5 ms·

Let's analyze the propaganda speak here: > Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests Based on not only the experience of others, but the claims of the DoJ

by rickmb 15y ago

Let's analyze the propaganda speak here: > Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests Based on not only the experience of others, but the claims of the DoJ itself, this is clearly false. > The site charged for access to, and provided advertising around, pirated content. This is true in the same way YouTube provides advertising around, and your friendly local ISP provides access to, pirated content. > The site paid people (users/staff - it's a fine line) to provide popular content. So does YouTube. So do various other business models. > It went to extraordinary lengths to hide the identity of its operators. How many legitimate business don't have their owners wrapped in layers of corporations strewn around the globe? Nothing particularly unique or illegal here. > Now if people believe that anyone should be allowed to set up a site, fill it with full length DVD rips... It's an outright lie to claim that they themselves filled it with said rips. The users did. Just like many other sites, usenet servers etcetera. > Kim Schmitz has made a lot of money Yeah, that's a crime... You've already corrected one claim, that Megaupload wasn't used for legitimate purposes. Full disclosure: personally, I believe copyright in it's current form should die. Partly because of exactly this: it makes virtually impossible to provide any service around something that is way more important than the profits of the entertainment industry: the freedom of people to share information. I also highly doubt this would actually be much of a problem if there was any economic impulse for the entertainment industry to provide a decent alternative. In the current context, with a ridiculous artificially created scarcity, how the hell is anybody supposed to run a site like Megaupload and not have it full of "illegal" DVD-rips and shit, whether they like it or not? The DOJ might have evidence that this was deliberate, but all the rest of us have is propaganda and deeply biased speculation.

dangrossman 15y ago
Did you read the indictment before attempting to "analyze the propaganda"? Unless you believe the FBI's evidence is manufactured, then some of your rebuttals are already known to be false. The owners of the site were uploading DVD rips and music albums to the site, not just users.
arctangent 15y ago
>> It went to extraordinary lengths to hide the identity of its operators. > How many legitimate business don't have their owners wrapped in layers of corporations strewn around the globe? Nothing particularly unique or illegal here. I might be slightly off-topic here, but I think this is a good opportunity to point out the danger of falling for a "Halo or Horns" fallacy. Wikipedia doesn't compare the Halo effect with the Horns effect but it does have an article about the Halo effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect Simply put, if you believe one aspect of a person (or thing) to be bad, you're more likely to judge its other aspects in a negative light. Similarly, one good characteristic can make you more likely to judge the other aspects in a better light. You can see examples of Halo vs Horns all the time if you look for it. It's very common when mob psychology comes into play, and often causes a change in the status quo.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
The other side of this SOPA battle is playing us like a fiddle. This WSJ article took our stance (it's not my stance but the majority here's stance) and attacked us with it by saying we're pro-piracy. That doesn't go over well outside this community. If we just got off the copyright/privacy topic for a minute and focused on the big picture we could fight more effectively. Point out that SOPA/PIPA are unnecessary because the Feds are shutting down sites just fine without it. Point out that due process is done away with by SOPA. Etc. They want us to be talking about copyright and piracy but this isn't about those things at all! This is total misdirection by the other side and we all just played into it. What this is really about is the government and entertainment industry trying to grab the power to do the things they've already been doing without having to go do all that annoying stuff like gathering evidence, building a case, or holding a trial. For being such a big group of smart people I'm surprised I haven't heard anyone else point this out before.
- iandanforth 15y ago
  'What this is really about is the government and entertainment industry trying to grab the power to do the things they've already been doing without having to go do all that annoying stuff like gathering evidence, building a case, or holding a trial.' Parts of SOPA/PIPA will make their lives easier, this is true, however it also grants new powers. Much recent fervor revolves around these new powers. You also criticize the rhetoric of the community, but due so in reference to the Wall Street Journal. I have no doubt that they will be the last publication to adopt, support, or accept our rhetoric. Now that doesn't make the general criticism false. The primary fallacy I see in your argument is instead that the terms like pro-piracy need be liabilities. There are pirate parties in several countries now, and historically powerful, emotionally salient terms can be used either as marks of shame or pride. Language is fickle like that. Now I can say that there is a dangerous cancer in this country and it is a malignancy that has been growing for years, and now that we've found a way to hurt it, slow its growth, to bleed it out, it's releasing toxins. Piracy is the cure to the cancer on the creativity of America. I can say that the 1% of middlemen and lawyers that call themselves 'rightsholders' are afraid of people point out how bloated they are, and how Un-American it is to be bad at your job, inefficient, and dictatorial. They represent barriers to innovation, to freedom, and to the growth and prosperity of their nation. Some of us have decided the situation is so intolerable that we will advocate breaking unjust laws and causing direct, lasting, and public harm to this institution. This is protest and the hope of change. It is only history that will determine who played whom.
VMG 15y ago
>> The site charged for access to, and provided advertising around, pirated content. > This is true in the same way YouTube provides advertising around, and your friendly local ISP provides access to, pirated content. I can get the full "The Dark Knight" in 720p on YouTube? Links please
- rg3 15y ago
  Not 720p, but I don't think that was really the main point. By the way, I just got the link by going to YouTube and searching for "the dark knight part 1". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuaUcGr32SM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuaUcGr32SM
  - VMG 15y ago
    Well, starting at about part 6 it displays a copyright message for me so you can maybe call this an extended trailer. The point is that YouTube doesn't offer a movie experience that is comparable to what was available on megaupload.com
    - Anderkent 15y ago
      The point is it still provides access to and advertising around pirated content.
- deno 15y ago
  You can host videos on Youtube that don’t show up in search results and link to them from 3rd party websites. That’s exactly like Megaupload, but with streaming.
  - Drbble 15y ago
    And that is illegal and when DMCA complaints are filed access to the content is removed.

