Personal View site logo
Cinema gear deals, direct from factories - Gear deals and Gear deals section. Also check Cameras, lenses, software, gear deals.
Megaupload is closed by FBI
  • 66 Replies sorted by
  • To add insult to injury, the US government is asking New Zealand to arrest the owners of Megaupload. So not only are they using the SOPA/PIPA acts that haven't even passed yet, but they're stretching US law into other countries.

    I know this type of conduct is nothing new but its blatantly out in the open and wrong on so many levels...

    Fortunately not all politicians agree with this bs:

  • Filestube will follow i bet. A vote for Ron Paul is the only vote that matters come election time.

  • This is only the start o the end of internet as we know.

  • @Manu4Vendetta I can only hope you're wrong. There's quite a movement to stop all of this and if it passes I'm guessing there may be quite an uprising. One of the few freedoms left in the US is the interwebz...

  • Will dropbox follow?

  • I don't want to be the asshole here, but have you seen the list of car seized by the police at "Kim Dotcom"'s home (which by the way, was the most expensive house in New Zealand..)?

    I don't condone what the US government is doing (ie: being the private police of the RIAA/MPAA) but the guy litter ally made millions by selling rights to access pirated content. Which (almost) no torrent site does. And if you look at the guy's bio on wikipedia (, I think he deserves to spend a few years in jail thinking about what he has done..

  • @fetzu

    Can I ask stupid question?

    Why US can close internet resources, confiscate servers around the world and arrest people in other countries.

    I can even anwer you this.

    Without fear and horror spreading to support "copyright", US economy will collapse much faster.

  • Btw this is good citation from wiki page you linked:

    "UMG claimed that a special arrangement exists between UMG and YouTube which allows UMG to take down any videos featuring their artists, regardless of copyright status."

    :-) I like the meaning of it.

  • Yeah, imagine if US citizens could be extradited to any other country and be tried by the laws of that country for alleged crimes which might not exist in the US? It seems we want to drag everyone here and bring them into the realm of law, but really, really don't want the opposite to happen - can't have it both ways and who wants to unilaterally act as the world's moral police, especially when the laws being enforced were written by limited pro-business interests.

    We have a system of copyright here not to protect business but out of the Constitution and its copyright clause.

    "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."

    We originally had a system of copyright which allowed for a very limited (7 years, and then 14) monopoly, which was seen as absolutely necessarily so that when our country had only a handful (three or four) of printing presses, they'd have some way of making back the large amounts of capital it would take to set a press up for map making or the like. Now we have a system in which we have billions of printing presses, copying doesn't have a cost, and 'all rights reserved' does little to encourage the progress of science or the useful arts.

    Just think about it, we have academic journals full of research that was funded by public research money, that academics want to be published and read as widely as possible, but that are locked up in private 'all rights reserved' vaults for only some to read, just for the sake of making a few people rich and with such great cost. We could have a great library, greater than any library in history, full of all of the research, art, and knowledge of the world, but instead we are protecting Mickey Mouse for a thousand years, so that private interests can continue to make money and power.

    I'm not well-versed with the specifics of the Megaupload case yet, but within the US we do have a safe harbor law under the DMCA, which basically means if you do not know piracy is occurring, and don't look for it, your obligation is to remove it when it is brought to your attention - but the questions we should be asking shouldn't be legal or technical ones, but rather: what sort of system do we want to build in the world that promotes art and science, and what should we be willing to invest into that system?

    Limited monopolies through copyright are an investment, and by increasing that investment with a longer term, are we getting more than if the term was shorter, or if we had "some rights reserved" instead of "all rights reserved?" Typically, when we make larger investments, we get something more out of that investment. If we increase the budget of a fire department, we get better protection against fire. Does extending copyright to life + 70 years do anything to encourage people to make more art, or investigate more scientifically? And if so, is that still true of art made before the extension? How does locking up past creativity for longer give us that? We can't incentivize backwards through time, only forward, that I know of at least.

    Fundamental for me is this notion, something we live on this board: the work that I do will help others, and I am helped by the work of others in the past. Any creative work I make is indebted to so, so many people and could not have occurred through my 'creative thought' alone. Why not share it with the world, and have a rule of law which serves people rather than corporations?

    I say, let's worry less about playing God and punishing people, and more about building a better system for compensating artists, which is something that I think everyone wants to do.

  • Benjamin Franklin : "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev

    I never said what the USA was right. But it is legal, there are international laws in bilateral agreements in place. It is not a matter of fear and horror, it is a matter of law.

    I'll repeat that I don't condone these actions, as a matter of fact I am a member of a certain number of private trackers and don't, for one, believe in copyright as it exists. But this guy made MILLIONS (indirectly) selling work of others; he wan't the lambda torrent user sharing the rip to the latest michael mann flick..

    This is starting to sound a lot like the Polanski fiasco we had here in Switzerland last year (or was it two years ago), with everyone jumping on their high horses saying "it is scandalous, the US is making their law all across the globe" but forgetting the fact that the guy admitted to have raped a 14 years old girl and fled while under bail..

