is finished.

      Nonsense. And I'll show you why in the next paragraph.

      None of us wants to kill off artistic creation. Each of us realizes that by abusing the system to get the goodies for free, we risk eliminating the goodies.

      The communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe tried exactly that in 1960s and 1970s. To be more specific, they tried to kill off Rock & roll and Rock music by force. And they failed miserably. The fact that there was no way to buy records of western or even domestic rock music legally meant only one thing - people circulated illegal bootleg copies and composed and played their own songs. You can read more details on Wikipedia.

    14. Re:Dick Morris by Fned · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everybody agrees that we need to battle online piracy of movies, books, TV shows and such. If piracy spreads, nobody will create anything because their work will be pirated as soon as it is finished.

      That's rational and well-worded? I disagree. It's boldly irrational, arrogant, and false.

      Movies, books, TV shows, and music all are still operating on a business model that depends wholly on copies being worth something. But copies of data inside computers AREN'T worth something. They are worth nothing, they have no intrinsic value at all.

      Access to the work has value. The creation of the work has value. But copies no longer have value. So bascially we have whole industries that are trying to pay for valuable things by selling their customers something valueless. Econ 101: this is a stupid idea.

      Don't get me wrong, it didn't used to be a stupid idea. It used to be a GREAT idea. But then computers got smart enough and connected enough to make copies of common media worthless, and as if by magic it became a stupid idea, almost overnight. It will remain a stupid idea until the computers aren't smart enough and aren't connected enough.

      Shit like SOPA is not some sort of accident on the road to trying to prop up this broken business model; it's an inevitable side effect of trying to create a chimeric beast called "intellectual property". It's what happens when you try to force the limitations of physical copies onto a virtual object, inevitably fail to do so in a technical way, and are left with no recourse but draconian measures to prevent people from doing the obvious. It's what happens when you try to apply copright-as-written to computers: it breaks the computers.

      Copyright needs to change. Business models need to change. If they don't, running arbitrary code will become a crime, and countries with digital freedom will leave the rest of us scrabbling in the dust.

    15. Re:Dick Morris by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know how they speak for everybody. Piracy might be illegal and immoral (the same could be said of prostitution), but I can state unequivocally that not everybody thinks we need to wage a war against it.

    16. Re:Dick Morris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If piracy spreads...

      It will no longer be called "piracy", but "publicity", and reaching a huge audience will once again mean being rewarded financially.

    17. Re:Dick Morris by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      When everyone is in posession of computers, the only way to render copyright at all enforceable in any way is draconian regulation of technology. Not worth it.

    18. Re:Dick Morris by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      They did one in the UK called Knock-Off Nigel. It backfired a bit. Far from making the guy down the pub into a social outcast rejected for his cheapskate ways, it just reminded everyone that their workplace likely has a pirate who will give away movies.

    19. Re:Dick Morris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > If piracy spreads, nobody will create anything because their work will be pirated as soon as it is finished.

      Good lord I am so sick of this kind of statement. I have spent the last 15 years putting original and substantial works of art, prose, music, film and code on the internet intentionally for it to be stolen, kept, traded, shared and enjoyed. I have a day job programming so I don't care about the money. I am happy to make stuff for the people, have an audience, and get feedback on my work and see it used in contexts I could not dream of.

      And I am not alone.

    20. Re:Dick Morris by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      Sounds like he wants to educate people about what is piracy instead of adding more laws.

    21. Re:Dick Morris by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Hopefully by providing an easy-to-use, readily-available, reasonably-priced alternative, together with reasonable education (not the usual hyperbole). And then recognize that some will happen anyway, and find ways to monetize that portion as well (such as with T-shirts or other accessory items, or events with admission, where all fans *paying and non* will have a chance to spend some money).

      I can dream.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    22. Re:Dick Morris by Fned · · Score: 1

      Educated in re-education camps, no doubt.

    23. Re:Dick Morris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to know how they propose to "battle online piracy" without draconian laws.

      If the content creators put their content online at reasonable prices, with reasonable restrictions, there would be no 'piracy'- it'd literally be easier to buy the content than 'pirate' it.

      THAT's how you battle online piracy without draconian laws

    24. Re:Dick Morris by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      We don't litter because we don't want to ruin our environment. We don't run red lights because we don't want traffic chaos. We wear seatbelts because we want to live.

      Rational? This is using 'physical' world situations with real and dangerous results to try and compare something that has no physical harm whatsoever.

      Sorry folks, Morris is, and always will be, a political shill.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    25. Re:Dick Morris by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

      "We will kill the golden goose if we kill his eggs." Uh, those aren't eggs...!

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    26. Re:Dick Morris by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      Shakespeare and Roman poetry were performance arts, that's how they made their money. Butts in seats. My favorite part of the digital age is watching what I want when I want it. And not having to cram my fat ass into a tiny seat at a scheduled time some 30 - 60 minutes away from home in order to consume content.

      Private patronage means only people with money get to pick what media we get to consume. You won't see much that isn't pro-1%. Because that's the best way to make money, don't piss off the people who give you money. Personally I don't really like a world that isn't free to cater to specific views. And forget about the diverse consumer base that the creation of the digital medium has allowed. (Compare tv shows from the 80s (mostly boilerplate family comedies like Bill Cosby Show, Family Ties, and Full House) to tv shows today with the expanded diversity in available stations to watch).

      And as to so many classic performances created before copyright, how many are made per year? Was anywhere NEAR the amount of content produced then as now? Now that could be because of the fact that people had to do other things, like be a serf. Or because the world population was much smaller. Or even that many ancient plays and literature are lost to history. This counterpoint to copyright is a little more interesting. But I'm willing to bet that content creation is a more viable way of making a living now than it was before. Most of those poets and authors you mention, like Dante and Chaucer, came from affluent families that didn't have to work. Though the argument could also be made that it shouldn't be a viable way to make a living.

      And honestly I want to understand why you feel you have an intrinsic right to something I made simply because I made it on a computer? If I make a game it doesn't automatically benefit humanity as a whole if I distribute it for free or if it is copied repeatedly. If I make the same game out of wood blocks do you suddenly not have an intrinsic right to it?

    27. Re:Dick Morris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except they have a damn good case for beating it since the case law says they are not liable for their users actions.

    28. Re:Dick Morris by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know how they propose to "battle online piracy" without draconian laws.

      http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem

    29. Re:Dick Morris by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Shakespeare and Roman poetry were performance arts, that's how they made their money. Butts in seats.

      While some literature was performance art, many works were intended for the private enjoyment of a few. They got made nevertheless.

      And honestly I want to understand why you feel you have an intrinsic right to something I made simply because I made it on a computer?

      If something ends up on someone else's computer, they ought to be able to do what they like with the bits on their system.

      f I make the same game out of wood blocks do you suddenly not have an intrinsic right to it?

      Games in fact cannot be copyrighted. From Copyright.gov:

      Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

      So even with traditional US copyright law, others do a right to copy, alter and distribute or sell the game (of course stripped of trademarks and original texts).

    30. Re:Dick Morris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Respond to the new market in a manner that satisfies demand?

      Don't assume that your projected profits aren't met due to piracy?

      Stop ridiculous pricing schemes? ($120 for a show that's 45 years old is fucking ridiculous. They've made their money back on that, or there's no demand for the show.)

      In other words, as any free market advocate would put it, let the market resolve the issues.

    31. Re:Dick Morris by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If I make the same game out of wood blocks do you suddenly not have an intrinsic right to it?

      Yes, I have the right to take it apart, figure out how it works, and reproduce it just like any other piece of property.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    32. Re:Dick Morris by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      This will all get resolved one way or another.

      Yes, it will. And we citizens will lose.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    33. Re:Dick Morris by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Copying things is much easier now than at any point in history. If copyright is abolished, then many industries will just flat out die. There can be no big budget games or movies. So much should be obvious to any intellectually honest person. Even indie games would suffer, since a big company could buy a single copy of Indie Game X, and resell it on their own (better advertised) website.

      There may be some books and music, but their creators will be reduced to begging. Do you think JK Rowling could have written seven (increasingly long) books if her only income from them was donations? Hell no. She wrote the first one on a typewriter, and the only reason you even recognize her name was because she was able to make enough money from the first book to support her writing.

      It seems your answer to this -- your idea for this "inevitable new economy" you speak of -- is a reversion to the patronage system, where the rich and powerful get to decide what we read and watch and hear. In such a system, there would still be movies and video games, but only as propaganda and advertising tools. There's no reward for creating something wonderful, only for toeing the line.

      In the end, you don't seem to care about the damage you'd do, or the people you'd hurt. You want what you want, and you want it for free. Creative people should entertain you at your pleasure, and you'll pay them whatever you damn well please. Because modern technology has given you the tools to take their work for free, so how dare they expect society to show any restraint. Thankfully, you're a tiny little minority, that society will continue to ignore.

    34. Re:Dick Morris by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      It seems your answer to this -- your idea for this "inevitable new economy" you speak of -- is a reversion to the patronage system, where the rich and powerful get to decide what we read and watch and hear. In such a system, there would still be movies and video games, but only as propaganda and advertising tools.

      As I said, so many classic films of the 20th century were made through private patronage or state arts subsidies, success in the box office being an afterthought. You don't seem to be aware of how much widely acclaimed cinema has been created like this. Even in the US, not typically known for generous arts subsidies, filmmakers like Jim Jarmusch have received state funding (watch the credits of Down by Law for example). It's hard to see what certain auteur films are propaganda or advertising -- if they have any clear political message, it's often one challenging the institutions that funded them.

      Because modern technology has given you the tools to take their work for free

      No, it's because developed modern societies have provided the tools for works to be funded without relying on the vagaries of the free market and royalties from every copy made. The creators of the music I consume -- contemporary art music and European jazz -- are paid regardless of each recording sale made. And in my country, even pop music gets some degree of such funding. Things are pretty good; there's no sign of the apocalypse you speak of.

    35. Re:Dick Morris by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I support the concept of prostitution, where people should be permitted to make a living providing physical services to others.

      I can't support the reality of prostitution due to the ease and prevalence of abuse by pimps, people traffickers and other predators.

      Piracy might be illegal but trust me, it's nowhere near as immoral as the people making money off prostitution without being active participants in it.

    36. Re:Dick Morris by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      At one time, say up until 40 years ago producing a copy of a work cost significantly more than the royalty payments to the author or publisher. Under such circumstances buying an authorized copy was usually the cheapest way to obtain a copy of a creative work because the publisher generally had the infrastructure to make copies.

      This is not true now; digital copying and distribution has been driven the costs of reproduction to essentially nothing. This is what makes piracy so attractive, and it does threaten industries with extinction. The case where this has actually happened is the Hong Kong film industry.

    37. Re:Dick Morris by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Name some (good) movies for me which were fully funded by patronage. Not small government grants, and not investments by "patrons" that expect a shot at getting back their money, but actual patronage.

      So okay, in your country, pop music gets some public funding. Are they required to use that as their sole source of income? Is there a ban on music from countries with copyright laws? If you answer no to either question, then it's not a real test of the system you propose, now is it? No one is saying that all musicians MUST use copyright, but you (and others on this site) are saying that they MUST NOT.

    38. Re:Dick Morris by artor3 · · Score: 1

      What's wrong about the statement? You spilled a lot of metaphorical ink on how the world must adapt to your vision of the future, but you never bothered to explain how creators are supposed to get reimbursed in a world with no copyright.

    39. Re:Dick Morris by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      This Megaupload case seems to be pretty political too (after all, we're having political discussions around it), so talking about how the Feds are in general isn't going to be as meaningful this time. And I don't know how US Federal courts can shut down a Hong Kong company (Hong Kong is a former colony of the British Empire, but was given back to the People's Republic of China around ten years ago). I guess they just stole the DNS record, because .com belongs to the US. Can Megaupload set up a .co.hk or something?

      The servers were in Virginia, so no. Incidentally, the court case to determine if Kim should be deported to the United States occurs this afternoon at the North Shore District Court, in Auckland, New Zealand (where Kim is a legal resident). Funny how when it comes to Big Content, cases get rammed through faster than you can say "duh... what?"

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    40. Re:Dick Morris by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      That's the reality of streetwalkers; not so much anything outside of that, or in areas where it's legalized. Anyway, my point was that there's no unanimous agreement that we should dedicate ever more resources to combating piracy.

    41. Re:Dick Morris by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Except that your day job wouldn't exist if people pirated to that extent - your employer wouldn't have programmers making software as it would be too risky. Suddenly, you'll need to care about the money...

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    42. Re:Dick Morris by icebraining · · Score: 1

      My point is, if you do support copyright, isn't it hypocritical to not support the bills that actually have any chance at acchieving their goals?

      Personally, I just support abolishing copyright as it is.

    43. Re:Dick Morris by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Copyright needs to change. Business models need to change. If they don't, running arbitrary code will become a crime, and countries with digital freedom will leave the rest of us scrabbling in the dust.

      I agree, but i think its a growing global problem, not just the USA. The entire planet is heading towards a collapse.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    44. Re:Dick Morris by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Printing press. That's also about when copyright protection began.

      Correct.

      Copyright was due to English _publishers_ who didn't want Scottish _publishers_ from selling public domain works.

      It was NEVER about the artists, but about stopipng other publishers (distributors) from making a buck.

    45. Re:Dick Morris by suutar · · Score: 1

      Well, all ways to "battle online piracy" aim to make it unprofitable on average. The draconian methods try to make the odds of getting caught high and the fines high to pull down the expected return on investment. Other methods could involve luring away the customer base by putting out a better product or offering a better price. Price is hard to compete on, though, so better product is probably the way to go, and since the raw content has been shown to be so easy to copy, they pretty much need to target convenience of use. Make it easy to get to, pleasant to work with, and inexpensive enough to be below most folks' "noise" threshold, and folks will use it. Netflix streaming is one example of this. iTunes is another. The Kindle store is probably another*. I know people in person and have seen people on Slashdot who have stated that they used to copy stuff but now they don't because it's so easy to get legitimately. Continue on that path and piracy levels will drop. But it needs to happen soon; if the "pirates" reach that level of convenience first, well...

      * Kindle is quite convenient in many ways but the pricing is up at the not-noise level in a lot of cases. Sure, some stuff is cheap, but some stuff costs about as much electronically as paper would. If you're charging the same, you're hoping the convenience of reading on a tablet outweighs the conveniences of reading on paper, such as use without electricity, lending to friends, and selling to used bookstores. For some folks it is, for some it's not.

    46. Re:Dick Morris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright and patents *are* a fatally flawed concept, and lead directly to violations of free speech. You're right that they're untenable -- at their core, they require the government to dictate what is free speech and not.

      The copyright clause reads

      "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

      which directly contradicts

      "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."

      The copyright clause seems innocent enough as it's written, and I can see how it's a reasonable thing as it is. However, current patent and copyright law is *way, way, way* out of hand. The copyrights no longer extend "to the authors and inventors themselves," but to other entities. As far as I'm concerned, there is no way that any copyright law that extends beyond the creator's death is granting the right to the creator per se, or is limited. With reference to the work creator, it is anything after their death is an essentially unlimited amount of time.

      Consider the "I have a dream" speech, which is unconscionably copyrighted. I'm sorry, but there is no reason why anyone other than King should have been able to copyright that speech -- if he had wanted to provide for his family after his death, he should have invested proceeds from his copyright during his life to ensure that.

      This is all so ridiculous...it makes me irate.

      There is no such thing as intellectual property -- the mere concept is directly at odds with the idea of free speech. Copyrights and patents are government-granted privileged exceptions to free speech, and as such they should be treated with the greatest skepticism.

    47. Re:Dick Morris by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      The author is extremely ignorant of history and case law and has so many mistakes it is not even funny ...

      > Everybody agrees that we need to battle online piracy of movies, books, TV shows and such.
      Not everyone. The _basis_ of civilization is based upon _sharing_, NOT greed. A few radicals propose banishing copyright all together.

      > If piracy spreads, nobody will create anything because their work will be pirated as soon as it is finished.
      So people never made anything for the _thousands_ of years _before_ copyright exist, right??

      > by abusing the system to get the goodies for free, we risk eliminating the goodies.
      People CREATE because they CAN, not because they are "afraid" somebody will "copy" their work.

      > We wear seatbelts because we want to live.
      Actually, my brother doesn't and had the judge dismiss his case for refusing to wear one (The judge had the comment "Well, this is an interesting case!") Most people wear one because they think they _have to_, which is in fact, false.

      > Copyright infringers can't make it if we don't buy it.
      This is false as it has been shown that people who pirate tend to buy MORE. You can't put a price on FREE "word-of-mouth" advertising.

    48. Re:Dick Morris by T.Hobbes · · Score: 1

      +6 Insightful

      I've long held this view myself. If we're serious about this, we should face it head on and defend the right to send files to one another as we please. The line I would draw is between commercial and noncommercial copying.

      Copying someone else's work and making a profit off of it should be illegal. That, effectively, is what copyright law protected up until digital copying became a reality. Copyright violators used to be well-capitalized businessmen running their own printing presses. They were in it for the profit and could reasonably be said to be directly taking profit from the copyright holder.

      Today, everyone is, or can be with trivial effort, a copyright violator. With that, the motive behind copyright violation has shifted from profiteering to sharing.

      Not-for-profit sharing of copyrighted material should be legal. Such sharing results in wider dissemination of cultural works. It also does not directly take profit from the copyright holder: a free download is not equivalent to a sale.

      As for the perceived threat to artists, you are right to point out that most of what we consder classic art did not depend on copyright for its creation. I would add two things:

      • Great artists are often driven to create. The popular image of a starving artist exists because many artists do do this: many artists ignore commercialism and wages entirely and live very poorly, simply to be able to devote their time to their work. Put another way, it is crass to assume that the quality or quantity of art produced is directly dependent on money that is spent on it.
      • Nevertheless, there exist ways for all types of art to make money. Many here have heard of these ideas, but here they are again:
        • Movies are better in theaters because of the screen & speakers, and the joy of the collective experience; people will always pay for that.
        • Music is fundamentally different when seen live; there will always be a market for live performances
        • Books are, to many, easier and better to read in the physical format. This may change, though, as e-readers improve
        • All cultural creators can still, of course, make money through the old methods: commissions, merchandising, as well as new methods, like self-publishing (Cory Doctorow has some interesting writings on his own experiences with this)

      Fundamentally, though, we as a community have to move away from nit-picking takedowns like these, and address the issue head on. Copyright should be abolished for non-commercial copying.

    49. Re:Dick Morris by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      If piracy spreads, nobody will create anything because their work will be pirated as soon as it is finished.

      Dick Morris

      I have news for you Dick, stuff is already pirated as soon as it is finished, sometimes even before. The places that have it that soon are called "0 day" sites - available 0 days after release.

      But your premise is simply wrong. Microsoft has a free trial of their Office 2010 software. The actual value of distribution these days is nearly nothing. For Office, the value for users is in standardization (cause everyone else uses it), bug fixes, support, and lots of other things besides passing around the installer package.

      For movies, the value isn't in a 632x258 DVD rip. It's in higher quality/3D video and audio on discs or the theater, extras on a disc, stuff a download doesn't usually have. But when you weigh down the purchased disc or theater experience with advertisements, cell phones going off, and other crap, that downgraded the paid experience until the pirate copy is competitive. If you can't compete with amateur distribution, maybe you *should* get out of the business.

      Pretty soon (if not already) we will have "Render@Home" distributed farms that will let people generate theater quality computer graphics, so you media companies will not only have to compete on distribution, but on creation. Good luck with that.

    50. Re:Dick Morris by Fned · · Score: 1

      They're not, they will need to get preimbursed.

      "Reimbursed" only works when you're selling something of value, and it only benefits the reseller.

      Incidentally, any successful creator already gets preimbursed. Nobody makes, say, a movie, entirely on the promise of future profits; the actors, directors, crew, artists, are all paid with money that comes from investors, who almost always got that money from people who bought access to previous movies.

      It should be pretty obvious at this point which step in this process is skippable.

    51. Re:Dick Morris by Fned · · Score: 1

      ... also, what is this "vision of the future" shit? This is the present I'm describing here. Right now, we are choosing between either having a working global computer network or living in a totalitarian nightmare, and copyright is the wedge issue.

    52. Re:Dick Morris by fnj · · Score: 1

      Everybody agrees that we need to battle online piracy

      Dear Mr. Morris: like most proclamations beginning "everybody agrees," this statement is erroneous.

      We don't run red lights because we don't want traffic chaos.

      No, Mr. Morris. I don't run red lights because I don't want to DIE. I couldn't care less about traffic chaos as long as it doesn't impede MY progress and safety.

    53. Re:Dick Morris by rust627 · · Score: 1

      I am sorry but this is the real world.

      Public policy is made by politicians who would not know rational if it smacked them in the face.

      --
      da da da dum indeed.
    54. Re:Dick Morris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much like in many other jobs the copyright may not matter, what may matter is how the TOOL allows them to get something done. And honestly if they don't distribute it, it's a trade secret, and has it's own provisions under the law which are probably more useful than copyright anyways (like the fact that trade secrets last in-perpetuity, whereas copyright was intended to be 'for a limited time', hence why coke and pepsi recipes are trade secrets rather than copyrighted (still true? Or did they publish them since they can now sue people for the indefinite future for copying them?)

    55. Re:Dick Morris by therefore · · Score: 1

      It almost comes off as intentional that this occurred the day after the SOPA protests

      I highly doubt one had to do with the other. The Feds ... take their time and line up all the ducks before they pull the trigger.

      That's correct. However, it isn't farfetched to consider the possibility that someone in the administration asked the DOJ if the case was ready and if it was, then asking if they could please do it now. The administration was in hot water with interested deep pocket donors (media) by criticizing SOPA which they were forced to do now because it was coming up for a vote and other deep pocket donors (silicon, civil libertarians) were against it. In other words, if they hadn't criticized SOPA, then the DOJ arrests probably would not have happened today. Maybe next week, maybe next month or more. They wouldn't have agreed if the case wasn't sufficiently ready but timing here is everything.

    56. Re:Dick Morris by Tom · · Score: 1

      Everybody agrees that we need to battle online piracy of movies, books, TV shows and such.

      Depends on your meaning of the word "battle".

      A lot of people believe that the best way to "battle" piracy is to create good content that people consider worth paying your asking price for, and connecting with your consumers so they feel like giving you a share of their income.

      I bought Skyrim, even though it being the big thing, I'm sure I could have just as easily found a copy to download somewhere. But I downloaded "Friends with Benefits" because while it wasn't terrible, I would've never paid the DVD price or movie tickets.

      You see, when we normal people go job-hunting, we are told the legend of "supply and demand" and how payment is so low because of market forces and bla bla lie bla lie lie bla bla.

      But when it comes to entertainment, there are no market forces, even though this is clearly one of the goods with the most variable price point imaginable. Food or clothes are pretty much equally important for everyone, but entertainment is largely valued on subjective desires.

      I might have paid two or three bucks for that movie, if that would have been an option. As it isn't, I download it. If some mystical anti-piracy weapon would entirely destroy online piracy, I still wouldn't have bought it. Simply because the price asked is above my evaluation of its worth.

