7 Charged as F.B.I. Closes a Top File-Sharing Site

Quote:

---

In what the federal authorities on Thursday called one of the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought, the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation seized the Web site Megaupload and charged seven people connected with it with running an international enterprise based on Internet piracy.

Coming just a day after civil protests in the United States over proposed antipiracy bills, the arrests were greeted almost immediately with digital Molotov cocktails. The hacker collective that calls itself Anonymous attacked the Web sites of the Justice Department and several major entertainment companies and trade groups in retaliation for Mega-upload’s seizure. The Justice Department’s site and several others remained inaccessible for much of Thursday afternoon...

source: nytimes.com/2012/01/20/technology/indictment-charges-megaupload-site-with-piracy.html

---

And so it begins.

... wow. >_>

fbi.gov is one of the downed sites. If this really is anonymous and not a false flag attack by the Feds, then I take back what I said about anonymous, they do have the ability to take out sites. However, if fbi.gov and the other sites are all back up tomorrow morning, we'll know it was a false flag.

Here's a more exhaustive list of targeted sites:

http://www.fbi.gov/
http://www.justice.gov/
http://www.riaa.com/
http://www.universalmusic.com/
http://www.wmg.com/
http://www.BMI.com/
http://www.mpaa.org/

Tomorrow I'll check to see if they're still down.

EDIT: DoJ, RIAA and I think MPAA are already back up.

Megaupload are back.

Got it via twitter.

MEGAUPLOAD IS BACK, NEW MEGAUPLOAD SITE - The leading online storage and file delivery service -

It was definitely anon, not the Feds. It's verified on all the official anon "outlets".

Yeah some are already back up but there were around 20 sites I think and most that I checked we're still down. They really do need to lengthen their attacks though. A week at the least would be good.

I'm not sure why people think the people who run Megaupload aren't scummy, greedy people.

Indeed, the people behind MU very much had something coming, however the scale of this operation is ridiculous, and it goes to prove that the US doesn't really need PIPA or SOPA, when they can take down one of the biggest filesharing sites on the internet. According to their own video, MU accounted for 4% of all internet traffic. On top of the US acting outside of its jurisdiction, these people are facing up to 55 years in prison, EACH, and a fine of 500 million dollars. This is ridiculous. The number is completely arbitrary, it might as well have been 500 billion dollars. 55 years in prison, that's three times as much as the MAXIMUM prison sentence for murder, in Denmark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm not sure why people think the people who run Megaupload aren't scummy, greedy people.

---

Because there were simply providing a service which people wanted? If that makes one scummy, every big business person is....oh wait.
Carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Because there were simply providing a service which people wanted? If that makes one scummy, every big business person is....oh wait.
Carry on.

---

The CEO, Kim Schmitz, is very much a criminal. Getting extradited is wild, but there's no doubt that MU was an illegal website. They didn't really care about the piracy going on, and didn't make extensive efforts to take down illegal material. In comparison, YouTube and Mediafire remove warez very quickly. Schmitz and his accomplices have made tons of money off of illegal activites, and there's really no reason they shouldn't be brought to court, apart from the fact that they are being extradited, not because of rape, murder, war crimes or similar things, but because they hosted a website where people could share files. This is an excellent display of, to quote a SomethingAwful member, how firmly the US government has its lips wrapped around the entertainment industry's cock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Because there were simply providing a service which people wanted? If that makes one scummy, every big business person is....oh wait.
Carry on.

---

And every small business person....oh wait

107.21.243.42

If seeing that doesn't scare you, nothing will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvo

The CEO, Kim Schmitz, is very much a criminal. Getting extradited is wild, but there's no doubt that MU was an illegal website. They didn't really care about the piracy going on, and didn't make extensive efforts to take down illegal material. In comparison, YouTube and Mediafire remove warez very quickly. Schmitz and his accomplices have made tons of money off of illegal activites, and there's really no reason they shouldn't be brought to court, apart from the fact that they are being extradited, not because of rape, murder, war crimes or similar things, but because they hosted a website where people could share files. This is an excellent display of, to quote a SomethingAwful member, how firmly the US government has its lips wrapped around the entertainment industry's cock.

