Megaupload Faces Additional Charges

[Kamab]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]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.[/citation]

Because we all know that the RIAA and MPAA care about compensating authors. Do you think stronger copyright laws are needed for economic reasons or moral reasons? Do you honestly believe piracy = theft? Do you believe the punishment for piracy typically fits the crime being committed?

Also, there hasn't been a legitimate study to ever conclude that piracy even costs the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY anything, let alone authors who barely get a fraction of the profits from royalties. Have fun on your moral high ground, hopefully not believing that the laws you want actually help anyone except for legacy entertainment gatekeepers. Oh yea, and it doesn't cost "them" anything when you make copies.

You might want to look up hypocrisy. You seem to be confusing it with the word describing somebodies behavior as they act their way through a stupidly contrived scenario.

 

[Guest]

lamorpa, the MPAA / RIAA are nothing more than hypocrites. They themselves have been sued countless times for copyright infringement and piracy. There is currently a large class action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of artists who they put on their 'pending' list for decades where the artist doesnt see a cent from the RIAA because they have not actually signed on with the label, yet they still sell and use the artists music for profit. They need to clean up their own house before they can accuse anyone else of this crap.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]goiginlift[/nom]lamorpa, the MPAA / RIAA are nothing more than hypocrites. They themselves have been sued countless times for copyright infringement and piracy. There is currently a large class action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of artists who they put on their 'pending' list for decades where the artist doesnt see a cent from the RIAA because they have not actually signed on with the label, yet they still sell and use the artists music for profit. They need to clean up their own house before they can accuse anyone else of this crap.[/citation]
Interesting if it were true, but these stories are largely made up or distorted. Check non-biased sources. In either case, how does this justify stealing music and movies? It's not as though the property rights are effected by any of these things. People can do what they want and what they believe in, but it's not as though stealing is not stealing. Even Robin Hood knew he was doing something illegal. It's the whiners when known penalties are applied that bug me. What did they expect?

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]Kamab[/nom]...there hasn't been a legitimate study to ever conclude that piracy even costs the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY anything...[/citation]
Here is where you are confused. Study or not, or even if there were 100 studies showing that it helped the industry. For right now, the rightful owners of the property chose the rules for how it is distributed, costs, fees, etc. - because they are the owners. It's no different than if I chose to believe that your couch would look better in my home, and that being the case (I set my own rules), I will take it, since I really, really believe this, and I really, really want it. Your ownership rights are trumped by my rules because I say so. (but I may give it back some day, or throw it out). And don't try to dodge into the tired old argument that a digital copy doesn't deprive anyone of another copy, because it does. The instance of the loss in license revenue effects the whole creation/distribution chain. I applaud those who try to cut out the middle man and purchase directly from artists. The industry is ripe for change. I just don't try to make believe that self serving half arguments justify stealing.

 

[Guest]

Steven Kinsella is right: copyright is censorship, and the more Government tries to enforce it, the more injustice and tyranny we face.

 

[dalethepcman]

iamorpa is an anogram for RiaaMop.... Just saying...

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]iamorpa is an anogram for RiaaMop.... Just saying...[/citation]
Sure. That's why I said, "I applaud those who try to cut out the middle man and purchase directly from artists. The industry is ripe for change." Sounds just like something the RIAA would say?

I'm saying you can do what you want, but don't come crying when you are prosecuted for the stealing that you are doing. You're saying it should be free because you really, really want it to be free, but somehow (magically, I guess) the artists still get their money.