      Here's an idea: Make movies, games, and other content with a rather short life-span available at slowly decreasing prices. Start at $10 the opening week and then drop the price by $1 every week until you hit something like $3. Or double the number of weeks inbetween drops ($10 one week, then $9 for 2 weeks, then $8 for a month, then $7 for 2 months, $6 for a quarter, $5 for half a year, $4 for a year, and $3 from then on. Yes I spell that out in case some MAFIAA member is reading this, their numbers on piracy "losses" show they don't know the first thing about math).
      Sure, you lose some of the people who would have grudgingly paid $10 but now rather pick it up at $5 or $6 - but you gain millions of people who'd never pay $10, but will pay $3 or $4.

      But - publishers aren't all about money, they are also a lot about control and power.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    57. Re:Dick Morris by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      Yes, because open source software makes no money from selling services. Nope, none at all.

      Oh fuck, thats entirely wrong, isnt it! Just like your argument.

    58. Re:Dick Morris by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      I agree with most everything you said. Though I go a step further my own works I tend to release in CC share-alike license (and have for about five years) and I've long argued we need to take back out common cultural heritage from the corporate overlords. I know I'm driven to create stories, getting paid for it doesn't change the ideas flowing out of my head that want written down, performed, or otherwise release and money is only a nice bonus when it does happen.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    59. Re:Dick Morris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to point out "Copyright is a fairly recent concept, popping up only 500 years ago and mainly limited to the West" as a critique against copyright is fairly funny coming right after "It shows a great ignorance of history".

      Hmm... what happened roughly 500 years ago? Hmm... nothing that might have provoked the invention of copyright I'm sure, nothing that provided an easy method of copying and distributing works. Nothing that dramatically lowered the costs of producing a copy of an existing work.

      Nope... can't think of it..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press

    60. Re:Dick Morris by tqk · · Score: 1

      Dick Morris ... wrote what I think is a rational, well-worded message ...

      "Everybody agrees that we need to battle online piracy of movies, books, TV shows and such."

      No, we don't. Some of us believe this battle against "piracy" is undermining all of the rest of the good in civilization. It's facilitating the buying/co-opting of whole democracies' politicians for "special interests", FFS!

      bonch, if you're not an astroturfer, you must just be as shallow as a pane of glass, if this is your level of understanding.

      FYI, I don't "pirate". I advocate boycotting them. I do understand that this SOPA/PIPA garbage will destroy the net, which is why I fight this !@#$. Attitudes like yours are helping the enemy (see above). bonch == Quisling.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    61. Re:Dick Morris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Dante, Shakespeare, Chaucer were ROBBED BLIND, considering the lasting brilliance of their works. How would YOU like to work your whole life to become the greatest playwright the world has ever seen and be paid a pittance? You think Shakespeare would be happy to trade riches in his life time for fame after he's dead? Read up on the French writer Honore de Balzac. He created a large body of work consisting of over 70 novels, all connected a la William Faulkner and the work stands as one of the great writing achievements of all time to this day. Now why did Balzac write these books? HE NEEDED THE MONEY! He had an expensive lifestyle and had debt collectors chasing him his whole adult life so he kept pumping out books to make cash. Think if we went back and took that money away but assured him that in exchange he'd be known for all time as one of France's greatest writers, that he'd agree? TONS of artists we now recognize as immortal greats wrote for money....Pushkin spent his whole adult life in debt and wrote to pay off the debts (gambling debts) and in doing so created Russia's greatest novel ever (no small feat considering how good Russian lit is), Eugene Onegin.

    62. Re:Dick Morris by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      No, my argument isn't wrong at all. Open source software companies are just as bad as closed source ones - Red Hat relies on the fact they can sue you for trademark infringement to prevent you distributing RHEL for example. (Hence why CentOS has to spend huge amounts of time stripping Red Hat marks out of RHEL before they distribute it as CentOS). Mozilla relies on the fact they can sue you for trademark infringement to prevent you distributing copies of Firefox in ways they don't like. Pretty much every Open Source company (barring the numerous foundations, which tend to make money from generous individuals donating, which is cool) utilises other aspects of IP laws to prevent distribution in general or distribution in ways they don't like.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  5. M-E-G-A Upload To Me Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  6. WHAT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just used it like 5 minutes ago! How could this be? Who's next? Let's crate? Mediafire?

  7. Suddenly by vencs · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    All those slebs supporting Mega* sites look like thugs.

    1. Re:Suddenly by demonbug · · Score: 1

      All those slebs supporting Mega* sites look like thugs.

      No kidding. Anything endorsed by Kim Kardashian and Kanye West has to be criminally stupid.

    2. Re:Suddenly by tmosley · · Score: 1

      And all those guys suing them act like thugs.

      Just goes to show you should judge a book by its cover.

    3. Re:Suddenly by vencs · · Score: 0

      Just goes to show you should judge a book by its cover.

      Not so fast on the judgement please.
      yes, it's marked as flamebait but the intentions were never to call them thugs. But to show the light in which a news byte might troll about it.
      I am not sure how many of them have a good idea of what they are not/supporting.

  8. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here I was, wondering why a video wouldn't load, just a few minutes ago....

  9. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was only used to upload and download Linux ISOs. They never allowed material to be stored which violated copyright laws !

  10. Who needs SOPA/PIPA? America, F**K YEAH by dkathrens77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The timing of this move is surely intended to send a message to anyone who opposes SOPA/PIPA. And that light to the free world, the USA has made it clear "we don't need no steenkin laws"

    1. Re:Who needs SOPA/PIPA? America, F**K YEAH by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Megaupload has servers in the US. SOPA/PIPA are supposed to block US clients from accessing international servers.

    2. Re:Who needs SOPA/PIPA? America, F**K YEAH by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it sends a clear message that things are already bad enough and SOPA is just the icing. The only way this is going to be resolved is to get rid of the whole system by which ideas are made property of the ultra rich. It was never intended to be that way and is not moral. It needs to end NOW. Abolish copyright and patents this decade, and we can have truly free thought for the first time in history.

  11. The Government responds... by JaZz0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The People expressed their opinion about SOPA/PIPA. The Government responds with a resounding, "We don't give a shit."

    --
    "Careful! We don't want to learn from this!" -Calvin & Hobbes
    1. Re:The Government responds... by demonbug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The People expressed their opinion about SOPA/PIPA. The Government responds with a resounding, "We don't give a shit."

      This has nothing to do with SOPA, beyond showing that the government doesn't need it in order to take down (alleged) pirates in other countries. If anything this is the government throwing a bone to the (pissed off) media industry, saying look - we can get these guys without crippling the internet.

    2. Re:The Government responds... by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "We don't give a shit" would be them passing it anyway.

      This is far closer to "how DARE you stand up to us!"

      This is not apathy, this is retaliation for contempt of our corporate overlords.

  12. Looks something like.. by iONiUM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Looks strangely familiar.

    In seriousness, why isn't this all over the news? Why just SOPA?

    1. Re:Looks something like.. by b0bby · · Score: 3, Informative

      Looks strangely familiar.

      In seriousness, why isn't this all over the news? Why just SOPA?

      Because this just happened today. For once, /. is pretty up to date!

    2. Re:Looks something like.. by neelwebs · · Score: 1

      So many people use the Internet on a daily basis and does not want it to be censored, so people worry about the SOPA being passed and having our favorite websites censored. Not everyone uses Megaupload, so most people probably won't care if Megaupload got deleted, and the people who used Megaupload on a daily basis can always use Rapidshare or a similar website.

    3. Re:Looks something like.. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      It's the top story on Google News, at least for me.

  13. Wow, what amazing timing! by kheldan · · Score: 5, Funny

    The very day after uncounted internet sites shut down to protest SOPA/PIPA (which had a profound effect), and some website gets shut down for piracy on the order of a half billion dollars? Darn, if I would've known, I would've had my popcorn and soda ready. Such theatre!

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Wow, what amazing timing! by antdude · · Score: 2

      Where can we download that move? :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    2. Re:Wow, what amazing timing! by antdude · · Score: 1

      Frak. I forgot an "i". :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  14. Fuck RIAA/MPAA by esocid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The $500 million figure is based on speculation by the MAFIAA. Looks like we didn't even have to wait for SOPA/PIPA. It's already here.

    I also don't understand how they got the Netherlands to raid their servers...

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    1. Re:Fuck RIAA/MPAA by icebraining · · Score: 2

      They are accused of crimes which are illegal in the Netherlands too (including racketeering and money laundering, according to Computer World).

    2. Re:Fuck RIAA/MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nslookup from my home in the states gives me 174.140.154.20 - 174.140.154.24

      CIDR: 174.140.128.0/19

      OrgName: Carpathia Hosting, Inc.

      City: Ashburn
      StateProv: VA

      PostalCode: 20146

    3. Re:Fuck RIAA/MPAA by silentbrad · · Score: 1
      A little more on that:

      The accused can face up to 20 years in prison for racketeering, five years for conspiring to commit copyright infringment, 20 years for laundering, and five years on each substantive charge of copyright infringement.

      Over 20 search warrants have been issued by the Department of Justice as a result of highly coordinated actions by the FBI with help from New Zealand, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Australia and the Philippines. The government also seized about $50 million in assets and targeted sites, as well as 18 domain names associated with the service.

    4. Re:Fuck RIAA/MPAA by bad_fx · · Score: 1

      As a New Zealander I will be watching this case with interest, particularly how quickly\easily the extradition proceeds. New Zealand law on extradition states that extradition must relate to an offence that:

      "Involves conduct that would be regarded as criminal had it occurred in New Zealand, and would have carried a similar penalty."

      The penalties they're talking about here sound much higher than what I would expect in NZ... so I'll be interested to see how this turns out.

  15. This is what happens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...when corrupt laws don't get passed, or even do get passed.
    Not as if they care, they will deal with the backlash later.
    This will get worse if SOPA or anything like it passes.

    I can't wait for the media industry to collapse. Maybe then content creators will realize they don't need the shit labels.

    See you on Tor everybody. It is the only safe place now, but only if everyone gets in on it.
    Hope the media companies love helping terrorism get even more secure, because that is all this will do as they push more and more people to encrypted networks.
    Oh, wait, that won't be a problem, FBI will just get those backdoors and have control of millions of nodes for free.
    Time to blackhole America. Bye.

    1. Re:This is what happens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think Tor is safe? It just hasn't bubbled to the top of the list of targets yet. All we'll need is a national news story about how somebody used it to get kiddie porn.

    2. Re:This is what happens... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      See you on Tor everybody. It is the only safe place now

      Weren't there some concerns that the FBI could snoop exit nodes? (I don't know for a fact, just something I heard)

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    3. Re:This is what happens... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      The Chinese have shown the capability to shut down connections within Tor.

    4. Re:This is what happens... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      I remember reading that. And even if we do finally make a completely secure "network within the internet", it'll probably be encrypted, and can be defeated by blocking encrypted traffic (it's coming to that, you know it is).

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    5. Re:This is what happens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best thing to do with the "content industry" is ignore them. Don't pirate. Don't buy their stuff. Make them irrelevant. That's how you make them go away permanently.

      That is the greatest fear of the corporate owners of government, of fear-mongering law enforcement, of retailers and purveyors of consumer crap, and of control freaks everywhere--that they'll be irrelevant. Give them what they fear.

    6. Re:This is what happens... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Well, the fact that exit nodes can snoop on unencrypted Tor connections is well-known and a lot of exit nodes are located in northern Virginia.

  16. Something fishy by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Interesting that megaupload got nailed so soon after they tried to fight back against UMG's frivolous youtube takedown.

    I smell a rat and suspect someone's trying to avoid giving megaupload an edge in their lawsuit.

    1. Re:Something fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The investigation was ongoing for quite some time. The arrests and shutdown would have happened with or without the dopey music video.

  17. The Internet should be P2P by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There should not be "sites" to shut down; the Internet was designed to be P2P and should be P2P. Unfortunately, we failed to develop P2P networking to the same extent that we developed the web, so now we are vulnerable to this sort of thing.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:The Internet should be P2P by sirlark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tell that to my ISP, who won't let me run a 'server' as part of my terms and conditions...

    2. Re:The Internet should be P2P by icebraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Such software exists: it's called Bittorrent.

    3. Re:The Internet should be P2P by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Tell that to my ISP, who won't let me run a 'server' as part of my terms and conditions...

      So, do what I did...get a 'business' account with them...then run all the servers you want, no data caps, no ports blocked, and even get a decent SLA.

      I get about 10-12 down and about 4-5 up for speed...and I pay $69/month with Cox cable.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:The Internet should be P2P by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Well, let's all switch to that then. They'll never catch us... (Dear FBI: I don't actually pirate anything.)

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re:The Internet should be P2P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bet you they will, they'll just charge you more for a business account instead of residential. Stop being such a whinging dick.

    6. Re:The Internet should be P2P by bananaquackmoo · · Score: 1

      Easy for you to say. Sometimes business accounts are location locked. I can't get a business account in my residential apartment complex.

    7. Re:The Internet should be P2P by makomk · · Score: 1

      The P2P nature of the internet doesn't help that much, because it was always based around having servers. I actually curse when I search for something on Google and find a link to a site on somewhere like dyndns.org; chances are that if its owners haven't shut it down or accidentally broken it long ago, it'll be offline when I try to access it for one reason or another. Services like Megaupload are much more reliable until the Government steps in and destroys them.

    8. Re:The Internet should be P2P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switch ISP

    9. Re:The Internet should be P2P by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. What do you think an address with "Suite #452" in it is? That's just the business equivalent of an apartment in a large complex. As much as they might love their backwards rules and regulations, they'll rarely turn down an opportunity to make more money.

    10. Re:The Internet should be P2P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cough up the money for business class service. I agree ISP ToS generally suck, and lots of their restrictions on what you can do should be illegal, but when you can get unimpeded access by paying a little bit more per month (or for the same price if you give up a little bandwidth instead) for business class service, I don't really have any personal sympathy for you.

    11. Re:The Internet should be P2P by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Interesting, do they block people who host online games or who act as a hub for three or more way Skype chat?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:The Internet should be P2P by ironjaw33 · · Score: 1

      Tell that to my ISP, who won't let me run a 'server' as part of my terms and conditions...

      So, do what I did...get a 'business' account with them...then run all the servers you want, no data caps, no ports blocked, and even get a decent SLA.

      I get about 10-12 down and about 4-5 up for speed...and I pay $69/month with Cox cable.

      I looked at getting a business account from Cox as well. Except they wanted me to sign a 3 year contract with early termination fees when I only planned on staying where I lived for 2 years. Plus, it was $20 more per month for slower speeds. Instead, I just went with a $5/month hosting plan with unlimited bandwidth and I can still SSH into my home network if I need to.

    13. Re:The Internet should be P2P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an idea: YOU tell that to your ISP.

      Or are you going to keep sending them money every month, since you're happy with what you're getting?

    14. Re:The Internet should be P2P by sirlark · · Score: 1

      Look at the subject again. I'm trying to make the point that

      1. not everyone can afford busniess accounts, and the point here is that in a P2P internet situation, casual users shouldn't be required to
      2. in order to truly have a P2P internet, everyone needs to be able to run a server, and practically caps either have to be huge or non-existent
      3. uncapped reasonably priced interent are not available everywhere in the world... In south africa, the business ADSL packages are not generally uncapped, they're just prioritized over non business accounts, and shaped differently, but still shaped. Oh yeah, and 512K up, max, ever. If you want more upload, your looking at more than $625 a month...
    15. Re:The Internet should be P2P by sirlark · · Score: 1

      Mainly they mean mail and web servers. If there are tons of SMTP or HTTP connections initiated to your IP address, your account will get suspended. I imagine DNS would be be monitored too but I confess I'm not 100% certain about the tehcnicalities.

    16. Re:The Internet should be P2P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, it is called a darknet.

    17. Re:The Internet should be P2P by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Ever heard of a 'home office'?

      And yes..I live in rentals myself...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    18. Re:The Internet should be P2P by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Isn't about $69/mo about the norm for a home internet account tho?

      If not...certainly only about $10-$20 more a month which isn't much money....anyone on this list should be employed well enough to do that....?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    19. Re:The Internet should be P2P by tqk · · Score: 1

      Tell that to my ISP, who won't let me run a 'server' as part of my terms and conditions...

      How do they define "server"? In my book, anything that answers to "ssh" is a server.

      Regardless, the way around that pathetic limitation is to buy hosting on Amazon or in $some_foreign_country. And then you get extradited, apparently.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  18. They're listening to the 99% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The OWS message got out. They decided to go after the top 1% who are receiving economic rent from stupid laws, and give it to the 99%. Small-timers, start your servers...

  19. Then... who needs SOPA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ok. So they were able to shut this site down, internationally and affect arrests across the globe, without SOPA or PIPA. Didn't they just make our point for us? Existing laws are sufficient, why do we need more?

    1. Re:Then... who needs SOPA? by Issarlk · · Score: 2

      Because it was so hard! They needed to use justice and all.
      Imagine tomorrow with SOPA: all of the hundred of file sharing sites like megaupload could be shut down before the ink on the signature at the bottom of SOPA is dry.

    2. Re:Then... who needs SOPA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No justice was used to begin with.

  20. Why do they need SOPA again? by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they can shut down Megaupload without SOPA, then why do they need SOPA again?

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    1. Re:Why do they need SOPA again? by Bovius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With SOPA, they can take your site down if you link to (or, presumably, mention) megaupload.com. Think about that one for a minute.

    2. Re:Why do they need SOPA again? by Dan+East · · Score: 2

      Mod parent up. My thoughts exactly. If they can already reach out and both prosecute and shut down sites located in other countries, then why do they need even more power? Less judicial oversight? More power and control to the "copyright holders"?

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    3. Re:Why do they need SOPA again? by parlancex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The goal of SOPA is to make everyone guilty. Not everyone will be prosecuted, but once everyone is guilty selective prosecution can be used at the discretion of those who wish to silence any unwanted criticism, opposing viewpoints, etc.

    4. Re:Why do they need SOPA again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they can shut down google.com, amazon.com, ebay.com, newegg.com, wikipedia.org, and slashdot.org. The internets is a dangerous place!

    5. Re:Why do they need SOPA again? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With SOPA, they can take your site down if you link to (or, presumably, mention) megaupload.com. Think about that one for a minute.

      Exactly, or even worse, SOPA lets them take your site down if one of your user-generated comments mentions of links to megaupload.com. Remember when it was popular to post the bluray key (if I'm remembering this correctly) on slashdot to spite Sony? Those posts are still accessible. There's no reason Sony couldn't or wouldn't use SOPA to shut down Slashdot. And hey, Google caches those posts, too!

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    6. Re:Why do they need SOPA again? by Bishop923 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      MPAA Parenting Tip:

      If your dog makes a mess on the floor, remember to punish your children for feeding him.

    7. Re:Why do they need SOPA again? by synapse7 · · Score: 1

      So the record industry can take down sites.

    8. Re:Why do they need SOPA again? by operagost · · Score: 1

      I actually remember people having the DECSS key for DVDs in their SIGs before TEH EVIL 120 CHARACTER LIMIT.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:Why do they need SOPA again? by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      With SOPA, they can take your site down if you link to (or, presumably, mention) megaupload.com. Think about that one for a minute.

      Their true target is 4chan?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    10. Re:Why do they need SOPA again? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Because they wasted a lot of tax dollars investigating for a year to make sure the people indicted actually had a conspiracy to upload files themselves and not as third parties (I'm guessing). Do you know how much work that is?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    11. Re:Why do they need SOPA again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MPAA? More like "If your dog makes a mess on the floor, remember to blame God for creating the Universe".

    12. Re:Why do they need SOPA again? by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      I can only see that as being a good thing. Think about all the annoying sites we could take down! Me, the first thing I'd do is put links to thepiratebay on Facebook...

      Actually this is exactly what will happen with SOPA. People will abuse it like mad.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    13. Re:Why do they need SOPA again? by nurb432 · · Score: 2

      SOPA is far more reaching and lets them shut stuff down without any due process, and can easily be extend to squelch citizens rights.

      Need is relative

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    14. Re:Why do they need SOPA again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no no.

      you forgot the part where you beat your wife half to death for birthing the children.

    15. Re:Why do they need SOPA again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said. Very succinct. Way to distill down what is corrupt about this bill.

  21. SOPA RTM coming soon by Greg2k · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, this SOPA Release Candidate seems pretty polished...I guess I'll downlo- oh wait.

  22. We need some people to check on this stuff by P-niiice · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't it be great to have this army of people who reported on news stories and debunked claims and checked facts and stuff? They could learn to write real well and provide us news that we could use to decide on issues in a fair manner. Ideally they wouldn't totally swallow ludicrous claims like this 500 gazillion loss due to Megaupload for example. One man can dream I guess.

    1. Re:We need some people to check on this stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And once SOPA V1.1 passes their websites will get shutdown for all sorts of copyright violations and you'll never hear the news.

    2. Re:We need some people to check on this stuff by debork · · Score: 1

      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/10/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy.ars A bit dated article, but should be relevant. Seeing as how the site and arrests went out today...before investigations Saw 11 has been downloaded 129202 times.

    3. Re:We need some people to check on this stuff by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      None of them by me. Some movies aren't worth watching, even for free.

    4. Re:We need some people to check on this stuff by tqk · · Score: 1

      Ideally they wouldn't totally swallow ludicrous claims like this 500 gazillion loss due to Megaupload for example.

      My latest theory (you should don your tinfoil hat now) is Slashdot, The Register, The Inquirer, and Ars Technica (among others) are in the background bankrolling/pushing Hollywood/*AAs to do all this !@#$ (buying/co-opting entire countries' politicians/LEOs), all in order to drive web traffic to their sites for stories like this. Nothing else makes a lick of sense.

      With "Hollywood Accounting" in place, Hollywood's not hurting financially. So, why would Hollywood/*AAs care about piddling little amounts of ca. $2 million? They wouldn't. So why is this !@#$ happening?

      Follow the money. Who pays /.'s wages? Advertisers/Madison Avenue! We've all been looking at the wrong side of the continent. :-(

      It makes as much sense as any of the alternative theories I've seen.

      Hang on, someone's at the door ...

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  23. This is a bummer. by MrCrassic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On one hand, these kinds of sites have made it stupidly easy to host and download all sorts of different data, legal and illegal. It's funny how the powers that be think that shutting these guys down will curb piracy when (a) there are so many ways people can get illegal data and (b) new and more anonymous ones will pop up as the older ones fall.

    On the other hand, it's not a terribly huge loss on the material scheme of things. There are still plenty of other sites that people can use to host data, including wider-range services like Dropbox and Sugarsync. The other funny thing is that Megaupload et. al. did shut down links to any media that infringed on copyright policies, so it's scary to see how far these laws will go. I'm hoping that Dropbox and partners will not start telling people what can/can't be backed up.

    1. Re:This is a bummer. by Jeng · · Score: 1

      The other funny thing is that Megaupload et. al. did shut down links to any media that infringed on copyright policies

      They may have removed individual links to content, but they did not remove the content, nor all the links to the content.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:This is a bummer. by Fned · · Score: 1

      Do you mean that they removed specific copies when requested, but not other copies uploaded by different users?

      Or are you saying they killed specific links but left the DCMA'd files accessible on the server somehow? If the latter, that's really interesting -- and not very bright on MegaUpload's part.