---

They were providing a service! People chose to flock to that service for downloading and uploading songs and movies. It's not their fault.
I'm sure they had no qualms about making money from piracy and obviously knew it was the main use for their site, but it was a legitimate business and they really had no way of removing or stopping people from using it for piracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

They were providing a service! People chose to flock to that service for downloading and uploading songs and movies. It's not their fault.
I'm sure they had no qualms about making money from piracy and obviously knew it was the main use for their site, but it was a legitimate business and they really had no way of removing or stopping people from using it for piracy.

---

The difference between YouTube and MU, is that YouTube went to very great lengths to reduce the amount of illegal content on their website. MU didn't really do anything. The problem is that the guys who ran the site endorsed illegal activity, and made a massive profit off of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Because there were simply providing a service which people wanted? If that makes one scummy, every big business person is....oh wait.
Carry on.

---

Please don't make such stupid posts. The Nazis were simply providing a service which people wanted, that's not inherently a good or bad thing. It depends on what you're actually DOING, doesn't it?

What they were doing is making large amounts of money off of people who had actually spent money creating the content on their site, at their expense. They had no interest in 'freedom of information' or any of that bullshit, they just had interest in getting rich by leeching off productive people. Of course that is scummy, you dolt.

Why do you think they placed a time limit on their videos? How does that fit into their status as heroic knights of information spreading ('information' here meaning Hollywood Blockbusters, which are an inalienable human right)? They tricked people into giving their credit card details, and then took monthly fees which the people didn't seem to have the option of ever stopping. Not that they even bothered to take the time limit off for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Please don't make such stupid posts. The Nazis were simply providing a service which people wanted, that's not inherently a good or bad thing. It depends on what you're actually DOING, doesn't it?

What they were doing is making large amounts of money off of people who had actually spent money creating the content on their site, at their expense. They had no interest in 'freedom of information' or any of that bullshit, they just had interest in getting rich by leeching off productive people. Of course that is scummy, you dolt.

---

If they had crated a site called megaillegalupload, I'd agree. But I have no doubt that many, many people used that site for legitimate reasons, to upload a file to the site so that they could send it to their friends etc.
It's the same as piratebay, there were thousands of legal torrents on there. There was just millions of illegal ones too. It's not the sites fault, you cannot be put at fault for that.
That is fucking ridiculous. If I go in to the theatre and play a pirated film on the projector, does that mean the theatre owners are scummy?
They have all the resources set up to do so. Obviously it's their fault right :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Why do you think they placed a time limit on their videos? How does that fit into their status as heroic knights of information spreading ('information' here meaning Hollywood Blockbusters, which are an inalienable human right)? They tricked people into giving their credit card details, and then took monthly fees which the people didn't seem to have the option of ever stopping. Not that they even bothered to take the time limit off for them.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about. I never used the site, mainly because it had too much attention on it. Luckily too coz the feds probably have all the IP addresses of people who used the site now.

Uhh yes it's their fault if the theatre has full knowledge of it and takes a fee on the door. Hurrrr.

If you didn't know anything about the site then it's really pretty bizarre that you took issue with somebody calling it scummy.

It's the same as the thousands of other uploading sites. People are going to abuse it, what are the companies gonna do?
Youtube still has pirated stuff on there.
And since when is pirating scummy? It hasn't ever reduced sales at all of anything.

Pirating? Maybe we should change the word. A pirate steals goods on the high seas. File sharing is...wait for it...copying data. Copying data.

Even if it could be proven that file sharing reduces potential sales, which is quite clearly not the case, that only means that those bits of data were overpriced. You know what seems scummy to me? Protecting the inflated profits of big media corporations. But hey, let's pick on the internet sites trying to make the world more free.

I'm really puzzled by this doctrine that piracy isn't stealing and there's not really anything wrong with it. I mean, I'm not even saying I;ve never pirated anything, but it IS stealing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supernova

I'm really puzzled by this doctrine that piracy isn't stealing and there's not really anything wrong with it. I mean, I'm not even saying I;ve never pirated anything, but it IS stealing.

