Megaupload Faces Additional Charges

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]mobrocket[/nom]and again, who was the victims of these crimes?[/citation]
The owners of the copyrighted material who incurred the costs of production and distribution, and who paid and continue to pay the authors. How did you not know this?

 

[Guest]

Let pir8 EVEN MORE! muhahahah!

 

[lradunovic77]

There is something else behind all this.

 

[gorehound]

This is how the MAFIAA gets rid of competition now.
Boycott all Content from MAFIAA Please.
They are the butt head thieves and they are the ones lying and corrupting Governments to Censor the Internet.
Please think about Censoring them from your wallet.

 

[freggo]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]This was a sharing site, not a storage site. If you want to store and retrieve, or share with a list of users, there is much less of this problem.[/citation]

Oh, wait until the RIAA lawyers get into that. If they smell money, they will find a way to convince a court that it is illegal to provide storage of their crap music.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]Oh, wait until the RIAA lawyers get into that. If they smell money, they will find a way to convince a court that it is illegal to provide storage of their crap music.[/citation]
If you think the music is 'crap' what possible reason could you have for caring what the RIAA does? Angry spite?

 

[dalethepcman]

A legal resident of New Zealand, who owns an international business (no matter how shady), with servers hosted not on US land, has all of his New Zealand property seized, all of his personal and corporations bank accounts frozen, all of his servers seized, and is extradited to the US and tried in Virginia for Conspiracy to commit music downloading.

At this rate we're going to bomb Sweden to stop the pirate bay...

 

[kristoffe]

hahahahah +1 dale. OMFG [boom]

 

[kinggraves]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]If you think the music is 'crap' what possible reason could you have for caring what the RIAA does? Angry spite?[/citation]

The industry has for a long time depended on a business model where they pick and control all the entertainment media and tell people what to buy. The Internet brings content directly from the author to the consumer and allows the people freedom of choice. They want to prevent their control from being lost, because their purpose in distribution and promotion is no longer necessary. Their model not only puts out garbage, but holds back new potential they haven't personally approved. Free distribution is the industry's enemy, not piracy.

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]This was a sharing site, not a storage site. If you want to store and retrieve, or share with a list of users, there is much less of this problem.[/citation]

This case proves there is no right to unlawful seizure and destruction of "online" property. People's legal content is gone too. There is nothing to prevent a "storage" site from being shut down the same way should it be storing illegal content. Cloud content and online content do not give you the same property rights physical ownership does.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]Their model not only puts out garbage, but holds back new potential they haven't personally approved...Free distribution is the industry's enemy, not piracy....[/citation]
Again, you have no problem because you don't want their copyrighted content which legally obligates you to pay the owner. 'distribution' is irrelevant. The copyright fee applies independent of the mode of distribution. Authors (and therefore their agents, by proxy) own the copyright license.

Your copy, if not licensed, is an illegal (stolen) copy. Whether you choose to apply personal judgements of 'enemy' or friend makes no difference (and is, at best, silly). You owe the author of the material (or those who paid the author a lump sum and now own the rights) the licensing fee, or else you are ripping them off.

 

[pharoahhalfdead]

[citation][nom]Camikazi[/nom]$500 million in damages? Where are these figures coming from and who is making the calculations? I somehow have a feeling these people are basing this on the assumption that every person who downloaded anything would have bought it if the download was not available. That is in no way true, I doubt anywhere near $500 million was lost cause of this, I believe most who downloaded would have just passed these things by if they could not download. No sales were lost, the RIAA and MPAA are just seeing a chance for a money grab and are going for it.[/citation]

Any business, corporation, or individual with wealth who loses something of value "inflate" the amount in losses for insurance purposes. Most likely they wont get the amount they actually claim, so they exaggerate.
Example, last year Floyd Mayweather claimed somebody broke into his house and stole $6,000,000 worth of jewelry. Did he have that much? Maybe, but sources say he exaggerated.

 

[viciouz2000]

oh no, we got some riaa and mpaa(??) trolls here trying to defend the blatant seizures of assets and of a cloud storage site. forget the fact that the internet made money for these corp execs and artists. without the internet no one would know about their crap music and movies, they should be paying the online community money as we provide free advertising to the entire world regarding the best in music and movies. Nothing is safe now, as all the other file hosting sites pretty much the same as megaupload.

 

[Christopher1]

[citation][nom]eiskrystal[/nom]Downloading happens more often than uploading.News at 11 !!![/citation]

Hit the nail on the head. The feds are just throwing around any goddamned charge that they think will stick. Thankfully, most judges are more intelligent than the prosecutors give them credit for and can see through these things.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]viciouz2000[/nom]...no one would know about their crap music and movies...[/citation]
oh no, we got some hypocritical trolls who believe they should be applauded for making up an endless stream of self-serving excuses for their greed in ripping off the owners of original copyrighted material while whining about their access to it being interrupted. Please add detail to the "it's crappy, so I should be able to steal it" 'argument'. It's quite entertaining.

 

[Guest]

@lamorpa:

How much is the RIAA / MPAA paying you to post this garbage?

Do you really enjoy the taste of their cock that much?

 

[chicofehr]

66.6 million users!!! That's a scary number. Maybe that is why they got shut down. 77.7 million would look much better as its less evil Anyway, now there is several knock off versions out there so they only caused more of them to pop up LOL

 

[Guest]

Would there be a case that those that were using megaupload to store their legit files file against the us government? Like unlawful property seizure?

 

[eddieroolz]

If these guys claim that Megaupload was deceptive for offering locker service that people used as download services, then I'm sure the US government is guiltier than anything else on the planet just about right now.

Let's prosecute these attorneys instead!

 

[freggo]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]If you think the music is 'crap' what possible reason could you have for caring what the RIAA does? Angry spite?[/citation]

That's like saying 'Freedom of speech' is only important as long as it is "YOUR" speech.
Just because I don't care about the quality of the majority of studio acts does not mean I will accept what the RIAA is trying to do to those who happen to like it.

And yes, I am smart enough to realize that one person's 'crap' is another person's 'cool' music.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]That's like saying 'Freedom of speech' is only important as long as it is "YOUR" speech.Just because I don't care about the quality of the majority of studio acts does not mean I will accept what the RIAA is trying to do to those who happen to like it. And yes, I am smart enough to realize that one person's 'crap' is another person's 'cool' music.[/citation]
The (not so) funny part is that downloaders think they are some sort of modern day freedom fighters in the style of civil disobedience, when actually they're pretty much a bunch of spoiled brats trying to get something for free (by stealing it) who are the first to wine about unfair treatment when they are prosecuted for something they knew was illegal when they did it. Civil disobedience means you are protesting with an expectation of a penalty. Not dodging into excuses like 'most of it is crap' or 'everybody does it' or 'it should be free' or 'I really really want it and don't have the money right now' or 'it costs them pennies' or 'they're a bunch of fat-cats', 'I will pay for it if I am caught', 'I will pay for it later', 'since no physical media is involved it doesn't cost them anything', etc.

There is a word describing the behavior in which someone says something is worthless, but then goes out of their way to take it without compensating the author. That word is hypocrite.