    3. Re:This is a bummer. by Jeng · · Score: 1

      I was going off of what some people said at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3486268 It was stated that it is in the indictment, but I am unable to view it because the justice departments website is currently down probably due to anonymous.

      http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-doj-universal-sopa-235/

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    4. Re:This is a bummer. by makomk · · Score: 1

      Given that this is a US Government action, I'd lean towards the option which involves the most dishonesty from them. Also, as far as I know all the big file hosts blacklist files that are reported to be infringing based on their hash at this point - it's just that they can't stop their users from sticking the exact same file in an encrypted archive with a meaningless name and reuploading it. Between that and multiple variants it's pretty much a given that all the files that were taken down would still be available for download from somewhere.

    5. Re:This is a bummer. by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      The short term result will be the hydra effect: They cut off one head, and several more will pop up to replace it, because now the dedicated pirates will post their files to multiple cyberlockers in case one of them gets shut down.

      (Actually, they already post things to multiple sites because of file size and download speed restrictions, but now they will do it even more, enlarging the cyberlocker market in the process).

    6. Re:This is a bummer. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Sounds like megaupload only stored one copy if more than one user uploaded the same file. So they didn't feel the need to remove the file unless there was a DMCA take-down for each and every uploader's actions. Unless it was child porn, in which case they nuked that shit. Seems like those actions were more about efficiency than promoting piracy. If they removed identical files in all cases pirates would just upload slightly different files...and megaupload would find itself hosting more child porn.

  24. Guilty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...until proven innocent.

  25. $500 million for bad movies? by RobertRCleveland · · Score: 2

    Exactly. I think you describe where they pulled that number from. No way $500 million. Megaupload was a warez and porn locker. It's the torrent hosters who have the movies and music.

  26. Ban the use of faucets! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How dare people drink their tap water! After all, how are bottled water companies expected to turn a profit when people can just turn a knob on their faucet and get water on their own?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you move out of your parents' house, you'll find out that tap water isn't actually free.

    2. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sadly, if bottled water companies had enough lobbying power this would probably be a viable reality.

      Time and time again big business has proven that it will do whatever it can get away with to make money, and ethical and sometimes even legal impediments prove to be no real obstacle.

    3. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      But because you are using tap water, they are loosing revenues, a lot of revenue. So, sorry, you are guilty.

    4. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Not sure if this comment was meant tongue in cheek - perhaps not - it has been modded as Insightful! The bottled water people don't own the water moving through your tap (faucet). How can they legitimately claim to have rights over it. They can't.

      At its base level downloading a movie from Megaupload that was produced by a studio that has not given the rights for it to be put there is stealing. Stealing is a crime. You can tart it up and scream "freedom of the internet", information must be free, oh aren't we so oppressed! Whenever I hear that I hear instead "I'm too tight to purchase it".

      Megaupload have no system in place to stop people uploading material they don't own. Simple as that. They would still be in business today if they did.

    5. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by sadness203 · · Score: 2

      Well actually, a lot of them use tap water.

    6. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by bonch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not a valid comparison, as bottled water companies can't claim ownership over tap water coming out of your faucet, and in fact, you pay the water company for that service.

    7. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 2

      Water the New Oil, look it up.

      It is already happening :(

    8. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We pay for Internet service, and the RIAA/MPAA do not claim ownership over your bandwidth. We do not punish people for drinking their tap water, even though bottled water companies exist specifically to sell drinking water. Every fluid ounce of tap water that you drink is a fluid ounce you did not pay a bottled water company to drink.

      The only difference is that right now, nobody has a concept of "drinkingrights" but we do have a concept of "copyrights."

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    9. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Except, of course, that the case is not about people creating alternate content (tap water) and delivering that, it is about people using the owners works without permission (putting a tap directly into their tank).

    10. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by twotacocombo · · Score: 3, Funny

      How dare people drink their tap water!

      You mean like in the toilet?

    11. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      No, it is about people using their bandwidth/water in a particular way: copying/drinking. Nobody would be sued because they download Debian ISOs/use their tap water to do their laundry.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    12. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by DC2088 · · Score: 1

      Actually in this case it's more like a bunch of people putting taps on someone's bottle of water that they bought..

    13. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by niado · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Illegally copying/viewing/enjoying copyrighted content is not stealing, by any widely accepted definition of "stealing". Violating copyright is illegal in many jurisdictions, and it could very well be considered wrong (depending on your personal morals) but it is not theft.

    14. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by hedwards · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's already happened in Bolivia. The IMF insisted that they privatize their water supply and eventually it got to the point where no water in the country was legal to collect or drink unless it had been bought from the cartel that controlled it.

    15. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apples and oranges. The bottled water companies didn't invent water. The media companies did make the media you're pirating. If you don't want to buy their product, there are plenty of alternatives. You can buy indie music, some of which is freely distributed. You can watch free OTA television. You can read a book from the library. And so on.

      Taking something without paying just because you can is selfish and wrong.

    16. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, we have destilled and mineralized tap water at home. I haven't bought a bottle in about a year (except when abroad, obviously). So yes, if more people did this, I expect this would not be so legal.

    17. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by gnick · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do those taps run directly into the bottling plants tanks?

      For about 1 bottle in 4, yes. Yes they do.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    18. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that those evil public utilities are undercutting good hard working companies? That is almost as bad as allowing cities to install wifi.

    19. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      You mean that MAFIAA has a bottle with $500 million dollars inside? And that megaupload is draining their bottle?

    20. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's been shown that some brands of bottled water are filled from municipal water supplies, so it is the same thing.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    21. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by bws111 · · Score: 1

      When you use tap water, you are getting that water from an authorized source (ie the water company has the right to sell you that water). The fact that a bottling company exists is immaterial - you are not taking their water. If you tapped into your neighbors pipes you would probably consider that an 'alternate source', but most thinking people would call it stealing.

      You make it sound like the case is about a legitimate alternate source of movies and music. It isn't. It is siphoning off your neighbors tap.

    22. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In parts of the US, it is illegal to own a water butt. States sell exclusive water catchment rights to various water companies.

    23. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by houghi · · Score: 1

      Not a valid comparison, as bottled water companies can't claim ownership over tap water coming out of your faucet, and in fact, you pay the water company for that service.

      Takedown notice from SOME_COMPANY and it will happen. That means to me that they claim ownership over tap water coming out of my faucet regardless if I pay the water company for my OWN water.
      Sounds like a great comparison.

      Sure they can't claim it NOW. Does not mean with a little help they even could do that as well. Snowcrash is the new 1984.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    24. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Of course nobody would be sued if the download Debian ISOs - they have authorization to do so, granted by the copyright holders. They do not have authorization to download MPAA movies. It has nothing to do with bandwidth - where did that come from?

    25. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all they need to do is lower the standards for the water utilities so drinking tap water will come with an unacceptable risk of water-borne disease.

      A few years ago a pipe broke between the Quabbin Reservoir and Boston, and until it got fixed a few days later people were warned to boil their water before drinking it because the state couldn't vouch for its purity. People had to go to Cambridge to get their Dunkin' Donuts coffee (Cambridge isn't part of the MWRA system). Of course, if the state never vouched for the purity of the water, restaurants could boil water for their use easily enough. It would just be another cost of doing business, buying a boiler and gas to heat all the water like from 10 degrees to 100 degrees so like 380kJ/kg of water. A little expense and hassle, but they could deal with it, but people at home wouldn't want to preboil water for their coffee machines in the morning, and would be driven to bottled water or 711 every day.

    26. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bottled water companies/copyright owners can claim whatever they want, that doesn't make it right.

    27. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Nope, not the same thing at all. If a bottling plant pays for and uses tap water, that is OK. If I pay for and use tap water, that is OK. If I use the bottling plants water (which is not mine), that is NOT OK, it is theft.

    28. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Well then, you wouldn't mind if we all came to your house and used your water, right? Because after all, it is the same water. The fact that you paid for it and we didn't is immaterial, right?

    29. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Cue lawsuits between the bottled water companies.

      "Their water is chemically identical to ours. We have a patent on ours and they are infringing!"
      "We claim the exact same thing but in reverse!"

    30. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by hendridm · · Score: 1

      > "Sadly, if bottled water companies had enough lobbying power this would probably be a viable reality."

      Hmmm, I wouldn't think that would be a problem for Coke (Dasani) and Pepsi (Aquafina)...

    31. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do audio production work and I also do (sometimes) download music. Parent faucet related comments are so stupid. So fucking stupid that I paused before wiping my ass (pooping and reading slashdot) just to laugh at your stupid ass on the internet.

    32. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      When you use tap water, you are getting that water from an authorized source

      Just like my Internet service is from an authorized source.

      The fact that a bottling company exists is immaterial - you are not taking their water

      Was someone using the RIAA's Internet service without permission?

      If you tapped into your neighbors pipes you would probably consider that an 'alternate source',

      Sounds like using an open wifi network.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    33. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But its got electrolytes!

    34. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      The bottled water companies didn't invent water

      Nor did the RIAA or MPAA invent the Internet.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    35. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by misexistentialist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Taking something without paying just because you can is selfish and wrong.

      Once again: copying isn't "taking".

    36. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Spectre · · Score: 1

      That just depends on where you reside ... and how "free" is free?

      The water gushing up from the artesian well is free, cold, ready-to-drink. A little hard, but some people like that.

      The water in the "normal" well is also "free", although it is pumped up to the pressure storage tank with an electric pump and the electricity isn't free ... that's the water that is actually coming out of the taps.

      --
      "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
    37. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by gnick · · Score: 1

      Megaupload have no system in place to stop people uploading material they don't own. Simple as that. They would still be in business today if they did.

      YouTube only marginally does. Their main defense is that they take down or suspend uploads that receive DMCA complaints. Just like Megaupload does (or did or at least claims to have done)... But the DOJ doesn't have the cojones to go after YouTube remotely as aggressively as Megaupload.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    38. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by tgd · · Score: 1

      How dare people drink their tap water! After all, how are bottled water companies expected to turn a profit when people can just turn a knob on their faucet and get water on their own?

      Insightful? Municipal tap water isn't free, either. Well water is, in some places. But in a lot of places, your land rights don't include water rights.

      Go hook a hose up to a fire hydrant and start watering your lawn with it. See what happens.

    39. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by ilsaloving · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's the *artists* who make the media, and they're being screwed over by the media companies even harder than we are. The only thing media companies make is profit.

    40. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by JonySuede · · Score: 3, Funny

      My fines Scotch bottles have drinkingrights !
      for the Aberlour Abund'ha #30 and the Lagavulin single malt 16y, the drinkingrights are a limit of 2 oz every 1 month,
      for the Aberlour Abund'ha #35 and the Aberlour single malt 16y, the limit is 2 oz every 2 week,
      for the Aberlour single malt 6y and the Glenmorangie, it is 2 oz every 1 week,
      the cheap blend are drinkinglefts.

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    41. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by tenaciousj · · Score: 1

      What if someone legitimately bought a bottling plant's bottle of water and then shared it with you? Did you just steal from the bottling plant?

    42. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BRANO!

    43. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Vegemeister · · Score: 0

      You seem to believe that a person who downloads The Beatles' discography has deprived The Beatles of something.
      Piracy is *exactly* like the bottled water analogy. By drinking water from the tap, you have (to a very rough approximation) reduced the demand for bottled water by the amount you drank. You have not, however, deprived the bottled water company of any water.

    44. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Insightfill · · Score: 1

      How dare people drink their tap water! After all, how are bottled water companies expected to turn a profit when people can just turn a knob on their faucet and get water on their own?

      We live in the Chicago suburbs, with tap water good enough that many companies (Hinkley and Schmidt, for one) bottle it and sell it. It's won blind taste tests against tap and bottled water from around the world, I believe.

      One time, in 90+ degree heat, my wife was leading a group of seven-year-old Girl Scouts on a trip and they were getting thirsty. Their water bottles had long-since been used up, so my wife found a public fountain and told them to fill up and drink up. One snot refused, saying she wasn't going to be drinking "any poopy water".

      Someone, somewhere, had told this child that tap water had been drawn from purified sewage, and that the stuff from the tap was essentially a short hop from the stuff going down the toilet.

      Pity the man who marries her in 20+ years.

    45. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Fned · · Score: 1

      It's their stupid fault for filling up the tank and hooking it up to the water system without even getting a payment contract from the people with the faucets first.

      Hey, I got an idea, lets break the water system so they don't have to change their now-stupid business model.

    46. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Internet service is not free either...

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    47. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hardly a fair comparison - Stealing water from the bottling company deprives the company of water that they paid for. This is more like a canned air company that pulls air (in this case literally) out of the air and cans it. And then suing you for breathing what they could have otherwise canned and sold to you resulting in a "lost sale."

      The only real difference (albeit a big one) is that music/movies/games have to be created before being distributed. It's illegal copying or piracy, not theft as the company is deprived of nothing other than a potential or more likely imaginary lost sale.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    48. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by alzoron · · Score: 1

      If any of this is true and having to boil water before making coffee was a serious burden for the people of Boston then I really have no desire to ever visit out of fear of contracting stupidity. Do you have any idea what's involved in the process of making coffee? I'll give you a hint, it's not freezing the water.

    49. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can come to my house and use all the water you want. I don't have a meter: I pay a fixed fee. Anyone who has a well won't have to pay for their water at all. Analogy fail.

    50. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by artor3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's a non-sequitur and you know it. You're not pirating "an internet". You're pirating a song or a movie or whatever.

    51. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by cicho · · Score: 1

      Dictionaries do not decide what a term means. They record usage. If enough industry lobbyists, misinformed pundits and bribed politicians have used the words "steal" and "theft" to describe common copyright infringement - and they certainly have - then newer editions of dictionaries will record that sense.

      That however still doesn't make copyright infringement legally or morally equivalent to theft. It's just a piece of propaganda we've been living under for a generation and many people have internalized it. "God is great" is another, or "Dear Leader is great" if you live in North Korea. Same thing, though not quite the same scale yet.

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    52. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by mrbester · · Score: 2

      ... thus depriving the owner of that property" F(inished)TFY

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    53. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Illegally copying/viewing/enjoying copyrighted content is not stealing, by any widely accepted definition of "stealing". Violating copyright is illegal in many jurisdictions, and it could very well be considered wrong (depending on your personal morals) but it is not theft.

      First let me say that I despise the *IAA groups as much as anyone. But what you are stating is that it's perfectly fine to get something that has monetary value that the owner of is charging for. Which you somehow get for free, against the owners wishes, that's not stealing how? Why don't you try going to the local movie theater and not pay to get in. Then explain to the police that you've taken nothing of value so they can't do anything about it.

    54. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 0

      You are not stealing "water," you are drinking it out of the tap instead of a prepackaged bottle!

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    55. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by SydShamino · · Score: 0

      You can read a book from the library.

      Taking something without paying just because you can is selfish and wrong.

      You know they'll go after libraries next, right? Taking one of their books for a while without paying anything to the rights holder is "selfish and wrong" according to plenty of rights holders.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    56. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by artor3 · · Score: 1

      You're intentionally conflating the ideas of "the internet" and "media content". No one pirates "an internet".

      The fact that you pay (through taxes) for roads doesn't let you drive drunk. The fact that you legally buy a gun doesn't let you brandish it at people. And the fact that you purchase internet bandwidth does not allow you to pirate other people's creations.

    57. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by unity100 · · Score: 0

      so you are saying that by viewing someone else's copyrighted film, the viewer had had transferred the ownership of that film, its copyright over to himself/herself ........

    58. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you use tap water, you are getting that water from an authorized source

      Just like my Internet service is from an authorized source.

      This would be a more useful conversation if you realized that the water is analagous to the copyrighted media downloaded, not the internet connection itself.

    59. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by moderatorrater · · Score: 0

      What bothers me is that you blame companies and big business. Banning faucets isn't something they could do, it's something government can do. If you have a problem with government blame the government.

    60. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 0

      ...and the fact that you pay for tap water does not mean you can drink it.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    61. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Do those taps run directly into the bottling plants tanks? No? Then it's not the same thing, is it, dumbfuck?

      Bottled water is tap water.

      Who's the dumbfuck now, chump?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    62. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      West of the Mississippi (in the USA), if you were in need of water to survive I cannot legally charge you.

      You don't get free water for your crops though.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    63. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      No, the drinking of the water is analogous to copyrighted media.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    64. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Fned · · Score: 5, Informative

      Megaupload have no system in place to stop people uploading material they don't own. Simple as that.

      There is no such system.

      Simple as that.

    65. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I copied all the Beatles works with the rest of the harddrive we swap around.

      I will never listen to that crap though. I only copied it because it is easier then sorting the whole mess for junk (all 28K albums worth).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    66. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Here's how I think that would go down:
      Variant 1: Bottled water companies would lobby to defund municipal water districts, resulting over time in a breakdown of overall water quality. Then have bought-and-paid-for bloggers and other political shills raise public sentiment against the government for mismanaging the water supply, while simultaneously raising public sentiment in support of bottled water as "safer, healthier than tap water, which is full of heavy metals, toxins, bacteria, and parasites".
      Variant 2: Starts as variant 1, except you lobby to privatize management of the water supply, which the bottled water companies handily are found more than capable of. Then they impose mandatory metering and raise the prices through the roof.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    67. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Ruie · · Score: 1

      We pay for Internet service, and the RIAA/MPAA do not claim ownership over your bandwidth. We do not punish people for drinking their tap water, even though bottled water companies exist specifically to sell drinking water. Every fluid ounce of tap water that you drink is a fluid ounce you did not pay a bottled water company to drink.

      The only difference is that right now, nobody has a concept of "drinkingrights" but we do have a concept of "copyrights."

      You are actually wrong - see Water rights

    68. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 1

      If I had to pay bottled water rates to drink water, I'd drink a lot less.

    69. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by tenaciousj · · Score: 0

      Trying to claim that everyone that hears, sees, touches, mumbles, whistles, mentions, or thinks about a particular work owes you a license royalty for each and every incident is wrong.

      Have you ever shared a book with someone? A CD, DVD, cassette, 8-track, or vinyl record? Or god forbid make a copy of one for a friend? Ever had someone come over to your house and watch a movie that you paid for but they didn't, or vice-versa? Guess what, the way they currently look at it you just stole, or illegally shared copyrighted material. Congratulations, you now owe them $70 trillion dollars. Because that one friend shares with his friends and they share with their friends. Pretty soon that little copy has spread all over the world. Companies are going bankrupt and people are starving in the streets because of your one selfish act.

    70. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different AC. To take or appropriate something requires depriving the original owner of that thing. In these cases that has not occurred as the original owner still maintains possession of that object. This is copyright infringement, not theft. The owner has in no way been deprived of their property, ideas, etc.

    71. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by owlnation · · Score: 1, Troll

      Apples and oranges. The bottled water companies didn't invent water. The media companies did make the media you're pirating.

      No. The media companies did not make the media. They distribute it. This is not the same thing. Continuing the water analogy, they are not the cloud, nor the rain, just merely the plumbing to the fawcet.

      Taking something without paying just because you can is selfish and wrong.

      Tell that to the music industry. Like many, many people, I've done subcontracted work for the music industry. I've never been paid for any of it. I now know better to ever accept any contract from them. And I would urge everyone to do the same. They are thieving scumbags who promise a great deal, and rarely, if ever, pay out. This, is in addition to the many 1000s of artists who have been screwed over in contracts over the decades.

      However much the public out there may "steal" from them, it's peanuts to what they steal from people every single day.

    72. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by niado · · Score: 2

      I did not say that it was perfectly fine.

      The discussion of whether or not a violation of intellectual property is morally wrong (regardless of laws put in place) is rather complicated and many people have differing viewpoints on the subject. It irritates me when the issue is muddied when so many people cry 'thief!' when no theft has taken place.

      Sneaking into a local movie theater without paying would also not be stealing. I suspect it would be some form of trespassing.

    73. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Not exactly, but pretty close. It's part of your house's/apartment's water bill. You have to have water, so that you can wash dishes, take showers, flush the toilets, etc., not just for drinking, so it's pretty much a necessity for modern life (and indeed, required by law in most places, or else you're not allowed to live in that dwelling). Compared to the amount of water used by toilets and showers, the volume used for drinking is miniscule. And the prices, per unit volume, are miniscule compared to bottled water. So it might not be exactly "free", but it's pretty darn close.

      That said, tap water in many places tastes like shit, and in some places isn't even safe to drink; we had an incident in nearby Scottsdale a few years ago where the tap water was contaminated with some kind of metal-cleaning solvents or similar, and deemed unsafe to drink. (Incidentally, I believe this water system was run by a private company, rather than a local government-owned one. So much for private enterprise doing everything better.) However, instead of buying expensive bottled water, a better option is to install a reverse osmosis system on your kitchen sink, or to buy RO-treated water from vending machines; the ones around here will fill up a 5-gallon bottle for 75 cents or a dollar, and the resulting water tastes quite good, is certainly much safer than unfiltered tap water, while not being even a fraction as costly as bottled water. Plus, you can reuse your 5-gallon jugs instead of filling up the landfill (or recycling bin better yet) with a bunch of small plastic bottles.

    74. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by slippyblade · · Score: 2

      What do you mean, "next?" There are already publishers arguing against libraries.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/business/for-libraries-and-publishers-an-e-book-tug-of-war.html

    75. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to ignore the majority of the post you are responding to. The first half of the first sentence and the entire second sentence state exactly that doing what you said is illegal in many places. It's just not theft, it's copyright infringement. The owner was deprived of no property.

    76. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by hldn · · Score: 1

      i've never heard the term water butt before, it's typically called a rain barrel in the states.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    77. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Why would you need to boil water (for those drinks that use cold water) to make it safe to drink? Shouldn't RO filtration do the same thing, without the high energy usage?

    78. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by holmstar · · Score: 1

      ...Oh, water butt = rain barrel. If that's true then they're basically saying that they own the rain that falls on your roof, which is totally ridiculous. I'm glad I don't live there.

    79. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by niado · · Score: 1

      By copying/viewing/enjoying content that is copyrighted by others (regardless of whether you have permission to do this or not) you are not taking or appropriating their ideas or property.

      And before anyone becomes pedantic: I am aware that the word 'stealing' has other, related definitions (e.g. 'stealing third base') but they are completely irrelevant to the point here.

    80. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      Newsflash Bucko, not all dictionary definitions are correct. I can pick a random word out of any of the major dictionaries and their definitions can differ in their content. Some definitions don't even consider the eytmology of the word, which creates a divide. In any case, copyright infringement is not theft. You haven't physically stolen anything. All I have done is copied data that was already there and not destroy it in the process (which if I had destroyed it in the process, I could potentially see how someone could claim theft then).

    81. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually,didnt the artists create the media?

    82. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're oversimplifying the issue. Lots of people do pay for things and are then guilty of copyright infringement for using it in a way that rights holders don't like. There are also lots of things that are free, as in 100% free to anyone and everyone, but you can still get in trouble for using it the "wrong" way.

    83. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      The advice they give travellers to places where the water needs boiling is to keep it boiling for 20 minutes. I don't know how you make coffee, but my mocha pot doesn't take that long starting from cold.

    84. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The media companies did not make the media. The artists did, but they are not the ones to reap the benefit.

    85. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      If you think that government enacted all this on its own rather then because of massive pressure from the "companies and big business", I have land on the moon to sell you.