---

Copying is stealing? What about the copies you make in your brain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

Copying is stealing? What about the copies you make in your brain?

---

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001...CAT_xlarge.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supernova

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001...CAT_xlarge.png

---

I take this to mean that you have no rebuttal. I accept your surrender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supernova

I'm really puzzled by this doctrine that piracy isn't stealing and there's not really anything wrong with it. I mean, I'm not even saying I;ve never pirated anything, but it IS stealing.

---

Because there isn't. The movie and record companies have not lost a single dollar. It literally is just like advertising for them. And its free advertising too.

In a decade's time when a cinema-quality entertainment set costs a hundred bucks and you can download high-res films quickly and easily for no cost at all, you can bet your ass the film studios will be losing dollars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

In a decade's time when a cinema-quality entertainment set costs a hundred bucks and you can download high-res films quickly and easily for no cost at all, you can bet your ass the film studios will be losing dollars.

---

And why should they be immune to the march of technology? When the automobile was invented, the carriage makers lost a lot of money. Should the government have passed anti-car laws? Times change, and business models must be adapted or die. If purchasing "official" copies of movies is absurdly expensive compared to the alternatives, that's the fault of the publishers and they SHOULD be punished with lost business.

Why hasn't Hollywood implemented an iTunes-like system for movie distribution? Perhaps they thought it would be cheaper to just lobby the government, huh?

What an absurdly inappropriate analogy.

Film makers haven't been made obsolete by new and better distribution technologies. They're totally different things. Do you think 'official' DVDs cost what they do by virtue of the manufacturing process?

If the people who make and sell films go bankrupt, but the pirates still exist by having the better 'business model'... you think the pirates will continue to release new films?

Obviously this is rhetorical. I'm curious what possible business model exists in which expensive films are distributed virtually for free whilst making a profit.

People can still pay for movies they want to own. Film Studios can adapt by releasing special collector's DVDs or making their films in 3D to motivate people to see it in theaters. There's so many movies out, people simply can't afford to pay to see every single film that looks good, but the ones that are worth owning will still make money.

Blame our consumerist culture for flooding us with so much crap we can't pay for it all so we watch/listen illegally in order to find the gems.

As I think was mentioned, Valve CEO Gabe Newell said, that the only way to stop piracy is to offer a better product.
Which is what extras on DVDs and special editions etc. are for.
They could also make it cheaper, coz they're way overpriced.

The analogy made wasn't exactly the same Xei, but the point is the same. They have to adapt to new technologies or die.
It's as simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

Why hasn't Hollywood implemented an iTunes-like system for movie distribution? Perhaps they thought it would be cheaper to just lobby the government, huh?

---

iTunes sells movies.

As long as this baseless pro-piracy attitude continues to be so widespread, all you're doing is allowing personal greed to give our government all the justification it needs to violate your rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supernova

iTunes sells movies.

---

Yes but the movie companies didn't set that up did they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supernova

As long as this baseless pro-piracy attitude continues to be so widespread, all you're doing is allowing personal greed to give our government all the justification it needs to violate your rights.

---

....Right.... just ignore all our points and call our pro-piracy attitude "baseless".
Nice tactic.

I don't understand what pro-piracy attitude you're talking about, anyways. Sure, a fraction of people pirate shit but most people I know who used to pirate movies have switched over to using Netflix and only pirate movies they can't find there. There's also a process people go through involving Pandora and other websites that enables them to explore and purchase music. I don't know very many who can afford music/movies but pirate them anyways. I know some friends who pirate games but they still buy plenty of games, too. Piracy is caused by an unwillingness for companies to adapt to changing circumstances and an unwillingness to let people try before they buy even though that's practically the only way to get what you want if you're not filthy rich.

Trying before you buy allows you to pick through all the crap, that doesn't mean when you find the good shit you don't buy it. I doubt any of these gaming/film/music companies have lost any real profit due to piracy. On the contrary, it's enabling them to market their shit easier. Looking at websites that adhere to copyright laws (like Pandora or 8tracks), they're okay but they're far too limiting to be helpful. It strikes me as insane that these are considered the only justifiable ways to explore new music.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

As I think was mentioned, Valve CEO Gabe Newell said, that the only way to stop piracy is to offer a better product.