    I mean common look at this Kim Dotcom character's biography, he deserves at least a few years in jail for all this shit. It is clearly a stunt move related to the whole SOPA/PIPA crap, it is clearly an abuse of power by the US.. but common, don't tell me the guy never saw it coming!

    (And, by the way, where was everyone when TPB was raided years ago? I didn't see so many people outraged by the incident..)

  • I think it is very bad to start attacking personality.

    Especially if all the private data about law officials, MPAA and other guys will become public, he'll be most propertly living guy. Believe me.

  • I don't understand, how am I attacking personality? I'm stating facts: the guy made hundred of millions selling access to copyrighted material, made 1.5 millions with inside trading.. those are all illegal, unethical and immoral things.

    The people from RIAA, MPAA and law officials may be defending the wrong idea; but their actions remain legal (even though they probably are unethical and immoral).

    Sadly that is the way our modern rule of law, governed by money rather than ethics, works. Copyright is all to their advantage, so damn sure they'll make sure it is respected..

  • Sorry if I seem like a rightie (I'm not at all) but how is any of this wrong? These guys, in my opinion deserve having their site closed down. The viewers of the site deserve to lose it as well.

    Without staggering in the creative world, i.e., the rich get one brand of creativity and the poor get to be independent about it, there is no need for any of us who are on here (p-view) to learn a little about independent creative production. Take for instance a case were anyone can get Adobe Master Suite for free online. There will never be a truly functional open source NLE to take its place, because people can get the real thing for free already. If people can't get the real thing for free, then eventual demand will lead to replacements? or no. This is more about SOPA than Megaupload anyway.

  • You are attacking personality. All he did is made file sharing and video sharing things. It is up to users to upload something and share the link. I am also sure that HP, Dell, Lenovo and Cisco also made millions on this. Nuke them?

    I can tell you this. Things that you call the law, is not the law by definition. As this had been paid by same guys to become "law", same guys use WTO to enforce agreements and same guys use it to hunt down anyone who prevents making huge money from selling digital content. This guys make more damage than all murderers combined. They just jave better suites and can talk in betetr language. But all of them must have same fate as mass murderers.

  • @tmcat

    I can tell you this.

    Copyright flame is one of the worst kind.

    Because protectors mostly do not understand the point.

  • @VK

    Wouldn't you agree that his accumulation of wealth has something to do with the fact that we could stream every episode of Seinfeld off of Megavideo for small fee until yesterday? Episodes that were obviously not worth anything in terms of quality of viewing (horrible resolution, laggy playback on slower connections etc.). We just viewed the creative content.

  • I still don't see how it is attacking personality, I'm just attacking facts (what he did, not what he is) with little or no judgment (there should be no place for that in the law, I said "should" ;).

    Yes all he did was "enable users to", but one can hardly claim they ignored what probably amount to 99% of the service's traffic was for. As you mentioned, google has been "clever" with youtube and arranged it so that copyright holders would accept their content to be hosted there under certain conditions. As long as you don't make ennemies (ie: the ones with the power that make all the money) you are fine, once you disrespect them they always find a way to twist the law so it suits them. And in this case, we are in the midst of a debacle over piracy on the internet; the chap just had "the bad site at the bad time".

    We are in agreement over law: there are many types of law (natural law, moral law..) but only one can exist in our states (under the rule of law). Strictly speaking, those idiots enforcing trade rules don't make as much physical damage as murderers. But, as you said, they have the money, the nice suits and the rethorics.. combine that with democracy and you got yourself a system where they can never lose :/.

  • @fetzu

    are we flaming democracy now?? I was unaware of what i was getting myself into :p

    If you'll look closely the rhetoric is just as strong on both sides of this argument. Blogs can decry all the want, but these laws could act in their best interest.

  • @tmcat: that's just me (flaming democracy) ;). Yes you are right the issue isn't really the rhetorics (which are good on both sides, as you mentioned) but rather on the media by which they are being served (blogs v. traditional media); and, unfortunately, "the masses" don't read the blogs so much.. but damn do they watch TV!

  • Hey guys, Royal Mail, US Post all make multi millions per year providing a service that allows copyrighted material to be distributed, and evn other illegal items and substances.


  • @itimjim you are right, let's start trolling..

    Except the postal service of every country is protected under a specific law.

    EDIT: And as a matter of fact, don't they actually lose money!?

  • Doesn't DMCA safe harbour protect operators from this kind of legal action anyway? It seems Megaupload are being held as a political example to the other sites, like Rapidshare, so that they will be more willing to play by the US law.

  • Main goals of real copyright are:

    1. Protecting common good
    2. Protecting author, allowing him to get reasonable reward and make new things
    3. Making and protecting distribution and information channels allowing authors to sell the product

    In current form all is exactly reverse:

    1. Protecting motherfuckers who own the law and restrict distribution, as well as control main informational sources.
    2. Do not protect independent distribution organizations, sites, shops or techniques. Instead nuke them.
    3. Take 95-99,9% from authors and call it normal (try to publish any book or music disc). Even famous Apple 30% for the right to be included.
    4. Fuck the common good. As prolonged copyright prevents acess to knowledge, papers, research reports. Also this makes huge impact on families with bad education and low money, as they have much less chance to get access to the knowledge.
  • Agreed completely, Vitaliy.