      The only sensible "government is bad" argument that you could use here is "companies and big business have too much to say in what government goes after". And you would you right.

    86. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Funny

      Im British. Over here, it's a water butt.

    87. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative
      A little googling, and.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainwater_tank

      In the State of Colorado, USA, the installation of rainwater collection barrels is subject to ... state statutes. The movement and holding of rainwater is inextricably linked with ownership of water rights and is enshrined in the constitution of the State of Colorado. The use of water in Colorado and other western states is governed by what is known as the prior appropriation doctrine. Since all water arriving in Colorado has been allocated to "senior water right holders" since the 1850s, rainwater prevented from running downstream may not be available to its rightful owner. In 2009, legislation in Colorado was enacted that permits capture of rain water for residential use subject to strong limitations and conditions.[14] To be permitted, a residence may not be connected to a domestic water supply system serving more than 3 single-family dwellings. The permit must be purchased from the State Engineer's office and is subject to water usage restrictions.

      Or, more briefly: The state already sold that rain to the water company while it was still in the air. If it falls on your land and you collect some for yourself, you are stealing water from that company.

    88. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Break the Water Monopoly! Distill your feces and urine with our new Water World inspired gadget. Only $35.99 at your nearest outlet!

    89. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Toonol · · Score: 1

      It is a crime. It isn't theft, it's copyright infringement. And the criminal isn't the downloader or MegaUpload; it's the original file uploader. Download a copyrighted file is not a crime. Sharing it is. That's why you'll see torrenters getting sued, but not direct downloaders; it's the person doing the redistribution that is breaking copyright.

    90. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      When you use tap water, you are getting that water from an authorized source (ie the water company has the right to sell you that water).

      You're begging the question. If there was a concept of 'drinkingright' analogous to copyright then the municipal source would not be authorized. And if we lacked a concept of copyright like we lack a concept of drinkingright, then everyone would be an authorized source. Unless the government steps in and enforces a monopoly, the municipal water source has the right to sell the water it owns, and I have the right to sell copies of the DVDs I own.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    91. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      The only difference is that right now, nobody has a concept of "drinkingrights" but we do have a concept of "copyrights."

      A better collection of words might be "water collection and distribution rights" rather than "drinking rights" since "copyright" is the exclusive right of the copyright holder to copy and distribute their music/movie/book. In some western states, water catchment is illegal except for certain allowed groups (water companies being one), so you have to get your water from the water company; you can't just drink boiled rainwater. Of course, something I read for the first time here on /.: apparently there *are* such a thing as "drinking rights" where a dehydrated person must be given water free of charge.

    92. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Except it is not their obligation to stop people from uploading material they don't "own". Nor is it ilegal to upload content that you aren't the copyright holder, nor is it illegal to distribute files over the internet, nor is it to host it.

      What is ilegal is to a) publish links to content for wich you don't have distribution rights, which MegaUpload generally didn't. Some of their users did, some of the time. Using channels such as blogs. Which is why SOPA/PIPA wants to make it a crime to publish blogs unless tightly controlled by the media industry.

      b) Refusing to comply with DMCA take down notices. Which they also didn't.

      And this is the really bad thing, that they were arrested despite obeying the law. This is illegal. Now, you can claim that MegaUpload founders are merelly following the letter of the law and abusing safe harbor provisions. As if US media industry wasn't abusing those laws right and left! They basically acted following their own laws.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    93. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Bottled water companies could claim ownership over tap water coming out of my faucet, if a law existed granting them that ownership. Similarly music companies can't claim ownership over a CD that I bought from them, unless a law existed granting that ownership.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    94. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Hey, fun fact: most of the water the bottling companies bottle rained out of the same clouds as the stuff piped through your taps. Collected in the same reservoirs, too!

      And on the other hand, if you go to YouTube and watch a video of Justin Bieber doing his musical (!) thing, you haven't actually deprived Universal Music of any CDs or records or digits or anything like that. So it's not even the same thing as "stealing water directly from a bottling plant's tanks". In that case, the bottling plant is actually left with less water.

      All you can say is that by watching a Justin Bieber video on YouTube there is a marginally smaller chance that you would have gone out and bought his CD- so unless you were actually planning to buy a CD before watching him on YouTube, Universal haven't lost a penny.

    95. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news the library was shut down, founder charged with piracy.

    96. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      But if I buy bottled water I'm free to split it up in to pieces and distribute those pieces to anyone who asks me. sort of like how torrents work...

    97. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, the sort of precedent set in this case - that people from around the world can be arrested for crimes against US law, regardless of their legality in the jurisdiction they're actually in - is more important than the entire copyright industry.

    98. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Meeni · · Score: 1

      It makes sense in desertic area. The water that you capture from your roof is water that doesn't go to the watershed, and is dearly missing for people living downstream. Water is a common, not your property, it is logical that when it is scarce, it is regulated to prevent abuse.

    99. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      No, politicians let them have too much influence, and we let them get away with it. Businesses acting badly is, well, bad, but the government helping them should be intolerable. And yet here we are.

    100. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " it is theft."
      which is why ti's a STUPID ANALOGY to use when discussing copyright violation.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    101. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      haha 'Chump' Now that fucker, mother fucker, and cocksucker have lost all impact, we are back to chump. I love that.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    102. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      IT's been going on for, let me see here... hmm. Since always.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    103. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      But its coming.. The day is coming when you wont even be able to access a data file until its ownership is verified by some magic service in the sky.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    104. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I did not say that it was perfectly fine.

      Sorry, my misunderstanding.

      The discussion of whether or not a violation of intellectual property is morally wrong (regardless of laws put in place) is rather complicated and many people have differing viewpoints on the subject. It irritates me when the issue is muddied when so many people cry 'thief!' when no theft has taken place.

      I agree, it's not a simple matter in any way. I mistakenly took your post to be stating that it's OK do download what ever you want. I agree that in the traditional sense, it's not a theft of property. However It's not as simple as at copyright violation either.Times have changed and I assume that we are going to be adding new words to the English (and other) language(s), or the definition of "theft and stealing" are going to change. Even Dictionary.com gives the following example sentence:"These examples both describe the theft of intellectual or creative labor." While I find the term intellectual property nauseating, it is commonly excepted. However once that becomes such, then downloading material that is not paid for could be construed as theft of a sort. In some places you can be charged with theft for taking data from a company (as an employee, or otherwise). I fail to see the difference between making a copy of company data and entertainment data. In both cases the effect is the same. The company has lost nothing physically. The real problem, IMO, is that the copyright and patent systems are seriously broken.

      Sneaking into a local movie theater without paying would also not be stealing. I suspect it would be some form of trespassing.

      Very possibly. However I would guess this would vary from state to state. There's a good chance that this is defined at theft in some localities. But that's just speculation on my part.

    105. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by adamchou · · Score: 1

      omg... i see $$$. I need to own that water company then sue into oblivion all those damn people that are watering their lawns with MY rain. oh and i can ticket you for washing your car in my rain. my goodness, hell, i'm washing that sky scrapper for you! wow, the possibilities are endless...

    106. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      water collects things as it falls from the sky.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    107. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I'll give you a hint: It's only use water that's just started boiling. If should boil for up to 20 minutes, depending on the reason. Regular coffee makers will not kill any 'bugs' residing in the water.

      So relax, Boston stupidity has nothing on you!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    108. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      Some bottled water is indeed tapwater. Also, some bottled water is actually trucked-in from pure springs. (If the bottle says "natural spring water", and it's not direct from a spring, that's false labeling.) It all depends on the brand and the plant. Sometimes they do both in the same plant, for different sub-brands.

      Take it from a guy who's helped install water purification systems in these places.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    109. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Variant 1 is what happened in Portland, Or.

      A lobbing effort force the WB to submit a variance to a UV plant mandated by the feds.
      They lied, they forced the WB top redo Studies.
      The cited wacky ass conspiracies, and psuedo science.

      No we got the variance. If my child ever gets even the hint of any bug that could have been stopped from UV, I will sue the WB, and I will sue the shits at 'Friends of the Forest'.

      Hell, before the variance we had a counsel member PROUD she gt the filtering removed.
      Yeah, we got the best open water system in the world, literally, but ducks still shit in it.

      After hearing the people in open discourse with the WB, I genuinely believe that any science and health decision should not be open to the general public except specific members who are educated and expert on the topic.

      Privatizing water has pretty much always gone badly for the consumer.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    110. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      the criminal is the distributor. SO yes, the uploader, and also megaupload if they allow distribution.
      If I made an illegal recording and gave it to you, and then you gave it to someone else, we BOTH commit a crime.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    111. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure who the quote below belongs to, but it's relevant to your argument:

      "The main difference between East and West is that in the East, those who have the power, have the money. In the West, those who have the money, have the power".

    112. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      WTF is your point here? We're talking about needing to boil TAP water, not rainwater.

    113. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      You get rid of the media cartels' protection racket on every blank CDR bought in the countries where that levy applies, and I'll consider accepting your argument.

      After all, "taking something without paying just because you can" is practically scripture for the big media companies.

    114. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      To get those $$$ perhaps you should start by suing the water company for destruction of your valuable property by spilling their water all over it every time it rains.

    115. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Creative works aren't property.

      You don't have an inalienable right to a copyright or patent.

      You never did (at least in the US).

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    116. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      LYING in an attempt to take the moral or intellecual high ground is just supid.

      Creative works aren't property. Copying them is not theft.

      Moral imperatives need to survive on their own merit rather than depending on specious rhetoric that seeks to ignore morally important details.

      The fellow going on about the Beatles should not be in a any sort of legal grey area. That work was created with a certain expiration date. That date should have been honored.

      These sorts of discussions usually imply a huge double standard in favor of non-people.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    117. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by artor3 · · Score: 1

      If I could get rid of that levy, I would. But surprisingly, two wrongs don't make a right, and the fact that some big companies do bad things does not mean we should burn down that entire sector of the economy.

    118. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Way to ignore the majority of the post you are responding to.

      Way to ignore the issue/subject in its entirety. This was posted on / less than three hours after the Megaupload post. How is it "stealing code" if entertainment data is not stealing? They're both data and neither of the owners are deprived of any property.

    119. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Genda · · Score: 1

      Clearly you've bought into the misdirection. At first blush, it looks like they want to prevent the illegal download of copyrighted material (their water.) On closer examination they could care less about the "water" they want your "pipes." With control of your pipes, it doesn't matter where your water comes from or what you use the water for, they control the flow and can turn off your water without so much as a second thought... and with that, kiss anything resembling global free speech and democracy goodbye (that kind of water will never see "their" piped ever again.)

      Our society has ALWAYS put up with minor inconvenience (idiots talking loudly in public, and yellow journalism) because we thought the price was small compared to the benefit that freedom brings. This however won't fly in the face of "Profit". There is no margin for "putting up with" if your intent is to squeeze every last femto-liter of profit out of the world at large. At best you and I are imminent trespassers on the property of some future super-Murdoch. As for your metaphor, look at what is happening to water on the planet today.

      Perhaps its time for people to try something different. During times of strife, "The People" boycotted despotic providers. In the south, the black civil rights leaders convinced a city to walk instead of riding the bus in the back. In India, million started wearing only home woven fabric. We can break the financial backs of those who would buy and sell us. We would simply have to put our conscience ahead of our comfort.

    120. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      The indictment itself does not equate copyright infringement to theft. I wish people would read the charges before taking an activist position with regard to the charges.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    121. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I'd much rather have RO, pH buffered tap water than water trucked from springs. However, if I'm in the backcountry near the spring, I'd rather have the spring water (boiled for 10 minutes.) Context is key here.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    122. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the government owns that water and is responsible for managing it. The government which is composed ultimately of the citizenry. There's nothing stopping you or any particular locality from buying the water rights to the water that falls on their land.In fact that's just what Seattle did a few years back. It was a shrewd move as the citizens get to catch all the water that falls on their land and they get a bit of a buffer when we get inundated with rain.

      In Bolivia, that water belonged to private interests and there was effectively no way around it as one couldn't find any source of water that one was likely to be able to afford without being rich.

    123. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      I grew up on a farm with well water. We now sell our groundwater to the county. Because of the perpetual contract, drinking our free well water would be a crime. You make your choices.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    124. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Taking something without paying just because you can is selfish and wrong.

      Some when my family watches a movie or listens to a CD with me that I paid for they are being selfish and wrong ??

      You forgot the keyword: context

      The majority of people share music because they _want_ too, not because "they can"

    125. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      What can be killed by boiling for 20 minutes that isn't dead in one minute?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    126. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      In the indictment, if you bother to read it, you will find that this was directly tested, with respect to a specific server in Virginia, which contained certain specific files. The company agreed to remove them, and did not. That's one of the many charges in the indictment. I think a lot of people don't quite understand the nature of the charges against MU though. The racketeering charges are much more serious than the copyright infringement, and many of those would be valid regardless of the nature of the business.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    127. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Sancho · · Score: 1

      The thread to which you replied wasn't talking much about this particular case, but rather about copyright infringement in general. Indeed, some people try very hard to equate copyright infringement with theft, including the writers of the PROTECT-IP act. (The second "T" in the title of that act stands for "theft.")

      http://www.dontcensorthenet.com/full-text-of-the-protect-ip-act-of-2011

    128. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Actually I steal FTA television and radio too. I watch the shows and then change channel or make a cup of tea when the ads come on.

      The reality is that most people get most of their media for free. Artists like that because for them in order to get paid people have to have heard their song or learned of their book somehow. Since big media owns all the TV/radio output their best option is free distribution online. That applies to megastars too if the don't want to pay the RIAA tax.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    129. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Genda · · Score: 1

      You're right. We shouldn't blame tigers for eating people either. They're just doing what tigers do. We do however, cage them or shoot them. When corporations exercise their need for profit to the detriment of the world and its inhabitants, its time to cage them or shoot them (metaphorically speaking.) Government needs to be COMPLETELY ISOLATED from corporations for the benefit of all, including the corporations themselves who will gleefully gut themselves tomorrow for profit today. Government's job is to provide working infrastructure and common social resource to make most human enterprises feasible and operable (both for profit and not.)

      Our failure has been to allow corporations to hijack the machine managing infrastructure for... PROFIT. This in turn has been a slow motion disaster to the people of the United States and the world at large. It is now time to lock down on corporations HARD! We build a beautiful cage after the great depression, it took the last 30 years for Corporate America to destroy its cage and now we have the world of the present going to hell in a hand basket. Its time to repair the cage, bolster it where it was previously weak, and institute a Constitutional Amendment that separates corporation and state the same way church and state are currently separate.

      It is much easier to manage these institutions when we keep them away from one another.

    130. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why is it wrong?
      Because the law says so?
      That simply makes it illegal, not morally wrong.
      I'm not taking anything, simply sharing with millions of friends online.
      It used to be called fair use.

    131. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      Megaupload have no system in place to stop people uploading material they don't own. Simple as that.

      Yeah. Because it's not "as simple as that". It's basically impossible to stop people uploading content they don't own. Youtube shows that. What would they do? Ask every potential uploader to supply a legal document proving that the file (identified by a CRC, say) was his property? It would take hours of legal work for every single file.

      Most of these schemes just look for an suspicious filename, which is easy to spoof and easy to find false positives. MU had a takedown process that content owners could report links and have them taken down.

      Yes, I know full well that MU facilitated distribution of TV shows, software, porn, etc. It's inevitable for any service that allows storage of files. You have to shut down the Internet if you want to prevent that.

    132. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      True. It does raise a serious question however: just where *do* we draw the line on copyright? How many companies have to be abusing the privileges we granted them before the social contract - i.e. the spirit, not the letter, of the law - is no longer conscionable? The Supreme Court has just decided that Congress can re-copyright works that have entered the public domain. The supposed ideal of copyright was that in return for a temporary monopoly, works would become freely available to all in perpetuity. That's not what's happening anymore.

      And while we can "vote with our dollars" by buying indie works, the truth is the ignorant sheep outnumber the enlightened sheep by sufficient order of magnitude that the cartels can continue to accumulate and concentrate political power regardless. A *lot* more sheep will need to "look up" for that to change.

    133. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's got what plants CRAVE!

    134. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a far more selfish and terrible thing to take away free speech, rights to privacy, and the free and open nature of the Internet. There is absolutely no comparison between that of sharing information which should be encouraged, as an informed society is a better society, and the blight that those media companies are working tirelessly to bring upon all of us.

    135. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry. A little more googling and you'd see that's not true anymore.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/29rain.html

    136. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by fnj · · Score: 1

      Colorado in the 1850s: perhaps one of the earliest blatant examples of corrupt conniving between big government and big business.

    137. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Bobakitoo · · Score: 1

      They do not have authorization to download MPAA movies. It has nothing to do with bandwidth - where did that come from?

      It is up the copyright owner to prove in court that they downloaded his copyrighted material without authorization. Right now, they are going after bandwidth users without due process only because they can. It is exactly like been sued by a bottled water company for staying hydrated, from unidentified water, that might be from a source they have ownership claims... or not. eg: drinking tap water.

    138. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by hitmark · · Score: 1

      IMF mandated water system privatization, anyone?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    139. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't stealing from bottling plants, they're stealing from California.

    140. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess there is no such thing as information theft because information has no value?
      Try propagate the plans of a nuclear bomb, and see what happens..

    141. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The article says "The two Colorado laws allow perhaps a quarter-million residents with private wells to begin rainwater harvesting." That is a rather narrow exception.

    142. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what happens when rain is blown over a state border by a gust of rain rather falling directly onto the Hallowed Coloradian sod. Or vice versa. Sounds like illegal water sharing to me. Someone should sue God.

    143. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't you then turn around and sue that company for polluting your property with their rainwater? After all, you didn't ASK them to dump rainwater on your land, they failed to properly contain their product.

      sooner or later, people WILL find ways to turn these pro-Corporate laws against the Corporations.

    144. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by nomorecwrd · · Score: 1

      Still, how many bottled water companies have been busted selling filtered faucet water?

    145. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if theft is defined as depriving Somebody of access to Something. In most of the world, theft is defined as taking Something from Someone without permission. So, illegally copying/viewing/enjoying copyrighted content, which involves acquiring the Something without permission, is theft.

    146. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is monstrous! Such an "right" should be illegal to grant and automatically void on the grounds of being insane and appalling. They need to rebel. Or leave. Before they too are owned (what's all that water worth if none buys it?).

    147. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by DC2088 · · Score: 1

      No. The recording industry is not the person who bought the bottle of water. They sold that bottle of water to a customer. That costumer then says "hey, who wants some of my water?" Suddenly, "criminal enterprise."

    148. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually I can no longer use MegaUpload to perform those perfectly legal activities. Also, your gross simplification of "media companies making media" and "[their] product" reads right out of RIAA/MPAA playbook and neglects the finer details and nuances of a totally broken and unnecessary system. A system with widespread false claims, betrayal of public domain, illegitimate copyright extension, harassment, hypocrisy, failure of due process, extortion, collusion, racketeering, tax evasion, electioneering, bribery, -basically decades and decades worth of finely honed abject corruption. This is the system you defend by respecting copyright and simplifying your stance to such absurd proportions. So either you're an idiot who can't think for himself or you're a shill (e.g. copyright employee) who is paid not to think for himself. Frankly, we need a revolution to cull the idiots who run around following and promoting a system of laws for no other reason than they were imposed arbitrarily from the upper ledge of a hierarchy. In conclusion, fuck you.

    149. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      That's stupid. Toilet water doesn't even have electrolytes.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    150. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by gnick · · Score: 1

      I think you've been here long enough that you should know better. Reading TFA is cheating - /. is a place for blind speculation and getting excited about misunderstood non-issues, dismissing valid issues in favor of supporting random ideals, and car analogies. Take your rational analysis somewhere else.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    151. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You can watch free OTA television"

      What's the difference from recording OTA content, then watching it later (timeshifting) as opposed to downloading a file of that content after it airs (timeshifting)?

      Please, enlighten us.

      And don't try to convince us that avoiding the commercials is theft somehow.. no one should have to watch ads anyways, we viewers are the product, not the content (otherwise, why are there advertisements?)

    152. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      And all these people drinking water for free are not buying and drinking your scotch. You should sue for lost earnings.

    153. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      My god you are right !
      I should lobby for a blended scotch ban, as this commoners things is drinkinglefts. ;)

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    154. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      Just like checking out a book from the Library is *wrong*. The Library didn't write the book. People should just find alternative means of entertainment.

      There's a reason we have libraries, and it's not because the free market does a good job of making content available for everyone.

    155. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Socialist Sweden, we pay tax for the rain that falls on our land.

      No, seriously, there's a tax that homeowners have to pay that goes to upkeep on the public drainage system, and it's justified by the rain that runs off your land and onto public roads.

    156. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Apples and oranges. The bottled water companies didn't invent water. The media companies did make the media you're pirating.

      Question: If I were to clone Coca-Cola and sell it but without Coca-Cola's trademark logo, would that be legal, even though Coca-Cola clearly made the formula I'm "pirating"? What if the product was a mechanical clone of MS Word that used water wheels and gears instead of electrons and silicon? Does the limit simply come at the point where it's presumed the creator doesn't have an edge to sell their product because of the difficulty of construction of the product (that is, it's easy to copy MS Word as software but not as hardware...at least until RepRaps get far enough along and the need plastic gets to be as cheap as water)? In short, I'm not sure how you can call it apples and oranges.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    157. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by psiclops · · Score: 1

      Pepsi's Aquafina and Coca-Cola Co's Dasani are both made from purified water sourced from public reservoirs

      i'm gonna say you - for not even reading the article you're linking to.

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    158. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      The voltage discharge that is gonna make you into a cinder is also immaterial.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    159. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Powerful bottled water companies would just buy a law forcing utilities to add some laxative to tap water. The water could still be used for washing clothes, watering the lawn or taking a shower, but if you want to drink water you'd have to buy it in bottles. For your safety and your convenience, you see.

    160. Re:Ban the use of faucets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I'd say that's a bit too wordy to make a good Google query, the 5th link was this.

      Spoiler: nothing

  27. Who said.... by stanlyb · · Score: 0

    Who said: I TOLD YOU. WHO?

  28. Oh here we go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If SOPA passes the internet will be holocausted as the "final solution" to those pesky pirates. If Government ruins laws, why should I respect Godwin's law?

    This will also fizzle out "cloud" storage because there be sky pirates up there. We need internet freedom fighters now more than ever, don't ever buy another MPAA/RIAA affilated work again for the rest of your life! Only a multi-decade boycott will put the MAFIAA in their place and have respectable copyright again.

  29. So what are their non .com addresses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So life can go on.

    1. Re:So what are their non .com addresses? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      The servers are in Virginia. You can bet the feds have already raided the colo.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  30. Rationale from the article by kiwimate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The indictment was returned in the Eastern District of Virginia, which claimed jurisdiction in part because some of the alleged pirated materials were hosted on leased servers in Ashburn, Va.

    To play devil's advocate here: most Slashdot readers contend that music and movie industries should stop complaining and instead "adapt their business models", because their world has been irrevocably changed by technology. You could also say that that same technology has very much changed the way criminals do their dirty work, by allowing a person in one country to administer a server or hack a system on the other side of the world, and law enforcement officials need to adapt accordingly.