---

Although I attend the screening of these films at the cinema and purchased Jackson's extended-edition DVD collection, I must admit I torrented the trilogy's soundtrack.

d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/1978518_700b.jpg (Unfortunately, I still cannot post images.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

As I think was mentioned, Valve CEO Gabe Newell said, that the only way to stop piracy is to offer a better product.
Which is what extras on DVDs and special editions etc. are for.

---

What Gabe said is that the only thing you can do is offer a superior service. For video games, Steam is currently that service. Pirating games is simply a pain. Steam on the other hand is very easy to use, has a bunch of other features, and it also updates all of your games by itself. There isn't really an alternative yet.

With respect to movies on the other hand, like I said, it's fast approaching a point where the cimenatic experience versus the pirate experience is indistinguishable. If you stop and actually exercise some self-criticality for just two seconds, your entire idea doesn't even make any coherent sense: pirates can just as easily distribute the extra content and extended editions of films for free. There's no difference at all in the situations, and exactly the same problem.

Quote:

---

They have to adapt to new technologies or die.
It's as simple as that.

---

Piracy isn't a fundamentally new technology, and in no sane sense at all does it 'replace' the film industry; it's just getting better and far easier. You've so far failed to answer the central question: how can films possibly even be made when the new 'technology' takes those films and gives them out virtually for free?

Even with Steam, there are still games released on there that are so badly structured, when it comes to the installation and DRM process, you're better off pirating them. There's one game I still can't play, because it has double DRM (Steam and SecuROM). It just refuses to work. I guess I could contact support, but I don't really care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

What Gabe said is that the only thing you can do is offer a superior service.

---

OMFG!!!!!!!1111!!!11oneoneone. I didn't choose the exact word he said OH NOES!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

With respect to movies on the other hand, like I said, it's fast approaching a point where the cimenatic experience versus the pirate experience is indistinguishable. If you stop and actually exercise some self-criticality for just two seconds, your entire idea doesn't even make any coherent sense: pirates can just as easily distribute the extra content and extended editions of films for free. There's no difference at all in the situations, and exactly the same problem.


Piracy isn't a fundamentally new technology, and in no sane sense at all does it 'replace' the film industry; it's just getting better and far easier. You've so far failed to answer the central question: how can films possibly even be made when the new 'technology' takes those films and gives them out virtually for free?

---

ok, nobody uploads special editions. Go try to find one, they're not there.
Secondly I'm saying pirates don't choose one or the other, they either weren't going to buy it anyway or they pirate it and buy it later. Otherwise the companies would not exist right now. SO if yOu even read this exact argument I made before you would know that I think that question is invalid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

OMFG!!!!!!!1111!!!11oneoneone. I didn't choose the exact word he said OH NOES!!!!

---

No you dolt, you used one which meant something completely different. Steam is not the same thing as the stuff you purchase via Steam, unless you're doing it very wrong.

Quote:

---

ok, nobody uploads special editions. Go try to find one, they're not there.

---

Lord of the Rings Extended Edition Boxset... check.
Blade Runner Final Cut... check.
Harry Potter DVD with extras... check.
Okay, I'm bored of this now. I ask you to exercise self-criticality and you apparently don't even bother to Google for the thing you just told me to Google.

Quote:

---

Secondly I'm saying pirates don't choose one or the other, they either weren't going to buy it anyway or they pirate it and buy it later. Otherwise the companies would not exist right now. SO if yOu even read this exact argument I made before you would know that I think that question is invalid.

---

What companies? Film companies exist right now because cinemas are superior to monitors and downloading can be slow, fussy, and lower quality. I've already said all this, please keep up with the discussion.

I don't suppose you are ever going to answer the question, are you? So you believe that piracy will ultimately make the creation of new films untenable. Okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

No you dolt, you used one which meant something completely different. Steam is not the same thing as the stuff you purchase via Steam, unless you're doing it very wrong.