by rickmb 15y ago

dangrossman 15y ago

Did you read the indictment before attempting to "analyze the propaganda"? Unless you believe the FBI's evidence is manufactured, then some of your rebuttals are already known to be false. The owners of the site were uploading DVD rips and music albums to the site, not just users.

arctangent 15y ago

>> It went to extraordinary lengths to hide the identity of its operators. > How many legitimate business don't have their owners wrapped in layers of corporations strewn around the globe? Nothing particularly unique or illegal here. I might be slightly off-topic here, but I think this is a good opportunity to point out the danger of falling for a "Halo or Horns" fallacy. Wikipedia doesn't compare the Halo effect with the Horns effect but it does have an article about the Halo effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect Simply put, if you believe one aspect of a person (or thing) to be bad, you're more likely to judge its other aspects in a negative light. Similarly, one good characteristic can make you more likely to judge the other aspects in a better light. You can see examples of Halo vs Horns all the time if you look for it. It's very common when mob psychology comes into play, and often causes a change in the status quo.

billpatrianakos 15y ago

The other side of this SOPA battle is playing us like a fiddle. This WSJ article took our stance (it's not my stance but the majority here's stance) and attacked us with it by saying we're pro-piracy. That doesn't go over well outside this community. If we just got off the copyright/privacy topic for a minute and focused on the big picture we could fight more effectively. Point out that SOPA/PIPA are unnecessary because the Feds are shutting down sites just fine without it. Point out that due process is done away with by SOPA. Etc. They want us to be talking about copyright and piracy but this isn't about those things at all! This is total misdirection by the other side and we all just played into it. What this is really about is the government and entertainment industry trying to grab the power to do the things they've already been doing without having to go do all that annoying stuff like gathering evidence, building a case, or holding a trial. For being such a big group of smart people I'm surprised I haven't heard anyone else point this out before.

iandanforth 15y ago
'What this is really about is the government and entertainment industry trying to grab the power to do the things they've already been doing without having to go do all that annoying stuff like gathering evidence, building a case, or holding a trial.' Parts of SOPA/PIPA will make their lives easier, this is true, however it also grants new powers. Much recent fervor revolves around these new powers. You also criticize the rhetoric of the community, but due so in reference to the Wall Street Journal. I have no doubt that they will be the last publication to adopt, support, or accept our rhetoric. Now that doesn't make the general criticism false. The primary fallacy I see in your argument is instead that the terms like pro-piracy need be liabilities. There are pirate parties in several countries now, and historically powerful, emotionally salient terms can be used either as marks of shame or pride. Language is fickle like that. Now I can say that there is a dangerous cancer in this country and it is a malignancy that has been growing for years, and now that we've found a way to hurt it, slow its growth, to bleed it out, it's releasing toxins. Piracy is the cure to the cancer on the creativity of America. I can say that the 1% of middlemen and lawyers that call themselves 'rightsholders' are afraid of people point out how bloated they are, and how Un-American it is to be bad at your job, inefficient, and dictatorial. They represent barriers to innovation, to freedom, and to the growth and prosperity of their nation. Some of us have decided the situation is so intolerable that we will advocate breaking unjust laws and causing direct, lasting, and public harm to this institution. This is protest and the hope of change. It is only history that will determine who played whom.

VMG 15y ago

>> The site charged for access to, and provided advertising around, pirated content. > This is true in the same way YouTube provides advertising around, and your friendly local ISP provides access to, pirated content. I can get the full "The Dark Knight" in 720p on YouTube? Links please

rg3 15y ago
Not 720p, but I don't think that was really the main point. By the way, I just got the link by going to YouTube and searching for "the dark knight part 1". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuaUcGr32SM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuaUcGr32SM
- VMG 15y ago
  Well, starting at about part 6 it displays a copyright message for me so you can maybe call this an extended trailer. The point is that YouTube doesn't offer a movie experience that is comparable to what was available on megaupload.com
  - Anderkent 15y ago
    The point is it still provides access to and advertising around pirated content.
deno 15y ago
You can host videos on Youtube that don’t show up in search results and link to them from 3rd party websites. That’s exactly like Megaupload, but with streaming.
- Drbble 15y ago
  And that is illegal and when DMCA complaints are filed access to the content is removed.