    1. Re:Rationale from the article by d4fseeker · · Score: 1

      I agree. Next time I report a break in to my customer's webspaces I fully expect chinese and russian officials to hunt down and turn over the crook owning the automated bot and bring him to Germany for fair justice
      Oh well, he could also be shot in the raid in his home and claimed a danger to mankind for all I care.

      Just make sure the system works BOTH ways, not only the money-stuffed-ass way

    2. Re:Rationale from the article by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Geographically distributed servers are a fundamental part of any large website. If one jurisdiction doesn't like a site it can get the servers located there removed, but if it wants to charge the operator living in another country with some crime then it still needs to go through the normal channels for extraditing someone. Otherwise it will be impossible to run a large globally accessible website for fear of violating some random countries ridiculous laws when you are acting perfectly legally where you live.

      The US can feel free to remove Megaupload servers from its soil and maybe try a pointless DNS/IP blockade, but shutting the site down and arresting the operators who don't even live there is international terrorism and an assault on freedom that cannot be tolerated by the rest of the world.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Rationale from the article by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      if it wants to charge the operator living in another country with some crime then it still needs to go through the normal channels for extraditing someone

      They did. Dotcom, Batato, Ortmann and another individual charged were arrested in Auckland, New Zealand, by local authorities on Thursday and will face extradition hearings, the U.S. Justice Department said.

      shutting the site down and arresting the operators who don't even live there is international terrorism and an assault on freedom that cannot be tolerated by the rest of the world.

      They shut the servers down quite legally because it was in the U.S., within their jurisdiction. That's not international terrorism or an assault on freedom. They didn't arrest the operators; they cooperated with local authorities in foreign countries and asked them to arrest the perpertrators, just like you said they should.

      Next problem that can be evaporated by reading for five minutes?

    4. Re:Rationale from the article by hitmark · · Score: 1

      So your advocating a one world government with a "guilty unless proven otherwise" stance on crime?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    5. Re:Rationale from the article by green1 · · Score: 1

      I think actions like this prove this to already be the case...

    6. Re:Rationale from the article by tqk · · Score: 1

      ... law enforcement officials need to adapt accordingly.

      I thought they had.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Rationale from the article by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      Fair point. Just remember - two wrongs don't make a right.

      A lot of people on /. and elsewhere also do not want the system to work BOTH ways - only the way that is convenient for them.

  31. So.... by Bishop923 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If they can do this, why do they need SOPA again?

    1. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

    2. Re:So.... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      SOPA addresses servers that the FBI can't raid because they aren't located in the US.

    3. Re:So.... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      SOPA's primary stated purpose is to affect sites that are hosted outside the US, particularly those that don't cooperate with the US.

      In this case, the people charged are accused of a number of crimes other than copyright infringement, which is probably the only reason they were actually arrested. Of course, their servers were in the US, so US law enforcement could easily shut them down.

      What SOPA is trying to address is the very common situation where the servers are outside the US and the people who run the servers, if they can even be readily identified, have done nothing questionable beyond running the infringing site -- which means that trying to get them arrested is futile.

    4. Re:So.... by shentino · · Score: 1

      Due process is a pain in the ass for the powers that be, that's why.

  32. ONLY 500 Million? by DarthVain · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why not 500 Trillion? They're not even trying hard enough anymore...

    1. Re:ONLY 500 Million? by stms · · Score: 1

      At first they said 1 million dollars. When everyone laughed at such a small number they said 1-thousandzilliongillionbazillion yen. Then said we do need an actual number so they settled on 500 million.

    2. Re:ONLY 500 Million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not 500 Trillion? They're not even trying hard enough anymore...

      Why make Trillions when they could make...

      Millions.

  33. Only $500M in damages? by Gavin+Scott · · Score: 4, Insightful

    $500M? That's like, what, one .mp3 file these days?

    G.

    1. Re:Only $500M in damages? by shaitand · · Score: 2

      But they were sharing it at the equivalent speed of 7000 computers! See a normal dial-up connection is 14.4kbps and they had 100mbps which is 100000kbps! That is 6944.44 14.4kbps connections, round that up to 7000 because there is at least one number over 5 there and it suits our agenda and you have the equivalent to 7000 normal computers!

    2. Re:Only $500M in damages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A little over 3,000 mp3s, actually:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright_infringement

  34. Good by ugen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Megaupload was one of a few (3-4) sites where a cracked copy of my software product was uploaded. They were extremely slow in responding to DMCA request and clearly had interest in continuously providing an obviously illegally obtained copy of the software (because they make money from download fees, essentially re-selling content without paying me). I don't care much for Hollywood, but I do care about software I spend 24/7/365 writing and supporting.

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      what's the name of your software?

    2. Re:Good by future+assassin · · Score: 0, Troll

      So you are of the belief that you lost money from every single pirated copy?

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    3. Re:Good by raynet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How long it took for them to respond to your DMCA takedown letter and was the response time within what the DMCA specifies?

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    4. Re:Good by microbee · · Score: 5, Funny

      Apparently not 24/7/365 since you are posting on slashdot

    5. Re:Good by KinnearP · · Score: 0

      No, he didn't say that. At all. Troll.

    6. Re:Good by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Once, some pakistan guy did give me my change of $1. Now they own me 1 trillion (taxes not included). Would you pleeeeease help get my $1 back? I mean $1 trillion.....

    7. Re:Good by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Hollywood doesn't care about your software. But they do care about the content they spend their lives creating.

    8. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly. people who download pirated software aren't going to pay for it just because they don't have the option of finding it for free. they are just going to use something else.

    9. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you please identify the software program in question, so Slashdotters can shun you? Thank you for your assistance on this.

    10. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not quite sure why that matters -- one missed sale, 100 missed sales, or no missed sales, Megaupload profited from work that was not their own. I'm not sure what "belief" about lost sales has to do with anything?

    11. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's under the belief that somebody took something they had no right too. Lost sales has very little to do with, ownership of your work, regardless of what form it exists in, is the important aspect. Would you be content if your labors were simply taken with no recompense or permission from you? Service based products are more about the time and effort than the physical product (sometimes there isn't one). Nothing should stop you from duplicating my efforts and sacrificing your time and effort independently to compete with me, but to simply take the fruits of my labor because it doesn't have a direct physical/monetary component? To hell with you.

    12. Re:Good by future+assassin · · Score: 0

      I asked him a question. You see that "?" at the end of my sentence?.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    13. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So a useful service was destroyed, several peoples lives have been shackled, and you software is still available on the net freely somewhere. What was good about this again?

    14. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah, but it's a leap year. He's allocated the extra 24 hours to posting on /.

    15. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      software I spend 24/7/365 writing and supporting.

      Well now we know how they come up with numbers like $500 million.

    16. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hollywood doesn't care about your software. But they do care about the content they spend their lives creating.

      LOL. That's fresh. They care about the money they are collecting.

    17. Re:Good by future+assassin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >Would you be content if your labors were simply taken with no recompense or permission from you?

      If it was making my software the de-facto software and piracy gave me a market penetration I'd write it off as advertising. Just like Photoshop and Windows.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    18. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What download fees would those be, then?

      I say this as somebody who uses (used?) Megaupload to distribute and share my own works - papercraft templates, as well as mods and addons for various games.

    19. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e

    20. Re:Good by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm. I have to side with the future assassin on this one. It's a legitimate question. It's the start of a line of reasoning that has some pretty solid if counter-intuitive examples of how pirating helps your business. He really could have simply laid it all out there instead of just the hook though. It's kind of one of those things that's pretty common over here, but not so common that anyone mentioning it should be labeled a troll.

    21. Re:Good by HeckRuler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This.

      Plus, how long did megaupload take to respond to your DMCA requests on average?
      How long have other sites taken to respond?

    22. Re:Good by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Megaupload profited from work that was not their own.

      By that logic, download.com and sourceforge should be shut down too. Of course they actually profited by providing a service, not by selling a work as their own.

    23. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a question for you then, smartarse. Do you believe it is fair to distribute software in violation of the license? Also, do you believe he is due no money at all from others enriching themselves through distribution of cracked versions of his software?

    24. Re:Good by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I wonder if you really could write it off?

      Income: $1B
      Loss from piracy: $2B

      Tax incentives please!

    25. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A million times this, if you write a product people will actually take time to copy it means people actually will use it. If it's not just simply disposable like some crappy phone game you'll see more of a return if it gains popularity. Hell through sheer numbers you'll probably see more of a return even if it is disposable and you offer something worthwhile.

    26. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He only claimed 365. 2012 is a leap year so he is allowed to spend one day doing other things.

    27. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an assertion disguised as a question. "So you are". A genuine question would have started "So are you".

    28. Re:Good by ElusiveJoe · · Score: 1

      You should consider moving your business model towards service. Selling bits is a bad idea anyway.

    29. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a problem with those sites because SOME USER uploaded your software to them? And you're complaining because they didn't put you at the top of their priority list Seriously, even though they did respond? This is EXACTLY the kind of mentality that is going to kill the internet. I can unreservedly say: go fuck yourself. YOU are the problem, not "piracy".

    30. Re:Good by unity100 · · Score: 1

      They were extremely slow in responding to DMCA request

      china is not able to censor a national internet despite pouring billions of dollars worth of equipment to it and employing 240,000 people as censors and embedded snitches in internet cafes.

      it is utterly utterly stupid, OR, totally ignorant of the realities of user generated content databases, to expect an outfit of THAT size to respond fast.

    31. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's the name of your software so I can boycott it?

    32. Re:Good by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. Not every single one of the pirates is someone who'd never pay for it. You guys are all so fond of saying "Not Every Pirate is a Lost Sale", but when it's pointed out that by extension this means not every person who paid would not have done so if an easy way to pirate existed, or worse, we dare to point out that the basic premise behind "Not Every Pirate is a Lost Sale" is that you can't know whether the person would have paid for it also extends to you not being able to know whether they would have legally bought if no pirated version were available - suddenly that's "oh no, you're just a paid shill".

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    33. Re:Good by robmv · · Score: 1

      this question is asked too much, and always think it is a dumb one. let compare it to this situation:

      1) Developer write GPL code
      2) Developer distribute it for free
      3) an Individual or company link to that code but does not follows the GPL licensing
      4) ????

      What do you think? must the developer not defend its rights and let the GPL company do what they want?. Sure in this case the problem is the people that pirate, not the company that gives a service to share files but that does not means that "pirates" are ok because they in your question think if there is no money lost, there is no problem. The GPL developer in my example isn't losing money either

    34. Re:Good by robmv · · Score: 1

      "GPL company" must be "GPL infringing company" my mistake

    35. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DMCA is piece of shit and you should have your teeth kicked in for wielding an evil law.

    36. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, piss off. You wanna be paid to write software, get somebody to pay you before you hand over the product. Yeah, you get paid once for doing your job once -- you don't rewrite the software everytime someone copies it, so there's no reason you should get paid. The notion of IP as a "right" is a fraud foisted on us by assholes like you, and your ilk in Hollywood you "don't care much for" who all want to get paid repeatedly for work they did once. And as for the argument that getting paid unlimited number of times is a "necessary" incentive without which software wouldn't be written, every BSD-derived system says "bullshit!".

    37. Re:Good by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Then you'd go bankrupt within a year. The piracy-as-advertising strategy works with Windows and Photoshop because it gets people used to using their software so that businesses hiring those people need to buy copies. That all goes out the window in a world without copyright, as the businesses would just pirate copies as well.

      Photoshop would not exist without copyright.

    38. Re:Good by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      what's the name of your software?

      I'd like to know that also, but I can understand why the writer didn't want to reveal any details—next thing you know, he'll be branded an enemy of the people, and Anonymous will ruin him. This is war, and all sides are saying "if you're not with us, we'll shoot you".

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    39. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They were extremely slow in responding to DMCA request and clearly had interest in continuously providing an obviously illegally obtained copy of the software "

      "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Can you elaborate a bit further on the second point, i.e. how you knew they had an interest in provided an illegal copy?

    40. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not every thirsty person who walks by the $5 pop machine in the airport was a guaranteed sale either, nor were they a lost sale.

      Many who could easily have afforded it drank water at the fountain beside it instead.

    41. Re:Good by QuasiSteve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I, too, would like to know - but I can understand why he wouldn't want to reveal that (in any of his posts to date).

      I don't think he would be branded an 'enemy of the people', however.

      It's just that any follow-up discussion is far more likely to be used to attack him in these comments than it is to sympathize or offer genuine assistance.

      Let's say he did mention the product's name and its name was NetCommand (if a product with that name exists it's coincidental.. he has mention his product has to do with IP (the networking variant) and server vs desktop stuff, and the name works).

      The very first thing people will do is figure out what NetCommand is, and suggest that it's not worth the money he's asking anyway. Whether that's $1 or $100.
      Next come alternatives that are free (as in beer and/or speech).
      Next come links to other sites where the cracked copy is and telling him "See how much good your DMCA request has done in curtailing its piracy? Doing it is just a waste of your time and money".
      Then come the friendly suggestions on how he should just offer incentives to those who do buy it. Features not available to the pirates (at least until a few days later when the new pirated copy is released). Access to a support forum (which he probably can't staff and personally I know I get more support from random forums than official forums any time of day - so that's pointless anyway). Make his money instead with contract work and charge big for that (but maybe there's very little interest in that). Make his money by selling merchandise (because who doesn't want the NetCommand mug, right?). Suggest that he needs to find something else to do if he wants money because clearly his trade is dead and he needs to just accept it.

      That of course alongside out-of-the-behind figures on how much money he has already made and that he shouldn't whine and moan about supposedly 'lost' sales - he's rich already. And the pirates wouldn't have purchased anyway.

      etc. etc.

      Unfortunately, the flip side is that he doesn't mention the name of the product and so he gets modded down (because hey, where's the proof?) and the AC who wants to know the name (whether genuinely curious or just looking to incite exactly the kind of 'debate' I sketched above) gets modded up.

      All in all, however, he stands far more to lose in revealing the name than in not revealing it. So his karma may get dented - big deal, better than people parading around after pummeling his product into the ground.

    42. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't have heard of it, it's from Canada.

    43. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I do care about software I spend 24/7/365 writing and supporting.

      Dude, you seriously need to take a vacation. Get some sleep.

    44. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sent to Slashdot 1/20/2012 But, of course, the RIAA people base their claims of how much is lost to "their" industry by figuring out that every download (probably completed or not) is a lost sale. Never mind that probably 99 out of 100 would never have bought the music/movie/program in the first place and were simply curious (and I know that occurs having watched my daughters become enamored with long dead artists who then would have never have bought because the current industry doesn't push them). And what about those who, for instance, end up liking some program and as pointed out above, make a software a standard, or a song a hit. They are still criminals, and aren't the slightest bit beneficial to the industry, and don't end up causing more sales than would have occurred had sharing not been occurring, right? Oh, and by the way, thank you RIAA for attempting to replace every possible download everywhere with porn. I mean, who else benefits from that? Who? I mean, other than the RIAA minions who are so busy placing the fake named porn on every sharing site they can find.

    45. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'll compensate during next leap year.

    46. Re:Good by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      software I spend 24/7/365 writing and supporting.

      Come on, you're in the right here. You don't need to be posting stupid, melodramatic shit like this.

    47. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2012 is a leap year. Ugen has 24 hours to do with as he/she pleases...

    48. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you made a niche product. Let's say it is something people only use one time and has no replay value - so a shareware model or "try before you buy" wouldn't work. Something like a file recovery utility. You jack up your thumb drive and lose an important file. 'Fixitall' sells for $39.00. So you download a pirate copy and use it for 10 minutes to get your file back. You don't need file recovery utilities for the next 5 years, so you don't bother buying the software. Nor harm, no foul - right? I mean, you only used the thing for 10 minutes...

      Did Fixitall get harmed? This one-man shop only does a few hundred bucks a month on Fixitall. You really wouldn't count that 39 bucks as a lost sale? Maybe he could have grown his sideline business into a major utilities application business over time, Peter Norton style. But with pirated copies freely available, what percentage of his market still exists?

    49. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the suggestion that a pirated copy does not equal a lost sale.

    50. Re:Good by Kiruwa · · Score: 1

      Yes... because windows dominance has everything to do with piracy. That's why linux has completely taken over, given that it competes so effectively on price.

    51. Re:Good by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      That's right kids, DON'T advertise your product.
      Come on, if you're ever in a situation where you're better off if you hide your product rather than advertise your product, you've already screwed something up.

    52. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very first thing people will do is figure out what NetCommand is, and suggest that it's not worth the money he's asking anyway. Whether that's $1 or $100.
      Next come alternatives that are free (as in beer and/or speech).
      Next come ....

      Then come the assholes like me who'll tell him to just suck it up and deal with it.

      If I need a piece of software but can't afford it (which is often, because I'm a young entrepreneur), I look for it on pirate sites. If I can't find it there, oh well I don't use it. Maybe the software author would be happy for that....except years down the road when I'm rich and am now ready to start paying for software/music/movies/etc, his product won't be anywhere on my list. If I can't use it for free (via piracy or a non-crippled demo) then I won't use it, period.

      I have been using pirated software for literally my entire life, since I first started using my dad's 286 in 1990, which was full of pirated software copied from people at his work place. (An Air Force communications shop.)

      My first two MP3s were ones that my friend gave me along with a copy of WinAmp in 1996. 2Pac - Two of America's Most Wanted and Collective Soul - Breathe. I never listened to much music before that, but talk about an explosion of interest after I got those first MP3s. Since then I have collected over 120 gigs worth of music, 95% of it pirated.

      Thanks to having been exposed to all this music, I have developed not only a great taste in music but also a hell of a lot of musical talent. I can play various instruments and can sing really fucking well. I could win American Idol if I wanted. I'll probably end up touring the world as lead singer in a totally kick ass rock band some time in the next couple years.....IF I decide to go that route. I'm an engineer, scientist, and businessman first and foremost though and I have a lot of irons on the fire, thanks in large part of the knowledge I've acquired from the 1TB hard drive full of pirated ebooks on a huge variety of technical subjects, which has allowed to me sit at home and learn far more about a wider variety of subjects than I could possibly hope to learn in any library, even the Library of Congress.

      So based on what I know from my own personal experience about how the free availability of information greatly enriches the lives of everyone, *including* the copyright holders, basically making our entire society much, much better overall, there isn't a goddamn thing anyone can tell me to make me think I'm wrong for copying bits around for free.

    53. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you have it dead right. Hmm...perhaps Slashdot would like to hire you to just summarize the discussion that will follow every controversial posting? It would save us all a lot of time...

      *Sigh*: mandatory humor disclaimer for the frequently whooshed.

    54. Re:Good by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      If I need a piece of software but can't afford it (which is often, because I'm a young entrepreneur), I look for it on pirate sites.

      There was a time in my life, when I was very young, stupid and wrong, when I used pretty much the same rationalization: I am poor, therefore I steal. Without condemning you for sins I committed in my own youth (and I do hope you are very young), I remind you that another person has worked hard to create these tools that you need, and that taking the fruits of his labors from him without payment is unjust. I also ask you to consider how you will feel in about 10 or 20 years, when after much hard work you create something valuable—and people steal it.

      Do you truly have no alternatives? Can't you find shareware or freeware that will do the job? How about writing the tool yourself? If you are working on something that you hope will be of value to others, and you truly need this tool, then perhaps you should save up the money and buy it. A truly archaic concept, I know...

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    55. Re:Good by shentino · · Score: 1

      Showing the dirty little peasants their place.

    56. Re:Good by ugen · · Score: 1

      :) Funny, you are very close on most counts :) Good one :)

    57. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Megaupload broke New Zealand laws, of course they should suffer the consequences. And as long as the copyright laws support your business model, the government should do their best to protect it.

      However, I think the copyright laws should be abolished even if it should destroy your business model or make me unemployed. The whole copyright scheme corrupts society in numerous ways; the downsides outweigh the business benefits.

    58. Re:Good by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      I agree. Which is why it pisses me off that only one side of the debate is allowed to use that rationale to defend their viewpoint. If the media companies aren't allowed to claim that every download is a lost sale (it's not) then the opposing viewpoint should not be allowed to claim that every downloader would never have paid in the first place.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    59. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting idea. Pit the *IAA against the IRS. You can bet that would be a good fight.

  35. ACTA/TPP, SOPA/PIPA, SCOTUS killing the PD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When is enough enough? How much more are WE going to take from "OUR" GOVERNMENT, and its agents, who are no more than sock puppets for the entertainment INDUSTRY?

    Here are the facts:
    1. Copyright is eternal
    2. There is no Public Domain except some old books
    3. No one is allowed to do anything with copyrighted works
    4. This applies world-wide (or else...)

    The Entertainment INDUSTRY can easily be put in its corner by bringing copyright terms (and all related rights) down to 20 years.

    1. Re:ACTA/TPP, SOPA/PIPA, SCOTUS killing the PD by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "The Entertainment INDUSTRY can easily be put in its corner by bringing copyright terms"

      That would be a ridiculously long term for software. You can't even run 20yr old software so that is the equivalent of saying nothing that has value should go into the public domain. For software 2yrs would be more appropriate with 5yrs as a lukewarm compromise.

    2. Re:ACTA/TPP, SOPA/PIPA, SCOTUS killing the PD by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      For PCs 5 years is fine. For other types of systems 5 years could be too short.

    3. Re:ACTA/TPP, SOPA/PIPA, SCOTUS killing the PD by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Even better would be getting rid of copyright altogether. Payment and rewards should be tied to expense. It costs a great deal in the form of labor to write a book but it effectively costs nothing to copy one. Thus one should charge for writing the book, not making copies of it.

    4. Re:ACTA/TPP, SOPA/PIPA, SCOTUS killing the PD by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Payments and awards tied to expense? What about development cost? LOTR cost hundreds of millions to produce. How are the producers going to recoup that with your model?

    5. Re:ACTA/TPP, SOPA/PIPA, SCOTUS killing the PD by shaitand · · Score: 2

      Development cost would be expense. There is no reason LOTR NEEDED to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce. You are talking about the collective result of hundreds if not thousands of ridiculously overpaid individuals. With sane salaries and sane special effects and equipment costs (which would happen the minute the demand for these products wasn't driven by hundred million dollar budgets) this becomes a couple million dollar project. They had a system for this sort of thing before copyright called patronage. Under patronage one rich guy pays all these people a reasonable SALARY or lump sum for their work because he wants to see it and enjoy it. The rich guy can still recoup his costs by providing public performances (think movie theater).

      Sorry, I don't see any reason for the movie industry to be a multi-billion dollar one. I don't see any reason for movies to cost what they do and as awesome as truly epic movies like LOTR are I find the amount of additional enjoyment that one gets out of them amounts to no more than the additional running time of the film. That is simply completely out of proportion to the resources spent on them. A MMORPG like WOW, a paintball arena, MMA competition, laser tag, real jousting tourney, Golden Dawn temple experience, or table top gaming tourney are all examples of things that provide at least as much enjoyment as watching LOTR. And they cost far far less than LOTR and they aren't one trick ponies, you can actually enjoy them more than once. There is even less justification for the music industry costs.

      We can spend most of that portion of our nations wealth on something that retains inherent value rather than something that depends on us enforcing draconian monopolies and doing our best to strong arm the rest of the world into enforcing those monopolies as well. Even going as far to directly enforce the monopolies in other nations.