---

I chose the wrong word without thinking. My point still stand though, even with products.
Obviously the product has to be better not just the service, and you're fucking arguing about a better product with this cinema quality bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Lord of the Rings Extended Edition Boxset... check.
Blade Runner Final Cut... check.
Harry Potter DVD with extras... check.
Okay, I'm bored of this now. I ask you to exercise self-criticality and you apparently don't even bother to Google for the thing you just told me to Google.

---

Did you download them and check?
I've personally never seen any special editions.
They may be there for the really popular ones, people usually don't bother for the average movie afaict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

What companies? Film companies exist right now because cinemas are superior to monitors and downloading can be slow, fussy, and lower quality. I've already said all this, please keep up with the discussion.

I don't suppose you are ever going to answer the question, are you? So you believe that piracy will ultimately make the creation of new films untenable. Okay.

---

Your question is stupid, I've already said.
You're just automatically assuming that people will not buy the movies if you can download in good quality (even though you can already download blu-ray versions). Based on nothing. Everything so far says they will keep buying them, and downloading them for free. But not at a loss to the copyright holders. Your question is invalid.

Like I said before, most of my friends that used to pirate movies now only pirate movies which they can't find on netflix, or pirate movies if they don't have netflix. Most of my friends which pirate games also buy all the games they can afford to, same with music. Piracy does not stop sales, it increases them by allowing products to be more widespread. The only thing limiting people from purchasing everything is their finances. They don't pirate because they can and ynot fux the companies lulz. They pirate in order to try before buying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

....Right.... just ignore all our points and call our pro-piracy attitude "baseless".
Nice tactic.

---

I've yet to hear a solid argument in defense of it, and have been unable to determine one myself, therefore until that changes it will tend to appear that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Like I said before, most of my friends that used to pirate movies now only pirate movies which they can't find on netflix, or pirate movies if they don't have netflix. Most of my friends which pirate games also buy all the games they can afford to, same with music. Piracy does not stop sales, it increases them by allowing products to be more widespread. The only thing limiting people from purchasing everything is their finances. They don't pirate because they can and ynot fux the companies lulz. They pirate in order to try before buying.

---

Most people don't have this same sense of morals. I don't think this "try before buying" attitude is so bad. It's just that it's uncommon to find someone that only does this, even amongst those who say they do.

My point, though, was that, in light of SOPA and PIPA, piracy makes a great excuse for lawmakers to push shoddy legislation that threatens the right of people engaged in legitimate activities.

But that point's been made. I'd like to hear the core argument in favor of piracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Piracy isn't a fundamentally new technology, and in no sane sense at all does it 'replace' the film industry; it's just getting better and far easier. You've so far failed to answer the central question: how can films possibly even be made when the new 'technology' takes those films and gives them out virtually for free?

---

You've failed to understand my point (although neither have some pro-piracy people either): as technology improves, some industries grow and some die. Why would the survival of the established film industry be more important than freedom to copy information? The world, it's a changin'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supernova

But that point's been made. I'd like to hear the core argument in favor of piracy.

---

The other posters might give arguments, with varying degrees of philosophical relevance. But before I answer, let's try an exercise. Assuming you believe in free speech, what's your core argument for it (free speech)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supernova

Most people don't have this same sense of morals. I don't think this "try before buying" attitude is so bad. It's just that it's uncommon to find someone that only does this, even amongst those who say they do.

My point, though, was that, in light of SOPA and PIPA, piracy makes a great excuse for lawmakers to push shoddy legislation that threatens the right of people engaged in legitimate activities.

But that point's been made. I'd like to hear the core argument in favor of piracy.

---

This is speculation. While my experience is anecdotal, my experience is that people resort to piracy because of the unfair conditions they have been presented with. It has nothing to do with people taking advantage of new technology. People used to copy VHS tapes and sell them right on the street.

It comes down to our consumerist cultures flooding the market with products mislabeled as art, while people with minimal purchasing power are still looking to find the art. So they go through the crap for free while still spending their extra money on the art.

Kids are the only exception, but I don't know a single adult who chooses piracy over purchase just because they can, and not because of the reasons I stated above.

The only way to prove people are taking advantage just because they can is to show me how the industries are going bankrupt. They are not. They are doing just fine.