    6. Re:ACTA/TPP, SOPA/PIPA, SCOTUS killing the PD by retchdog · · Score: 1

      and even #2 is pretty shaky, apparently.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  36. Arrr Maty's that where the Pron be! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twitching, Twitching, Twitching...

  37. And now everybody's crying by TheTruthIs · · Score: 2

    Because a dude who made 43 millions of $ with mostly illegal content got caught and his business have been taken down.

    1. Re:And now everybody's crying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they're wondering who's next

    2. Re:And now everybody's crying by shaitand · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which would be fine. If it were the result of a CIVIL suit by the people who claimed to lose money and occurred AFTER they won in court.

      I had files on this service and can no longer access them. This hurt more than just one guy.

    3. Re:And now everybody's crying by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      illegal content

      This combination of words makes no sense. Dude did work of more value to humanity than pretenders and rent-seekers like Gates or Jobs.

    4. Re:And now everybody's crying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are crying because the US are playing world police again and forcing everybody to obey their corrupt laws.

    5. Re:And now everybody's crying by cbhacking · · Score: 2

      I suspect that if they are found guilty, you (and anybody else with legit files lost) could build a class-action suit against the owners of the site for endangering the service they provided (which you may even have paid for) through intentional failure to comply with the law and their own stated policies.

      That said, if this was your only copy of those files, I'm surprised you managed to build a coherent sentence in English. That's just insanely poor judgement.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  38. Forgive my squirrelly ignorance but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forgive my squirrelly ignorance of American law, but I thought there was some kind of safe harbour law? Did they do something to void protection under such a law? Or is youtube going down next?

    1. Re:Forgive my squirrelly ignorance but... by Sparx139 · · Score: 1

      Forgive my squirrelly ignorance of American law, but I thought there was some kind of safe harbour law? Did they do something to void protection under such a law? Or is youtube going down next?

      I managed to find this:

      “Pirate websites such as megaupload.com, which obviously infringe massive quantities of movies, songs, images, and other extremely valuable copyrighted works, and directly profit from the infringing activity over which they have complete control, were never meant to be eligible to receive a DMCA safe harbor,” states the lawsuit.

      I'm not sure about the legality of this, I'm not an expert in US law. Can someone please clarify?

      --
      Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
  39. Losses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How do they calculate the loss? Every single download counts as full price retail when the item was first released I bet. Certainly not a year later when it get dumped into the bargin bin. 99% things that I have downloaded illegally, I would NEVER have paid a single penny for if unavailable for download. So the copyright holders lost nothing. I buy from the bands and movie makers I like. Most people making a living wage do that. If someone wouldn't have ever had the money to buy something, but downloaded it illegally again the copyright holder lost NOTHING. I think its funny when movie studios complain about illegal dvds being sold in china, most of those chinese could never afford a legal dvd anyway, many would have to work an entire day to earn enough money to buy a single dvd (and probably skip eating for that day). Those losses are fantasy profits!

    1. Re:Losses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not entitled to access stuff just because you would not have purchased it otherwise. Just because it is digital does not mean it is any different than walking into a store and shoplifting. People who make this argument are being intellectually dishonest.

      I wasn't going to have sex, but I just raped her because she was there. I wasn't going to commit murder, but just wanted empty a clip because it was there. Etc., etc.

    2. Re:Losses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you would have never paid for your downloads, then you obviously perceived no value in them. If you perceived no value, then why did you download them? If you used them, there was obviously value there for you, and you should compensate the creator for it. Just because you're a cheapskate and have no respect for the work of others doesn't mean you have the right to use their software without paying for it. I'm going to guess that you probably wholeheartedly support the GPL (and the copyright laws that allow the GPL to be enforced) too.

    3. Re:Losses by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      If you would have never paid for your downloads, then you obviously perceived no value in them.

      I don't think that makes any sense.

      It could have been that he didn't have money to give them
      It could have been that he didn't think they were worth paying for (if a pirated copy did not exist, he wouldn't pay for it).
      It could have been any number of things. As far as I know, you can't read minds.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    4. Re:Losses by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      You are not entitled to access stuff just because you would not have purchased it otherwise.

      He's not entitled? Only because the laws in certain countries right now say otherwise. There is no objective reason for this other than "the law says so" that I see.

      Just because it is digital does not mean it is any different than walking into a store and shoplifting.

      Just like how theft is no different than murder...

      I disagree. If you take something from a store, that something is gone. The store loses something that it actually had. If you make a copy (in this case, a potentially illegal copy), no one loses anything. Except maybe potential profit, of course. But I wouldn't call the loss of potential gain "theft." It happens to me all the time, but I would never claim that someone stole from me.

      And I don't even know what the point of those analogies was. Actual, tangible harm was inflicted in both of those situations.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  40. Begun, the Piracy Wars have by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    Now lets get those p2pdns technologies to lay waste to copyright laws.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Begun, the Piracy Wars have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For decent P2P you don't need no stinkin' DNS.
      All you need is a hash and a DHT.

  41. $500 Million in Lost Profit? What Profit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hollywood Accounting (R) shows that very few movies actually make money, most are money losers.

    (Question 1 - Why make movies when all they do is cost you money?)

    Every time you see a movie in a theater it costs the studio money. They should stop showing them in expensive theaters, and somehow get them onto someone else's digital servers for distribution into people's houses to see on their personal computers... It would be much cheaper!

    (Question 2 - Where do Studios actually make their money?)

    Every download actually saves the studios money! Why don't they want us downloading more?

    It makes no sense....unless someone is lying about how much profit they are making (and lying about how little downloading is really costing them...)

  42. The opposite of what pro-SOPA people want by Ameryll · · Score: 1

    I would think that this would be the exact opposite of what SOPA supporters want. They've successfully shut down a pirate site *without* the extra rights that SOPA and PIPA were supposed to provide. This proves that they don't need further laws, the current ones suffice. (Though most of us would agree that even the current ones are too much)

    1. Re:The opposite of what pro-SOPA people want by jonwil · · Score: 1

      No, what this shows is that SOPA/PIPA is necessary so that the government (and big media companies) can take sites down without any of that pesky "due process" and "evidence gathering"

  43. Safe Harbor by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is there some reason why the DMCA's safe harbor provisions don't apply to Megaupload, or has the Federal Government decided those provisions are too inconvenient and therefore do not apply? Will Dropbox become the US Government's next target?

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    1. Re:Safe Harbor by vonshavingcream · · Score: 2

      dropbox is different than mega upload. in just about every way possible. first off they market themselves as data backup system not a file locker. second they don't show up in the search engines when you look for illegal content. third most people see them as a business to business company not a front for serving illegal content. I"m not saying people don't use drop box for that purpose, but you gotta admit they have a much cleaner rep than the mega sites.

    2. Re:Safe Harbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Megaupload exists to facilitate massive copyright infringement.
      There's a huge difference between not holding a site responsible for a user uploading an infringing file, and letting Megaupload off the hook for doing what it's there for.

    3. Re:Safe Harbor by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

      first off they market themselves as data backup system not a file locker

      Dropbox is not so much a data backup system as it is a way to share files between computers. As for it not being a "file locker" service, Dropbox does in fact allow its users to share their files with the public at large by placing them inside a special folder.

      second they don't show up in the search engines when you look for illegal content

      That might change in the near future, now that the government has shut down Megaupload.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    4. Re:Safe Harbor by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      But none of those things should affect the DMCA safe harbor requirements.

    5. Re:Safe Harbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found this the most interesting comment in here, and nobody seems to have noticed it.
       

    6. Re:Safe Harbor by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      I hope that is a key question in the trial. In short, I think the answer is that the DOJ and the courts made up their own rules and the only good provision in the DMCA is selectively ignored.

      I suspect that the case will mention that MegaUpload has ads, which means it profits from pirate downloads. This argument was made in cases against other file sharing sites. The argument should fail as irrelevant, but in the past it has not. Many things profit indirectly from piracy, but that is not enough of a reason to deny them safe harbor. But the DMCA is poorly worded and even more poorly interpreted so that the DOJ and the courts can shut down whoever they want.

      Youtube profits from piracy (ads). So does Google, and taxicabs, and restaurants.

      In reality, I suspect that anyone who actively polices their content for piracy, or signs deals with the MPAA/RIAA, will not be prosecuted. While pure file sharing companies will be. In theory, it should not matter if they actively police their files or not since the DMCA does not require them to do so in order to keep safe harbor.

    7. Re:Safe Harbor by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      They do apply, and Megaupload obeys - as soon as a DMCA takedown is received, the offending file is pulled. The problem is finding them. Most megaupload pirate files are encrypted rars posted in private forums, so it is difficult for the enforcers to find them - and when one is pulled, the sneaky pirates just reupload it (slightly altered to thrawt hashing) within minutes. While this officially breaks the megaupload TOS, unofficially it is widely assumed they support this practice - obeying the letter of the law, but not the intention - since a substantial part of their profit comes from pirate traffic.

    8. Re:Safe Harbor by Hatta · · Score: 1

      It's not the responsibility of the host to find the offending file. It's the offending file should be clearly identified in the DMCA complaint.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Safe Harbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if the problem is finding them, because "pirate files are encrypted rars posted in private forums" and "the sneaky pirates just reupload it (slightly altered to thrawt hashing) within minutes", so "it is difficult for the enforcers to find them", pray tell how MegaUpload should be able to easily find them?

      unofficially it is widely assumed

      You should spend less time hanging out with RIAA/MPAA litigators and lobbyists.

    10. Re:Safe Harbor by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

      The FBI charges cite examples where Megaupload was informed of infringing files that Megaupload did not remove.

      If they can prove that, no safe harbor and Megaupload is toast.

    11. Re:Safe Harbor by Cyberllama · · Score: 1

      Specifically, the government contends that Megaupload does not qualify for Safe Harbor protections on a technicality:

      Whenever a file was uploaded to Megaupload they hashed it, checked it against existing hashes, and, if it already existed, created a symlink instead of a new copy of the file.

      Whenever a take-down request was received, they disabled the link, but not other links pointing to the same file. Obviously they can't simply delete the file, because they have to account for the possibility of a counter-notice which allows them to continue to host the file--but they probably could have disabled all of the symlinks instead of just the one. IANAL, I don't know how this argument will play out in a court--whether it relies requires that Megaupload to have been acting in bad faith to be a valid argument or not. I do know, however, that the government is also specifically alleging that this was part of a bad faith effort to undermine the DMCA and that there's "conspiracy" charges involved.

      I suspect there's no real precedent for this sort of thing, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Maybe someone else who actually is a lawyer can offer insight.

    12. Re:Safe Harbor by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 2

      wrong. There is nothing illegal about a file locker. What if I made a painting that I own and simply wanted to upload a copy of it via megaupload, to share it? That megaupload has legal uses shows that the safe harbor provisions do apply. And the search engines, megaupload cannot control what google indexes, so thats not under MUs control. Clearly the safe harbor seems to have been violated here. This should be a very ominous sign. this will result in making it imopossible to run any kind of user contributed content site at all in the US, they might as well arrest google execs for accidently indexing illegal material and for users uploading pirated videos to youtube.

      so what megaupload "looks like" is not a valid legal determination here.

      With these actions it will become impossible for people to share their own content that they made on the internet. It will give the FBI carte blanche pretext to carry out arrests for things they didnt even do, to punish site owners from what users outside of their control have done. This has chilling effects, it will destroy free speech and web services in the US and make it impossible to run community sites in the country.

    13. Re:Safe Harbor by ulricr · · Score: 1

      bit worse in this case because MegaUpload offers cash rewards to user to upload very popular files, thereby slyly encouraging people to upload content that is understood to be pirated. And they have chat logs with the owners that prove they are aware of this and this is their business models. But that's not a legal argument and I can't see at this moment how that would invalidate safe harbour protection. It's not so different from youtube. then again the DOJ must have something if they think it won't fall on its ass futher down the line. Apparently they do have something on money laundering, and therefore may not be going for copyright violation at all.

  44. Stop modding shill accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mods: Look at this poster's name and posting history. People that post this kind of thing are far, far worse than MS, Linux, and Apple shills. These people are spreading propaganda that is much more harmful.

  45. The old story... by no-body · · Score: 1

    Redundant: "more than $500 million in lost revenue" - as if anyone downloading would buy their stuff instead if the site would not exist.
    Duh!

  46. Ashamed to Be a Kiwi Today by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 2

    Our PM, John Key, will roll over and take it up the ass from the U.S all day long in the hope he'll get a free-trade deal one day.
    I sure didn't vote for the Smiling Assassin.

    --
    It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
    1. Re:Ashamed to Be a Kiwi Today by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      I also did not vote for him. I voted Greens. Oppose S92a!

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  47. Wait, what did megaupload do wrong? by BlueRaja · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I thought there were laws protecting content distributers from being prosecuted, like why Google can't be held responsible if you email a confidential document, or if their webcrawler links to child porn; or why the phone company can't be held liable if you discuss a terrorist attack over the phone.

    Megaupload isn't required to filter the content they share unless a takedown request is made; in fact, they *can't*, since a lot of it was zip-file password-encrypted.

    What did megaupload actually do wrong here?

    1. Re:Wait, what did megaupload do wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought there were laws protecting content distributers from being prosecuted, like why Google can't be held responsible if you email a confidential document, or if their webcrawler links to child porn; or why the phone company can't be held liable if you discuss a terrorist attack over the phone.

      Megaupload isn't required to filter the content they share unless a takedown request is made; in fact, they *can't*, since a lot of it was zip-file password-encrypted.

      What did megaupload actually do wrong here?

      From what I've heard, takedown requests WERE made (I would be surprised if they weren't, given how popular Megaupload seems to be in the world of less-than-legal files). Those requests were then ignored.

      So, that's what they did wrong. Unless you're going to argue that requesting to take down material they don't have the rights to redistribute is somehow wrong.

    2. Re:Wait, what did megaupload do wrong? by KhabaLox · · Score: 2

      From the FBI press release (linked to be debork below):
      "The indictment states that the conspirators conducted their illegal operation using a business model expressly designed to promote uploading of the most popular copyrighted works for many millions of users to download. The indictment alleges that the site was structured to discourage the vast majority of its users from using Megaupload for long-term or personal storage by automatically deleting content that was not regularly downloaded. The conspirators further allegedly offered a rewards program that would provide users with financial incentives to upload popular content and drive web traffic to the site, often through user-generated websites known as linking sites. The conspirators allegedly paid users whom they specifically knew uploaded infringing content and publicized their links to users throughout the world."

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    3. Re:Wait, what did megaupload do wrong? by BlueRaja · · Score: 1

      If they completely ignored takedown-requests, that's one thing. But otherwise I think they're going to have a hard time getting "deleting content that was not regularly downloaded, therefore pirates" to stick.

    4. Re:Wait, what did megaupload do wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're the US government, a bunch of corrupt thugs. What do they care about making something stick? They just say it sticks and the DoJ hands the presiding judge the judgement he's expected to sign.

    5. Re:Wait, what did megaupload do wrong? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Actually, Megaupload is the service that just gave the ability to delete files to the media companies directly - who then proceeded to delete files which they knew weren't even theirs.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  48. Next, YouTube by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Youtube may be next. Once they started putting ads on pirated content, they became an active participant.

    1. Re:Next, YouTube by tgd · · Score: 1

      Youtube may be next. Once they started putting ads on pirated content, they became an active participant.

      Youtube does a fairly impressive job of detecting that automatically. The content holder can choose to block the content, or Google will plaster ads on it and share the revenue.

      I've used entire songs in videos I've uploaded. In every case it immediately picked up the song, warned me that it could result in the video being taken down, and warned me that it won't be watchable on some devices. The artists in question make money off my use of it. Win/win, as far as I'm concerned.

    2. Re:Next, YouTube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fail for you as Google toes the line.

    3. Re:Next, YouTube by Animats · · Score: 1

      Youtube does a fairly impressive job of detecting that automatically.

      Only for parties who cut a deal with Google. And it doesn't work all that well.

    4. Re:Next, YouTube by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Google too ( tho they are the same company i realize. Im talking about search results )

      Oh, and comcast..

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    5. Re:Next, YouTube by shentino · · Score: 1

      They already were.

      UMG's attack was just a subtle warning to the defiant peasants.

  49. Damages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a dead horse I know, but it's fuzzy logic at best to assume that materials downloaded...would otherwise be legally purchased. Most IP that gets sold isn't worth a dime and given the choice...would likely rot on shelves.

  50. Naïve much? by toby · · Score: 1

    hoping that Dropbox and partners will not start telling people what can/can't be backed up

    Oh come on—I'd be surprised if this wasn't already happening. Read the fine print.

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:Naïve much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Sugarsync and was able to back up everything I had witihout them telling me anything.

  51. 72 Minutes of silence by David89 · · Score: 0

    I will miss you

    --
    Track IP - Remotely track the IP address of a machine via email or MySQL.
  52. I don't understand... by snemiro · · Score: 1

    I have never received anything from Megaupload encouraging piracy. They provide a service to upload/download files, so they are not responsible of the use of it. 500M in lost revenues? Seriously? These guys? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting They "cook" all the numbers....the 500M are "legal charges" and "administration fees"....not revenue. Oh! ..let's do the following exercise: These lawyers say they lost 500M (in the last year? ) in revenues because megaupload is sharing freely their material. Ok. Let's keep megaupload down for a year. If they don't earn that money back, that means they were bluffing the number...so Megaupload is online again and they pay 10 times that number to the megaupload guys as "lost revenues". I think is a good deal. Right? The sad story is, if Megaupload guys sue back to the US feds, then the bail/fine/whatever will be pay using taxpayers money. From a higher perspective, that means if a tool is used by some individuals to commit a crime, then the tool must be shut down. Using the same logic, all weapons in USA should be destroyed!!!! Not only they may be used to commit crimes, they also kill people, which is much more serious!!!

  53. Actual FBI press release by debork · · Score: 2

    http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/justice-department-charges-leaders-of-megaupload-with-widespread-online-copyright-infringement This is a bit more informative vs the dozen-odd news sites I've seen so far which do nothing to explain what really tipped the hand of the feds in the case of this file locker vs any other. Reading the official allegations though, most of them seem fairly weak.

    1. Re:Actual FBI press release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      Well here's the meat.

      The indictment states that the conspirators conducted their illegal operation using a business model expressly designed to promote uploading of the most popular copyrighted works for many millions of users to download.

      Right, it's a business model that make money off of traffic. Like Google or Youtube. But that business model isn't illegal.

      The conspirators further allegedly offered a rewards program that would provide users with financial incentives to upload popular content and drive web traffic to the site, often through user-generated websites known as linking sites. The conspirators allegedly paid users whom they specifically knew uploaded infringing content and publicized their links to users throughout the world.

      And there's where Megaupload would have crossed the line. It breaks the seperation between running a service that people abuse and being the abusive one. If the feds have proof of this, then megaupload really does deserve it.

      In addition, by actively supporting the use of third-party linking sites to publicize infringing content, the conspirators did not need to publicize such content on the Megaupload site. Instead, the indictment alleges that the conspirators manipulated the perception of content available on their servers by not providing a public search function on the Megaupload site and by not including popular infringing content on the publicly available lists of top content downloaded by its users.

      Well that's interesting. They're being hanged by NOT having a search function? That's not right. But if they actively trimmed their top content list to make it look like they weren't used for piracy, I could see how that's admission that they're a piracy site.

      As alleged in the indictment, the conspirators failed to terminate accounts of users with known copyright infringement...

      Well, that can be taken a few ways. Removing infringing content and terminating accounts are different things. I don't know of any portion of the DMCA or any other piracy laws that force sites to punish their users.

      ...selectively complied with their obligations to remove copyrighted materials from their servers and deliberately misrepresented to copyright holders that they had removed infringing content. For example, when notified by a rights holder that a file contained infringing content, the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in place to make it seamlessly available to millions of users to access through any one of the many duplicate links available for that file.

      Well that could be bullshit. You'd have a hard time blaming a file locker for not exhaustively removing all iterations of infringing content. That said, if they didn't even try, yeah, that's a legit charge.

      The indictment charges the defendants with conspiring to launder money by paying users through the sites’ uploader reward program and paying companies to host the infringing content.

      What? I don't exactly see how the rewards program would be conspiracy to launder. But if megaupload paid another file hoster to hold onto the "hot" goods while still earning revenue and funneling the data through their services, then yeah, that's also a legit charge.

      As evil and vile as the thought is of the feds shutting down the Internet, they're probably in the right on this one. As long as they have the proof to back it up. I mean, come on guys, megaupload WAS a hive of scum and villainy. I certainly don't think this applies to all file-lockers, but if you break laws, you really should be suitably punished.
      The whole thing about US laws on foreign soil due to trade agreements is down-right scary though.

    2. Re:Actual FBI press release by makomk · · Score: 1

      It also says some rather deceptive things. For example:

      The indictment states that the conspirators conducted their illegal operation using a business model expressly designed to promote uploading of the most popular copyrighted works for many millions of users to download. The indictment alleges that the site was structured to discourage the vast majority of its users from using Megaupload for long-term or personal storage by automatically deleting content that was not regularly downloaded.

      If I remember their business model correctly, one of the ways they made money was by charging a subscription fee to users for the ability to store files on the site indefinitely. So at least some of the money the FBI were bragging about in their press release came from a business model expressly designed to profit from people that wanted to use the site for long-term storage of files that weren't popular or regularly downloaded and were probably personal.

    3. Re:Actual FBI press release by debork · · Score: 1

      Right, a lot of these allegations would be fairly hollow, if it weren't for the emails the feds seem to have actually proving willful and knowledgeable actions by the execs to use infringing content to advance their business model. Otherwise, you could easily compare MegaUpload to Google/YouTube, which (inadvertently) pays some users money directly for ads on infringing content.

  54. Laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like the timing on the Media Asshats part:
    "The indictment was unsealed one day after websites including Wikipedia and Craigslist shut down in protest of two congressional proposals intended to thwart online piracy."
    They were waiting...

    Though I could not care less, one hopes "Dotcom" was sharp enough had his $42 million from 2010 stored somewhere that can't be touched, because as it happens the Media people are REALLY good friends with the banking people.

    I also find it laughable that anyone would think Megaupload was anything but a piracy site.
    An excerpt from a weak position:
    "The fact is that the vast majority of Mega's Internet traffic is legitimate, and we are here to stay. If the content industry would like to take advantage of our popularity, we are happy to enter into a dialogue. We have some good ideas. Please get in touch,"

    They just got in touch that's why your site is gone.
    Now engage your virtual rage and mod me down you cheeto eating tubbies.

  55. And what about the legitmate content? by tekrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And what about the legitmate content that Megaupload was holding? No mention of that by the media... Nope, shut down, no trial, no jury, just executioner.

    Isn't that nice?

    That's like taking down Flickr because some of the photos are copyrighted... Of course, those photos are worth a billion dollars (wink,wink), so it's perfectly OK then to inconvenience the other 34 million people who had legitimate stuff on the site.

    If any of you were hosting legitimate material on Megaupload, and you've now lost access, I suggest immediately filing class action against the government.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:And what about the legitmate content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *crickets*

  56. DESTROY THE SCUM by funkatron · · Score: 1

    The scum that carried out these crimes need to be destroyed; they have destroyed so much for so long. A strategy is needed to remove the FBI once and for all!

    --
    "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
  57. Vacuum Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So instead of spending that $500 million people did what? Put it in their mattresses? No, they spent it on the exact stuff they supposedly pirated. All "piracy" does is get more into the hands of the end user. They still spend exactly as much as they would had they not pirated, and exactly as much gets into the producer's hands. The money doesn't vanish into some vacuum.

  58. Slippery Slope by MoldySpore · · Score: 1

    Wonder what happens to those celebrities...will they be arrested too for endorsing a known pirate site? Will their labels drop them for doing the mega song? Didn't most of the artists in that song tweet links to the video and MU? And post links to them on their personal sites?

    *sigh* "Slippery slope" doesn't even seem to cover this crap anymore.

    --

    "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

  59. "Not responsible for content" only goes so far by msobkow · · Score: 1

    A "not responsible for user's content" clause will only take you so far, the same as this standard software license cluase. This clause does NOT stop a company from suing you if they want to recover money they've lost on a failed project:

    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

    Some variant on that text is in every license I've ever used, whether proprietary or GPL, including the stuff IBM develops internally.

    Megaupload HOSTS the content the users make available for download, so it's not able to use the same escape clauses that .torrent search sites use.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:"Not responsible for content" only goes so far by shentino · · Score: 1

      According to the swedish courts, neither are torrent sites.

      And no clause will EVER stop you from getting SUED. All it can do is prevent you from losing in court.

      Of course since you still have to pay an arm and a leg to defend yourself the balance of justice still tilts in favor of the rich.

  60. Of all the sites, why MegaUpload? by jonwil · · Score: 1

    What did MegaUpload do (or not do) that Rapidshare and all the other similar hosting sites didn't do (or did do)?

    Or are RapidShare and other similar sites next on the hit list?

    1. Re:Of all the sites, why MegaUpload? by rdebath · · Score: 1

      It appears from the ticket that they've forgotten about their plausible deniability requirement. The FBI are basically claiming they knew full well what was on the site and actively search their machines for infringing content which they KEPT.

      That looks like the core; the rest (including the money laundering) looks like wishful thinking to me, but they may manage to make it stick.

      Oh and the phrase "mega conspiracy" sounds like a very unprofessional way to refer to the defendants.

  61. "Megaupload is very nice for piracy uploaders" by unity100 · · Score: 2

    And who defines what is the level of that 'nice' .......... a lot of the videos i checked around up till this point, were removed due to dmca claims. so, they were removing a lot of videos.

    They just shut down it due to its size. period. ah, and he sponsored a few songs in usa about how piracy is not so bad compared to what the content industry was doing - probably that causes the attack on him and his assets - its ok when content industry brainwashes everyone, but if someone opposing them does the SAME thing, its a crime !

    It's only good - criminals are taken to court and jail so companies can again produce goods and software and they don't have to see the widespread piracy that is going on

    excuse me guy, but that stupid thinking is why we are having all of this shit in the first place - the REAL pirates have persecuted someone challenging their rule and you are clapping for it :

    how music labels avoid paying artists : http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/07/13/1737224/riaa-accounting-how-labels-avoid-paying-musicians how music labels screw aspiring artists and bands to neverending debt : http://www.negativland.com/albini.html how labels avoid paying royalties to artists even if they earned the right to it : http://gizmodo.com/5417318/my-6247-royalty-statement-how-major-labels-cook-the-books-with-digital-downloads

    ANY cent you pay to buy music so not to 'steal' from a big label, goes NOT to the artist - but to the pocket of an intermediary called the label and pocketed to an extent of 95%. you pay 15 bucks to an album, your artist gets a few cents, and the label gets almost entirety of 15 bucks. then they force the artist to go on concerts worldwide, to make money. it is taxing, and most artists and bands break down, and resort to drugs or excess to relieve stress. radiohead released one of their albums for FREE without a label, told people to pay however much they want, even take it for free. 80% of people who got it, did not pay. however, the rest 20% caused radiohead to make MORE money in just 4 hours than they would make in a whole year of touring if they gave the album to a record label. and that album, is still selling over the internet since a year or so now. so go figure................ in short, ANYone who supports this scheme that sucks artists dry, and screws customers up, is either a very very dumb, ignorant person, or a hapless idiot. there is no way to explain someone supporting a scheme that screws him/her over, otherwise.

    1. Re:"Megaupload is very nice for piracy uploaders" by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      Stupid people love tyrants: They give stupid people someone else to blame for the results of their stupid decisions.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  62. And in related news by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Funny

    The United States Department of Justice also filed indictments against Western Digital and Seagate for making hard drives that are capable of holding everything from copyrighted works to child porn. "They should have some mechanism in place to make sure illegal content isn't stored on these devices," an agent representing the DOJ said in a prepared statement today.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:And in related news by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      SHHHH! Don't give them ideas!

    2. Re:And in related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [quote]They should have some mechanism in place to make sure illegal content isn't stored on these devices[/quote] That idea was actually seriously floated in the past.

  63. Anonymous responds by StikyPad · · Score: 2
    1. Re:Anonymous responds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their sites are down? That is the proof we need. They must have been involved in copyright infringement.

  64. water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    like from the toilet?

  65. Oh, so I can make music and keep it out of the RIA by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 0

    Oh, so I can make music and stop the copyright industry from collecting on it despite me not wanting them to do so?

    Oh, wait, I can't.

    And the copyright industry has more then once been found guilty in a courts of laws around the world for both taking content they did not own AND not paying artist for royalties they collected.

    Grow a spine, you jellyfish.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  66. dude youre too naive to live in this age by unity100 · · Score: 1

    I highly doubt one had to do with the other. The Feds don't casually put together a criminal case; they take their time and line up all the ducks before they pull the trigger.

    so feds have taken time to line up ALL the ducks before they pull the trigger, and it JUST had CHANCED the day after the SOPA protests ............

    yes, the chances of that happening is, zero. zero. not one day before, not one day after. right the day after....

    if you think that this is just a coincidence, i have two bridges to sell you.

    1. Re:dude youre too naive to live in this age by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is clearly naive to not automatically assume that coincidence (with no other evidence) = conspiracy.

    2. Re:dude youre too naive to live in this age by unity100 · · Score: 1

      the odds of that happening statistically, is as high as there not being sentient life elsewhere in the galaxy. it is approximating zero.

    3. Re:dude youre too naive to live in this age by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Your assertion is foolish. This effort required global co-operation on a pretty big scale, with likely months of planning and no doubt a few overseas trips. There's no way it could be perfectly planned months before the protest was even known about to occur the day after the protects. As you say...

      "the odds of that happening statistically, is as high as there not being sentient life elsewhere in the galaxy. it is approximating zero."

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    4. Re:dude youre too naive to live in this age by unity100 · · Score: 1

      it doesnt need to be perfectly planned months before protests. it was probably ready, but they were keeping it waiting due to sopa, pipa forthcoming. to use as a political means. it is no different than what fbi did in hoover years.

    5. Re:dude youre too naive to live in this age by RussellSHarris · · Score: 1

      Post hoc ergo propter hoc .

      The logical argument works as follows:

      If it happened "by coincidence" (i.e. the events were unrelated), the probability that it JUST CHANGED the day after the SOPA protests was exactly the same as the probability that it changed 2 days after. And the same as the probability that it changed 3 days after, or the day of, or the day before, or n days before or after. All of which are near-zero probabilities.

      Therefore, there is nothing particularly coincidental about it happening exactly 1 day after.

      I.e., correlation != causation.

      Unless you have something better than "it's too coincidental to be a coincidence", you have nothing.

    6. Re:dude youre too naive to live in this age by unity100 · · Score: 1

      do i need to bring up a list of such 'coincidences' that happened throughout history, that happened 'coincidence' to outsiders whereas they were carefully planned to happen ?

    7. Re:dude youre too naive to live in this age by RussellSHarris · · Score: 1

      Feel free, as long as your justification for each of those being planned is something better than "too coincidental to be a coincidence". And when you have similar justification for this event being non-coincidental, I'll entertain that idea as well.

    8. Re:dude youre too naive to live in this age by unity100 · · Score: 1
    9. Re:dude youre too naive to live in this age by RussellSHarris · · Score: 1

      That is a nice conspiracy theory, but I fail to see how the Israelis would obtain any tactical benefit in attacking an American ship. It would serve only as detrimental to the overall good relationship between Israelis and the US. I don't see that it would generating any amount of support from Israeli natives, and it would of course probably create outrage in the US, with possible ill effects to their ongoing ability to purchase armaments from us.

      I am therefore quite doubtful that it was "carefully planned to happen", even if it wasn't an accident - of which I am also not convinced.

    10. Re:dude youre too naive to live in this age by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Um, no. Seven(?) governments were involved. Things like this require huge amounts of co-operation, and you can't just say "oh, there's some protests happening on the 18th, we're waiting until the 19th to do it".

      Besides, this actually harms the case for SOPA rather than helps it - it provides evidence that SOPA is completely unnecessary, and that if the government sets its sights on an infringer, it can get them no matter where they are.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  67. Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous has already begun hacking in retaliation. Justice.gov is down, as well as Universal music website.

  68. Anonymous responds by JaZz0r · · Score: 1
    --
    "Careful! We don't want to learn from this!" -Calvin & Hobbes
  69. Time to go dark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, how many users of megaupload will be driven to Freenet? Impossible to take down content there, next to impossible to take down the network as a whole, and next to impossible to tell who is uploading or downloading what. It may not be as fast, but popular content is very reliable. How does driving infringers further underground change anything, besides making it harder to tell who is doing the infringing?

    1. Re:Time to go dark? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I doubt many will migrate since 'mega was usable by the 'average guy' that just happened to get a link that went somewhere that gave them their files like magic. Freenet does still take a bit of knowledge to setup, and in its current state, understanding what it is and isn't, and a lot of patience is paramount or they will leave and never look back..

      But, its one step closer to that end... And my advice is to grab Freenet source NOW, as they will be targeted at some point as a 'circumvention' violation when SOPA goes into effect.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:Time to go dark? by neminem · · Score: 1

      More like how many will just go use yousendit or mediafire or rapidshare or filesonic or...

      Actually, the real question is, how many people (especially those people routinely uploading copyrighted content) -already- use all of those other sites. And the answer is probably "most of them". [insert statement about hydra heads.]

  70. The net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of a blackout we should just all boycott the net full stop. Then watch them cry as they lose real money. I can live without it, Don't know about the sad cases though.

  71. Do you now see that these people are your enemy ? by unity100 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Megaupload was not violating any copyright laws - they had a pretty solid dmca takedown procedure that was quite fast. Most of the 'pirated' stuff you would see that were uploaded were users, you wouldnt be able to see a few days later. They were good at taking down stuff.

    But they were also the biggest. this meant that for every dmca takedown, a few went unnoticed or slowly processed. aaaaaaand fast forward to this - they shut it down and charged for piracy.

    This should tell you EXACTLY what will happen when sopa passes - imagine the sheer violations of sopa law, when entire user generated content, including comments and links have to be reviewed. NO outfit on the internet will be able to do that. NO outfit. if google, microsoft, apple, rackspace, softlayer, verizon, at&t came together to do it, set up facilities covering half of texas for it and in addition and threw the echelon listening array (belongs to nato) and all its worldwide facilities at it, still they wouldnt be able to manage an effective removal of such 'infringing' stuff in acceptable time.

    even china is not able to do it with a huge budget spent on surveillance farms and - mark that - 240,000 employees employed for censoring - quite a lot of them embedded as 'users' in internet cafes and whatnot, to snitch on the users even.

    so it is certain that there is no way in hell any outfit on this planet will be able to NOT violate sopa. every outfit will live in a constant state of varying level if infringement as per sopa.

    what does that mean ? it is a sword of Damocles, hanging over the head of EVERY internet outfit and website out there. if you go out of line in ANY way against the interests of any established private party, - whoa - a sopa complaint. MUCH more effective than suing for endless durations.

    now you see why this sopa thing is useful for censorship, and why it was intended in the first place ?

    these people do not seek to profit over anything. they are making sufficient profits. they know they can make even more profits if they adapted to the internet.

    the problem of these people is CONTROL. internet is uncontrolled. it bothers them. they need the same kind of control they exercise over cable news channels, radios and whatnot. and all these shit are intended precisely for that duration.

    these people want to control you for their own minority's profit. it is no different than dictatorship or enslavement - just the facade in front is different. they are NO longer your compatriots, they are no longer your countrymen, they are no longer your country's citizens. they are your enemies. even if you dont see them as your enemy, they DO see you as their enemy and act accordingly.

    and you are playing in their home ground - as long as you keep all the game rules that allow them to control, ranging from copyright to patents, they will keep being in the advantage - for you will be playing in THEIR home.

  72. ha ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    google links your software in its indexes, and shows your links. your software, everyone else's content IS the content/knowledge google uses to show people, and sell advertising over it.

    why not sue google ? for, they are definitely using the presence and name of your software, to increase their hits and sell advertising without giving you a dime.

  73. Research Works Act by Guppy · · Score: 2

    How dare people drink their tap water! After all, how are bottled water companies expected to turn a profit when people can just turn a knob on their faucet and get water on their own?

    Acutally, this is pretty much what is happening with the Research Works Act working its way through Congress.

    Currently, publications resulting from Federally funded research must be available to the public, but the journal industry is trying to end free access -- despite the fact that publicly funded research isn't paid for by the journals, written by the journals, or peer reviewed by them.

  74. Apples and oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will they pay me each time I have to waste my time being forced fed their crap? Why do they get the "right" to make commercials loud, decide what I'm allowed to listen to, and control almost all media I could easily access but I get nothing in return? Why is it they can play the music, movie, material for free whenever they like, wherever they like and call it "marketing" and place it directly in my path without my permission?

    I don't want their crap, I don't buy their crap, I don't listen to their crap, I don't "steal" their crap! I haven't even had cable in 6 years, yet my kids know all about the latest teen fads and BS shit they try to shove down our throats! Where do I send the bills for their shit they convince my kids they need? Why is this so one sided? Where are my rights in this?

    You want to make it fair? Easy enough, anything given away for free (or the perception of free) becomes free for all! End of problem, put out a commercial that is "free" for people to view, then the use of anything in that commercial becomes free, want to protect your shit, then don't shove it down peoples throats, market it appropriately and smartly and stop expecting everyone to do their jobs for them for free and then complaining when the end result is exactly what they wanted (media/advertising saturation).

  75. US loosing competitiveness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like Kodak, that became uncompetitive and started suing everybody for intellectual IP, the same is happening to US: all this increased efforts to protect intellectual IP in the music industry and movies and drugs industry and etc. are new, and are a desperate move to conterbalance the growing advantage Asia and the rest of the world is starting to have.

  76. Actual Indictment by debork · · Score: 1

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment It looks actually really, really, bad based on the evidence the federal prosecutors are presenting. As loud as the cry is about censorship, government being pawns of the MAFIAA, etc, it seems that MegaUpload crossed the line and brought this down on themselves.

  77. Longer story: "actual knowledge of infringement" by michaelmalak · · Score: 2

    One would think that MegaUpload could hide behind their DMCA takedown policy, but this Hollywood Reporter story -- much more informative than the ABC one -- quotes the feds

    they are willfully infringing copyrights themselves on these systems, have actual knowledge that the materials on their systems are infringing (or alternatively know facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent); receive a financial benefit directly attributable to copyright-infringing activity where the provider can control that activity; and have not removed, or disabled access to known copyright infringing material from servers they control.

    And perhaps most damning of all was their sting, quoting the Hollywood Reporter itself:

    The government says it contacted Megaupload on June 24, 2010 to inform the company that 39 infringing motion pictures were on the website. As of November 18, 2011, 36 of those films were still on the site, the government says.

  78. Be hosted from the 53th state of the USA by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2

    Rapidshare is from Germany and the krauts have other issues to fry as well as feeling very uncomfortable about anything that even reeks of censorship. They currently have an issue with the president having apparently tried to supress an article about an illicit loan. The loan isn't the real issue but the mere idea that the president who is supposed to guard the democracy tried to supress the press... OOPS.

    Attempts have been made against Rapidshare but the german courts have better things to do, the german police have repeatedly said that they will flat out refuse to go after filesharers unless all other crimes are solved and the german politicians got other headaches then to worry about what Hollywood thinks of them.

    New Zealand on the other hand is a vasal state of the US of A in all but name.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Be hosted from the 53th state of the USA by jonwil · · Score: 1

      If Germany hates censorship so much, why do they continue to maintain the infamous "Index" and why do they continue to restrict, ban or require changes to games as diverse as "Command & Conquer 3" and "Doom 2"?

      Yes I know about the bans in Germany of things that relate to Nazis and/or to killing of Germans but regardless of the reasons, its still Censorship.

    2. Re:Be hosted from the 53th state of the USA by rdebath · · Score: 1

      That's why they hate censorship, they see exactly what the problem is. The war is still in living memory, including the horror of realising later what actually happened to friends and neighbours. They've seen personally what censorship can hide. The Index is seen as different, a way of hiding the obscenity or shame, a way of highlighting the feeling of never again!

      Now Godwin this shit.

  79. oh for fuck's sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean I know that slashdot is pro-piracy at all costs and stuff, but Kim Schmitz aka Kimble aka stupid fraud has had this coming for a long time.

    or do none of you kiddies remember YIHAT, his phoney attempt to "get bin laden"? Or how about "kimvestor" which took lots of money from stupid investors who bought into the lie that Kim Shitz is some kind of 'leet hax0r from the 80's?' He did time for that one I believe.

    Kimble is no hero. Instead of lamenting the downfall of this charlatan you should all be pointing and laughing.

    choose your martyrs carefully. at least go to attrition.org and read up on this fat yihat.

  80. Mod parent up Re:The Internet should be P2P by sowth · · Score: 1

    I agree with you, but as I recall, the RIAA and friends sued anyone who tried to create P2P technology. Which is why "we failed to develop P2P networking"--everyone was afraid to do it.

  81. Doesn't matter how much he made... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I steal and car and then park it on your lawn, should the police arrest you or me?

    To punish any person for a crime they did not commit is 100% wrong; go after the people doing the crime or fuck-off. Asking/Telling/Enforcing a law on one person since another broke a law is a crime that I believe should be treated at the same level as treason.

    This should be scaring the shit out of anyone with an IQ over 60....

  82. So when did... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New Zealand become a US state?

  83. Re:Another Shill Account?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whose side are you on? You even mis-spelled "Speech" in your screen name!

  84. Doj Back up now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess the anons didn't put enough effort into their attacks...

  85. What Exactly are the Charges? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm actually a little confused about this. Maybe someone could explain it to me.

    Are they charging that the Megaupload company engaged in piracy? As far as I know Megaupload complied with DMCA and other takedown requests which should mean they are immune via the safe harbor provision. Are the Megaupload executives accused of participating in piracy? If so why are the companies servers shut down? I didn't think Megaupload hosted it's own content so why would the company be responsible.

    The article makes is sound like the charges are, "Megaupload made piracy possible." Which would be stupid. But not surprising.

  86. Safe harbor? by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    So, i guess that theory is out the window. You listening, Google? You are next.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  87. Responsibilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean that the government is now responsible for every crime that has ever occurred on public property?

  88. So, is Ford next? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Since they build vehicles that are used to transport illegal items, does that mean they are just as liable?

    Even more seriously, does that mean that any ISP or hosting service now has to audit what is on their servers, even tho they had no more control over it than megaupload did?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  89. Woohoo by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Love the precedent. I can't wait for CHINESE law to be enforced in the US.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  90. 366 days! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a leap year this year. He's a whole extra day's worth of time to play with.

  91. the day after that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all the ICE and fbi working on ip issues get laid off ...more unemployment good job obama
    LOL

  92. Not about SOPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The indictment occurred on January 5th, well before the establishment of an online protest to SOPA.

  93. Re:Longer story: "actual knowledge of infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And perhaps most damning of all was their sting, quoting the Hollywood Reporter itself:

    The government says it contacted Megaupload on June 24, 2010 to inform the company that 39 infringing motion pictures were on the website. As of November 18, 2011, 36 of those films were still on the site, the government says.

    Shouldn't it be copyright holder, or official representative, making this claim? There are some rules to DMCA takedown requests that need to be followed.

  94. take down microsoft and apple cloud services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so if this take down of megaupload stand, then it would set a precedent on all cloud base storage. If that the case why not load up another cloud storage like Microsoft skydrive, then the feds would arrest bill gates and so forth. In a sense we could literal take down some big company's by there own rules? Everyone get a skydrive account and start flooding the net with link and see if the feds bite. Who wants to shut down microsoft the same way with apple with icloud. Same situation bigger US company what will happen next. wanna find out? lets try?
    let shut downb these company's with the same action taken today

  95. Ban music and English! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The media companies did make the media you're pirating [copying]

    Since you brought that up: The media companies didn't invent the musical scale and the English language. Ergo, singing and speaking English without paying is selfish and wrong!

  96. When are they going to learn??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who download come in two flavors...

    Flavor 1 - The people who weren't ever going to buy your product to begin with.
    Flavor 2 - The people who aren't sure your product is worth buying, sample it and if good enough, they buy it.

    Downloaders make more money for the MPAA/RIAA.

    MPAA/RIAA do not LOSE anything from downloaders as each download IS NOT A LOST PURCHASE.

    Sheesh, even a 1st grader understands this concept, why can't the MaaaaaaFIAS?

    MPAA/RIAA quit raping all your customers and go fuck yourselves.

  97. Re:M$ control of education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Public education is slowly coming under the control of Bill Gates and Microshaft...Linux is forbidden in many school districts, due to golf course deals with M$ and computer illiterate administrators, etc. I fear for the future generations...
    http://techrights.org/2010/04/12/strings-attached-to-education/

  98. Message to US: FUCK OFF! Strong letter to follow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if you're in another country, you had better make sure you're not violating U.S. law.

    Fuck you! The world has had enough of US evil warmongering lawlessness and this "world cop" shit. This century will proceed without the US and its ass-backwards bible-thumping pig-ignorance.

  99. Freebooters, not pirates! by DrVomact · · Score: 1

    The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that the so-called "pirates" are victims of prejudicial nomenclature—a label hung on them by their enemies. Historically, the question of who is and who is not a "pirate" has been a matter of viewpoint. In fact, you could become a licensed pirate—er freebooter—by getting a letter of marque and reprisal from some needy country. "Freebooter" sounds much nicer than "pirate", doesn't it? Certainly, it';s no worse than "greedy CEO".

    --
    Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
  100. Re:Do you now see that these people are your enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the hell is this marked insightful?

    these people want to control you for their own minority's profit. it is no different than dictatorship or enslavement - just the facade in front is different. they are NO longer your compatriots, they are no longer your countrymen, they are no longer your country's citizens. they are your enemies. even if you dont see them as your enemy, they DO see you as their enemy and act accordingly.

    This is the language of mass murderers. It is a call for violence and bloodshed, and I hope to God that the FBI keeps tabs on its author

  101. See, they don't need SOPA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See, they don't need SOPA to combat copyright infringement at all.

    Bilateral treaties around criminal activities are working better than I would have hoped.

  102. in true capitalist style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm so America has basically turned from a country of democracy to a country of dictatorship by the use of that thing called "intellectual property" and still like to spout nonsense like America home of the free. bah rot already.

    1. Re:in true capitalist style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intellectual property is the only thing backing the currency. In as much as money is BORROWED into existence in our banking system, something else must be created in the same manner to back the currency. Throught creative minds, intellectual property comes into existence in the same manner. Therefore messing with IP is like messing with the currency. In that case, why is the Secret Service not involved?

      ==//==

    2. Re:in true capitalist style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May Adonai Elohim bless you! Among the flurry of jubilant anarcho-communist comments, you are the only one to recognize or at least the only one to vocally state that P2P is the death of market economy. Digital pirates especially aim to de-wealthificate jewish investors and jewish intelligentsia, who produce 99% of movies, TV shows, literature, course books and music. However good luck to the pirates trying, because the Jewish State is now mighty with politics, law and arms (both pointy ones and cyber ones) and can prevent a digital Shoah anywhere in the world. It's written on the wall: the Fort of Massada must not fall again! Let the goyim nations hear about that!

    3. Re:in true capitalist style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, we will not come out unscathed. In light that two-thirds are considered to be cannon fodder during Jacob's Trouble (Zecharia 13:8-9). It makes one think what the survival rate would be in the Diaspora. Once the prerequisite demographic change initiated by Hart-Celler is complete. the USA will become a microcosm of the establishing scene of the Second Psalm, the nations of the world will have become qualified to fulfill Jacobs Trouble. "Fill up to the measure of your sins"

      "Professing to be wise, they became fools..." All those plaques on the wall for nothing because they failed to give thanks or recognize YHWH.

      ==//==

  103. Yup that's it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, its war. The american government will be removed.

  104. Oh The Humanity! by tunapez · · Score: 1

    Megaporn is the collateral damage this time, next time it could be lolcats or those charming girls with a cup. The internet as I know it is one step closer to dead.

    --
    Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
  105. What this is really about by symbolset · · Score: 5, Informative

    Found an interview. Apparently Mega was looking to go head-to-head with the big record labels, and give artists 90%. And pay them for free downloads too.

    It's here.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  106. Collateral Damage? by doccus · · Score: 1

    Well, it occurs to me that there's a lot of folks storing *legal* private files there too, ( like a locker service) due to the fact that MU never deleted user's files, as well as all their bootleg collections, and probably personal important archives too, etc etc.. So does this mean that these folks have also been screwed up the rear by this action? Remember there was no notice given to the users of the service either.. legitimate or otherwise, as though they're (all millions of 'em) not deservibg of basic human decency via association? How long before they're knocking down your door without notice and seizing your comp, next? Will we all be living in fear of the secret police soon?

    1. Re:Collateral Damage? by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      The one reason the US won't have a KGB, secret police, SS, or equivalent is because of guns. Regardless of what you might thing about the 2nd amendment, lots of people in every state have them. If the secret police start showing up with midnight knocks on the door, they are just as likely to get a 12-gauge in the face as any successful arrest. Might make any job of a "secret" policeman more difficult.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
  107. 8 billion files ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Megaupload hosted over 8 billion unique files. Even if that figure were to include a copy of every book and magazine ever written globally (~130m), every film produced (250k), and every piece of music ever recorded (I can't get a figure for this, but 20m is surely vastly overestimating), that leaves 98% of their unique files being non-infringing. (Yes, there will be lots of non-identical duplicates, but one can be pretty sure that the majority of books/music/films will not feature at all).

    So we can look forward to the coming days, when Megaupload's 150million (iirc) registered users realise that they have lost their backups, and their photo collections, and businesses have lost critical data, and independent artists their distribution platform. And then people might wake up to how the USG has been bought-into to protect and police the profits of the falsely-named "creative" industry middlemen? We can pray ...

  108. Already happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Love the precedent. I can't wait for CHINESE law to be enforced in the US.

    It already is. The Tongs/Triads/Other COCEs are the enforcers of Chinese policy in the USA. Naturalization is not possible for everyone and it's high time we as a nation-state realize this. The formality will eventually come as it is understood that with foreign money in the form of purchased Treasury instruments come foreign control.

    If it cannot properly metabolize ethanol, it cannot properly understand individual liberty.

  109. 8 billion files by Twistles · · Score: 1

    (repost - didn't log in!) Megaupload hosted over 8 billion unique files. Even if that figure were to include a copy of every book and magazine ever written globally (~130m), every film produced (250k), and every piece of music ever recorded (I can't get a figure for this, but 20m is surely vastly overestimating), that leaves 98% of their unique files being non-infringing. (Yes, there will be lots of non-identical duplicates, but one can be pretty sure that the majority of books/music/films will not feature at all). So we can look forward to the coming days, when Megaupload's 150million (iirc) registered users realise that they have lost their backups, and their photo collections, and businesses have lost critical data, and independent artists their distribution platform. And then people might wake up to how the USG has been bought-into to protect and police the profits of the falsely-named "creative" industry middlemen? We can pray ...

  110. they were told? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they knew (because they were told!) that they hosted infringing content

    if i tell you you're infringing - would you know? or should i have to reliably prove it first?

  111. WW3 by FreedomStriker · · Score: 2

    So, this is how World War III will play. Net freedom citizens of the world vs evil tyrants. But this time, America, you will fight inside your borders...

  112. MOD PARENT UP! by bornagainpenguin · · Score: 1

    This is damning information that changes the tone and tenor of everything else.

    --
    Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
  113. Dont dare violate American corp laws. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter what country you live in.
    They will waste my tax dollar to go get you.

  114. kim is a d-bag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked for him back in 2000 in Munich at Data Protect. He's fat, smelly, wears the same pair of shoes, and talks in high pitched voices. I'm fairly sure he was homosexual as well, as I had never seen him so much as get NEAR a girl. Bottom line, this guy had it coming to him .. The guys who bought DP (TuV Rheinland) certainly had a laugh today. This guy is a lifetime probation client..

  115. Re:Do you now see that these people are your enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the truth, but to you it doesn't mean anything.

  116. They were a burgeoning competitor for RIAA labels by elgo · · Score: 1

    What is especially interesting here is that Megaupload was planning to go into the business of releasing original content. Many major artists supported Megaupload publicly in the video a few weeks back, and it is rumored that Swizz Beats is the CEO. This is clearly the RIAA/MPAA trying to prevent a major new competitor from getting off the ground. It also has the welcome effect of discouraging any future Youtube-like startup companies. Another interesting aspect of this is that Megaupload and Megavideo were fastidious about removing copyrighted material from their sites, much more so than their competitors. I would love to see them successfuly fight this.

    --
    - elgo
  117. Why Did these Guys Choose New Zealand? by Sinesurfer · · Score: 1

    It was a surprise to that foreign millionaires resident in New Zealand were arrest for crimes in the US (when as far as I can determine, they didn't visit the US). I have to quote part of the police comments:

    "Wormald says today's operation was a successful one despite a less than straightforward entry to the Dotcom Mansion. Police arrived in two marked Police helicopters. Despite our staff clearly identifying themselves Mr Dotcom retreated into the house and activated a number of electronic locking mechanisms.

    While Police neutralised these locks he then further barricaded himself into a safe room within the house which officers had to cut their way into. Once they gained entry into this room they found Mr Dotcom near a firearm which had the appearance of a shortened shotgun"[1].

    This cop is a pretty laid-back type of guy (in a nation where even understatement is an understatement) to the point where he described the house entry with a straight face.

    [1] Stuff, Friday 20th January 2012, http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6288082/NZ-residents-on-piracy-charges-denied-bail

    --
    Regards Sinesurfer A Nerd is someone who lives for technology, A Geek is someone who lives for technology and loves it
  118. This is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the rest of the world doesn't like america, they are fat arrogant cunts who don't deserve to be connected to the internet.

  119. Re:Do you now see that these people are your enemy by cbhacking · · Score: 1

    Actually, if you read the charges, MU is accused of knowingly harboring pirated content despite takedown requests. It'll all come out one way or another in court, one assumes... but if that accusation is correct (frankly, this wouldn't surprise me; I've heard plenty of people complain about MU being slow or difficult with DMCA requests, and your post is the first I have ever heard to the contrary) then they are toast.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  120. With our money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. And we are giving them the money to buy weapons against us.

    If we stopped buying books and going cinema, they would run out of funds and die. Let's next summer not buying tickets for their new summer premiers. It's the only thing that hurts them, not protest, not hacking webs, not SMSs or internet campaigns. Just money

    Unfortunately, that is dream, people will continue feeding them. And they do know it.

  121. Next step: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Close airports and charge the owners of drug smugling. Also, don't forget to close hotels and charge their owners of prostitution.

  122. good for Kimble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sad that Megaupload is down...

    happy that Kimble finally got what he deserved - i remember the time -maybe twenty years ago- when this asshole had zero technical knowledge, made good money selling all kinds of cards, was too lazy and too sloppy to do shady business decently, got troubles and then just ratted on all his friends...

  123. Re:They were a burgeoning competitor for RIAA labe by luther349 · · Score: 1

    well rapid-share won when they tried the same shit with them. but as yuo said this is more abought killing a competitor and once again has nothing to do with the pirates. megaupload would quickly pull any reported file. copyright has been deformed into just that a anti compete law.

  124. Imperialism by xtracto · · Score: 1

    More and more I tend to agree with Hugo Chavez's view of the American government as an Economic Imperialist body. The fact that the EU can forcefully apply its laws and principles in other countires (and prosecute those who break those laws) is a sign of the strongold the American Economic Empire has on the world nations.

    An equivalent situation would happen if Sharia law as applied in Iran was forced to the USA, EU or Latin America.

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  125. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he probably made virtually 0 income off of piracy since im willing to bet all of my money on the fact that 99.999999999999999999% of the people pirating from sites like this dont bother to upgrade to a special account anyways.

  126. Questioning by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

    That is incorrect. He is not currently charged with anything. That is a bit of confusion or disinformation that has been floating around and darn near impossible to correct. He is wanted for questioning and that questioning, technically, could take place over the phone just as well as in person. Maybe people just assume that because they are trying to extradite him that he is actually charged with something, but no, that is not the case. He is not charged with anything.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  127. 4% of the internet? by value · · Score: 1

    In that Megaupload song they say it was 4% of the internet, and what does that mean exactly? 4% of all internet users used it? 4% of all traffic?

    1. Re:4% of the internet? by value · · Score: 1

      Ah, the figure refers to traffic and number of unique visitors per day. It was in the article, I just skimmed over it... (I thought those diagrams were ads)

  128. so now their revenues goes up $500M? by Gunstick · · Score: 1

    I bet their revenue will stay the same, or just fall tremendously as there are more people who will boycott the movies and music.

    --
    Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
  129. A more powerful move by CiBi3 · · Score: 1

    Can somebody tells me why the DoJ and the RIAA etc. do not sue ISPs for letting piracy material pass through their networks? This would be a more powerful move and at least the fight could be more interesting!

  130. Companies need to live with piracy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm a software developer and imho companies should offer good services and support instead of trying to fight piracy. This is what I did to minimize piracy:

    1 - Outstanding 24hs support by phone, chat, e-mail, etc.
    2 - Heavy cracking protection, I know it's impossible to make something uncrackable, but most clients will prefer to pay instead of braking a heavy protection that requires more than simply overriding a binary.
    3 - Fair price. Better have a piracy ratio of 1/200 and a fair price than 1/10 and expensive software.
    4 - Free versions for personal use that has limited functionality.

    Nowadays internet is a dynamic thing, people put content on others' sites, US still think internet is the same it was 15 years ago.
    The problem here is the companies doesn't want to make big money, they want 10 times this. And people don't want to pay for others that are becoming rich without working hard.

    I'm an young entrepreneur in India. I have a good life as a software developer, and I learned to live with piracy. This won't stop me from earning money, this maybe is stopping me from getting real rich, but as opposite to americans, I don't want to be that rich. I want to earn money that I worked for, and imho, even with heavy piracy, software pays 5x what I worked for.

    Sorry my poor english, I'm learning slowly because it's not a common language where I live.

  131. How dare you charge for your work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Information wants to be free! Anything that can be copied over the Internet should be copied. All artists and software developers should go burn in hell, they should work for free, because the big corporation are screwing all of us anyway.

    WAWAWAAWAWAWAAAA

    Kids of all ages, go to bed. Now!

  132. A wonderful example by neurosine · · Score: 1

    I think this is a wonderful example of proactive government. Now, if we were to to simply go after every corporate entity(and please, let's start with the ones operating within America before we go crazy) we could probably have a huge impact on the climate and those crimes which more directly effect humanity.) Oh...what's that? Not going to happen? Oh...right. It's like when we attacked some small 3Rd world country who we suspected might possibly (not likely) have nuclear capability, and ignored North Korea who (metaphorically) rubbed their nuclear arsenal in our face. It's absurd, and it looks like the operators did what they could to cover their own asses, but this is happening anyway...kind of like date rape. And yeah...this is just as wrong. There are much better ways of dealing with this issue.

  133. Kim Schmitz busted for insider trading... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kim Schmitz was busted for insider trading once. Leads me to believe there is a connection with the whole Dell/Nvidia insider trading arrests from yesterday too. Easy to connect those dots.

  134. or by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    we all stop buying (and stealing) ALL music and movies, along with no longer watching television (most especially sports) and radio. Make your own music, read books from a lending library or used book store. Do something else with your and probably drop 40 pounds in the process. They can't put us in their prison if we completely stop funding them.

    1. Re:or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not buy/consume music, movies or watch Television (and never really did bother with these much to begin with) outside of the local news so in a way I am already mostly outside of their demographic. I do however still buy paper (tree consuming, yum yum) books and if ebooks were the only type of 'book' available I would not be buying books at all.

    2. Re:or by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      we all stop buying (and stealing) ALL music and movies

      *SIGH* Copyright infringement is NOT theft, any more than rape is murder. The difference between copyright infringement and stealing music is, shoplifting a CD from WalMart is stealing music, and is a misdemeanor with a penalty of a couple hundred bucks. Ripping and uploading that CD to TPB is copyright infringement, which the government considers to be far worse than stealing and with far higher penalties.

      Make your own music, read books from a lending library or used book store.

      Or buy indie music; most indies WANT you to put their stuff on the internet, for the same reason Cory Doctorow puts his books on BoingBoing for free download -- there is no evidence anyone ever lost a penny from piracy, but many artists have starved from obscurity. Read Doctorow and authors like him; hell, the book I wrote I uploaded to BitTorrent. Musicians I know upload to archive.org. Star Wreck -- In The Pirkinning is a very funny, free movie you can either buy or download. Authors, artists, and musicians with a clue WANT their stuff to be seen/heard/read. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater by disenfranchising them.

      Go to a local bar and listen to a local band. They probably have CDs for sale that they'd love for you to upload.

  135. seatbealts required in most states by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

    not that that is really relevant to the main topic at hand but most states do indeed have a 'buckle-up' law. If you are caught not wearing a seatbelt you will be ticketed and fined. So yeah, most people do it because of that law. Sure they dont HAVE to, they'll just keep on paying hefty fines until they end up losing their license.

  136. does this mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i can sue megaupload for all the time i've wasted watching bad camrips?

  137. Not so innocent by Zeikcied · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    For instance, users received cash bonuses if they uploaded content popular enough to generate massive numbers of downloads, according to the indictment. Such content was almost always copyright protected.

    I think once you start paying people to post pirated content you can no longer claim innocence or ignorance. Granted, they weren't explicitly paying for pirated content, but they were rewarding people for posting popular content, most of which is pirated. So that essentially sends the message of "Want money? Post pirated stuff!" Because people probably won't come in droves to download an indie game you developed, but they will swarm for the latest release from a popular artist.

    If you're going to reward people, you need to make sure you're not rewarding, and thus encouraging, illegal activity. In my opinion, the Megaupload staff was completely in the wrong. I wouldn't be saying this if they hadn't rewarded pirates for bringing in large numbers of hits. They brought it upon themselves.

  138. Re:Longer story: "actual knowledge of infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the Americans keep forgetting, is that MegaUpload is under no obligation to remove files uploaded by non-American users under their respective countries' fair use provisions.

    For example, for me, it's legal to rip a CD or DVD, put the contents on MegaUpload, and share it with family and close friends under my country's fair use provisions. American authorities have no right to delete those files from MegaUpload. They can't (or at least shouldn't) issue a sweeping request to remove all copies of a film, when only some of the copies are infringing.

  139. Real reason MEGA is being dismantled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://torrentfreak.com/from-rogue-to-vogue-megaupload-and-kim-dotcom-111218/

    "UMG knows that we are going to compete with them via our own music venture called Megabox.com, a site that will soon allow artists to sell their creations direct to consumers and allowing artists to keep 90% of earnings.

    We have a solution called the Megakey that will allow artists to earn income from users who download music for free. Yes that’s right, we will pay artists even for free downloads. The Megakey business model has been tested with over a million users and it works. You can expect several Megabox announcements next year including exclusive deals with artists who are eager to depart from outdated business models.

    You need to understand that some labels are run by arrogant and outdated dinosaurs who have been in business for 1000 years. These guys think an iPad is a facial treatment, the Internet is the devil, and wired phones are still hip. They are in denial about the new realities and opportunities. They don’t understand that the rip-off days are over. Artists are more educated than ever about how they are getting ripped off and how the big labels only look after themselves."

  140. Dick Cheney? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, you need to shoot him in the face, Mr. Cheney.

  141. Re:Do you now see that these people are your enemy by Zeikcied · · Score: 1

    The story also says that Megaupload paid users for getting large numbers of hits with their files. And what files get large numbers of hits? Not free indie games or personally shared files, that's for sure.

    They were essentially paying pirates for generating traffic. Oh, I'm sure they executed DMCA takedowns on less popular files just to show they were doing good, but I doubt they would bring the hammer down on anything that was bringing in hits and thus ad revenue. Especially since they were going so far as paying people who brought in those hits.

  142. What a lousy Indictment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IANAL. From the dozen pages that I have read so far, the Justice department has utterly failed to make its case.

    -Claims of losses have been admitted to be unsubstantiated (by the FBI).
    -Claims that the "Mega" owners made money through advertising and subscriptions do not demonstrate malicious intent.
    -Claims that "Mega" owners copied content from YouTube are a snooze.
    -Claims that "Mega"owners can identify content uniquely through the use of MD5SUMs ignores the fact that one single bit change in a file which would be unnoticed by a human would result in a completely different sum. Additionally MD5SUMs are not 1:1 unique.
    -Claims that "Mega" owners did not qualify under "DMCA Safe Harbor" because they did not designate an agent until 2009, ignore the possibility that there may have been no presence in the U.S. at that time. They may not have been subject to U.S. law.
    -Accusations of hosting child pornography and terrorist video are sensationalist at best. There are no criminal counts on page 1 relating to these alledged activities.
    -Repeatedly referring to the defendants as the "Mega Conspiracy" demonstrates weakness in the indictment. It seems that they have resorted to cheap debate tricks.

    I sure hope that there is some meat and potatoes behind the allegations. From what I have seen, all they have is fluff. Pretty much everything is easily refutable.

    1. Re:What a lousy Indictment by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Read the rest. At some point, it starts into the bits where the owners of the site became intimately aware of what people used their site for and exploited it something chronic. They didn't even put on the appearance of legitimacy (see: Rapidshare).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  143. juries by shentino · · Score: 1

    What I'd like to know is how automatically deleting stuff that isn't downloaded for a fixed period of time gets used as evidence of support for piracy.

    Any geek even remotely familiar with basic optimization will consider this a blatantly obvious storage saving technique and it's hardly a pirate move. In other areas we call it age based caching. Even DNS and HTTP do it.

    I say it's high time we stop turning voir dire into moron parties where lawyers are afraid to have geniuses on the jury.

  144. MegaUpload is the landlord. Media is tenant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MegaUpload isn't using anything, but storing it as it would for a tenant.

    Why is it that in Admiralty courts that the case title has the physicall classification as it's name like "Officer Williams vs. One Dozen Doughnots" so why not have "Media Company vs Metallica~1.MP3" instead and just cite MegaUpload as the adoptive parent or the landlord??

  145. How to proceed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I were that Kim Dotcom I'd declare war on the US authorities on every level. From high-end lawyers to fight the stupid and bullshit charges to direct attacks on the actual people from US law enforcement involved.

    They declared war on 'piracy', and while a war on words is one thing, going to the extremes and actually going after people way outside their jurisdiction is going too far, and we need to respond in kind.

    First we need to have the names and addresses of the FBI agents involved published - and then harassed of course. Yes, they need to fear for the safety of their families, from now on and forever. They went too far and violated foreign nationals homes in foreign countries - that's tantamount to war! - and need to pay for that.

    It's time to take this to the next level and fight back. Not just DDoS-attacks. We need to make it as personal as they do. They went after people and violated their homes so we need to do the same. They need to learn that if they don't respect the rules of the game then we won't either. They need to be hurt and understand that it's not a game anymore. They need to learn respect.

    To many of us those providing file sharing services are freedom fighters, fighting against bullshit media control. A huge amount of file sharing revolves around making media accessible and circumventing geo-discrimination, and information wants to be free so there's only one way this can go.

    If I - located outside the US - want to see the latest episode of Grimm as someone mentioned elsewhere, there's no way I can do that without messing with VPN and a fake address so I can sign up for the some online service posing as a US resident. I can't go to a shop and buy the episode on a physical medium as it won't be available for many months on DVD/blu-ray. No matter how much money I'm willing to pay there's simply no legal way for me to get at that episode. But this huge demand in the market has been covered by MegaUpload, bittorrent and similar. I can find the episode a few hours later online, free of charge, courtesy of the pirates.

    The media corporations could easily provide a legal alternative and fill this huge demand, making lots of money as they go (I'd be happy to pay for the stuff that I like), but they refuse and instead have started a war on those filling this demand. Nobody understands why they refuse (it's mind-boggling stupid on every level) but it seems control is much more important to them than money and profit, and they WANT to discriminate against non-US people. It's arrogant and offensive and that's why we need to fight them.

  146. Megagoatse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Admit you read all these comments and now your so mad you want to mega stretch your ass

  147. 1000 comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Despite Slashdot's fucked up comment system this story got 1000 comments. Now uninstall Linux and try to get laid.

  148. Megabutthurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The trolling to keep this the most commented post this week continues

    admit you suck penguin cock.

  149. piss , shit and cum into slashdot readers mouths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trolls , Shills , Vandals and Goatsers unite to fuck up Slashdot, where 99% of the 1% get butthurt about the truth about Linux.

  150. filesonics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seem the tactic is working, filesonic has disabled all sharing, you can now only download files you have uploaded yourself

  151. 1001th post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lick the goatse of copyright and get Windows 8 secure boot locked tablets running IE10 or we draft you into the 2013 Iran War.

    captcha: enforcer.

  152. What I find disturbing... by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1

    What I find disturbing is the negative way the media in New Zealand is portraying Kim "Dotcom" Schmitz.

    NZ police acted on US request for help
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780138

    They raided him with freaking helicopters!! :

    Police complete Dotcom search
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780142

    Dotcom birthday party targeted
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780321

    Dotcom's lavish life of parties and luxury
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780514

    Dotcom 'extreme' flight risk - Crown
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780553

    Dotcom case 'not open and shut'
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10781113

    --
    You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.