Mega rising from the ashes of Mega Upload.

[Jockdooshbag]

I am not massively knowledgable on this topic but i watched an interesting article on BBC's Click program about the new "mega" website.

What are peoples thoughts on this i.e legal / illegal / immoral or whatever?

Seems a bit dodgy to me and is basically piracy. We need these companies to make money from films and computer games etc so that they can continue making more for us to enjoy.

Kim Dotcom founder of Mega certainly knows what he is doing, did you see his house FFS???

By introducing the new URL and encryption feature to the new website he claims that they now dont know what this uploaded content is therefore they cannot be held accountable.

Smells a bit like bull to me.

[cheezemonkhai]

So how do you de-dupe encrypted data then... I mean if you don't have the encryptions keys

Music companies have gone after it wrong though.

It's easy to add SSL and some encryption, so that nobody knows what's going around.

Sure it's slower, but that's not going to worry anyone leaching overnight.

Would have made far more sense to ask for a licence on p2p music sharing services and have people agree to pay to share the stuff.

There used to be a chance of that working, but now it's been "free" and people have got used to it, it's a much harder sell.

Edited 6 February, 2013 by cheezemonkhai

[Jockdooshbag]

So how do you de-dupe encrypted data then... I mean if you don't have the encryptions keys

Whoever uploads files can post the URL on a forum and then everyone who reads that forum can then freely download the shared files. Mega know this but because they dont see the file content they feel they are not responsible.

Doesnt make sense as they still know files are being shared illegally and they provide the storage to facilitate this. Its like they are turning a blind eye to illegal activities that they know is happening and that they provide the process for.

I would love free files i.e games for example but if this resulted in a certain games developer going out of business then its me that loses in the end as they wont be making any more of the games i used to like.

Same goes for music and films etc.

IMO its theft pure and simple and its nothing more than legal loophole exploitation that enables sites like these to exist.

Why should a music artist and producer spend time and money making music just for heaps of people to get it for free? Why should they get it for free? Answer - they shouldnt, they should be paying for it.

Might be better for the authorities to clamp down on the people downloading these free files rather than tackiling Mega themselves as the outcome would be the same i.e cutting out the demand therefore making the website redundant.

Im sure its not that simple and easy though but its still wrong in my book.

[ScoobyChris]

Whoever uploads files can post the URL on a forum and then everyone who reads that forum can then freely download the shared files. Mega know this but because they dont see the file content they feel they are not responsible.

It's certainly an interesting debate and it does bring into question who is responsible. At the end of the day, Mega are just a web host where people can host files (that may or may not be legal) and publish them to the web. Is this any different to sites like Photobucket where I could quite easily post illegal images and publish a web link to them? Can a fileserving company reasonably be expected to analyse/police every file that is uploaded to determine if it is illegal or legal? What if the user employs encryption (eg a password'd rar file) - are they allowed to atempt to "crack" it?

Why should a music artist and producer spend time and money making music just for heaps of people to get it for free? Why should they get it for free? Answer - they shouldnt, they should be paying for it.

And yet, I can turn on the radio or music TV and hear a huge range of songs for free. Are people who record TV or from the radio any better from a moral standpoint?

Might be better for the authorities to clamp down on the people downloading these free files rather than tackiling Mega themselves as the outcome would be the same i.e cutting out the demand therefore making the website redundant.

Quite possibly, although imho that's a mammoth undertaking and it would be easy enough for someone wanting to download a file to jump on someone's insecure wireless LAN and remain "anonymous".

Ultimately, it comes down to a culture shift where downloading films, music, etc is seen as a victimless crime and maybe the problem should be addressed at source rather than at a point further down the line where circumvention is fairly trivial.

Chris

[gac]

So how do you de-dupe encrypted data then... I mean if you don't have the encryptions keys

My take on it is that this was slightly mis-reported, and they dedupe within your account only. I use SpiderOak for backup which does something similar; the same file on my desktop and laptop encrypts to the same data which is deduped. Someone else uploads the same file, the encrypted block is different, so gets stored again.

Of course if I'm wrong, and they do dedupe across separate accounts, then that's a very, very flawed encryption/security model.

[AlphaPapa]

Why should a music artist and producer spend time and money making music just for heaps of people to get it for free? Why should they get it for free? Answer - they shouldnt, they should be paying for it.

I would argue that if they got into the business for the sole purpose of making money, rather than the love of their art then they are not someone i would want to listen to any way.

Makes these things 'affordable' and piracy would take a massive blow. If it cost me £3.50 to see a film at the cinema i would go all the time, instead it costs a couple £20+ in tickets alone. If you also reduced the time between cinema release and an affordable 'other media' be that DVD or streaming then people would be less inclined to download it illegally to see it sooner.

[Mort]

At the end of the day, Mega are just a web host where people can host files (that may or may not be legal) and publish them to the web. Is this any different to sites like Photobucket where I could quite easily post illegal images and publish a web link to them?

But that would be against the Terms of Service and Photobucket would have a legal responsibily to remove the copyrighted material.

By uploading, you are confirming that the Content is yours—no one else's—and that the uploading and use of your Content does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights, intellectual property rights or human rights of somebody else. If we learn that you are infringing others' rights or are using Content that is not yours, Photobucket has the right to remove this Content and you agree that you are responsible for any costs associated with the infringement.

All hosts are required to take 'reasonable measures' to ensure that illegal content is not held on their storage. This is more a question of whether they are doing 'enough'.

The real question is whether storing a file is an issue, or whether it only becomes one when that file is then shared to someone else. I have a load of music on my Dropbox so I can play it on my work computer - but I don't share links to download it. From the hosts perspective I have copyrighted material on my account - is that an issue?

[ScoobyChris]

But that would be against the Terms of Service and Photobucket would have a legal responsibily to remove the copyrighted material.

Agreed for copyrighted but illegal covers a broader spectrum than that and could refer to an indecent image that I create which contravenes local law.

Chris

[Mort]

That's also covered in the ToS though alongside IP violations.

Types of Content Limits: At Photobucket, we strive to create a place where everyone feels welcome, so please be mindful of others. Broadly speaking, please do not upload Content you didn't create, that violates somebody else's rights, demeans another person, is offensive or harassing, seeks personal information or passwords, is a form of spam or that is illegal. We reserve the right to terminate your use for violation of these prohibitions or similar activities.

[...]

For example, please note that it is our policy to terminate the accounts of Members who repeatedly infringe the intellectual property rights of others. We have a similar policy for Members who violate these Terms or commit illegal acts using the Site or Photobucket Services—although we may, in our discretion, instead deny, restrict or suspend access to all or any part of the Site or Photobucket Services or terminate a Member's account when something similar occurs.

Again - it's not about checking for the material per se but taking reasonable measures to stop it happening and taking action when reported or brought to attention. Checking all photos against local laws would be impossible, but removing something that has been reported and/or blocking the member from the service would be acceptable. Is that enough to stop it happening in the first place though?

[cheezemonkhai]

My take on it is that this was slightly mis-reported, and they dedupe within your account only. I use SpiderOak for backup which does something similar; the same file on my desktop and laptop encrypts to the same data which is deduped. Someone else uploads the same file, the encrypted block is different, so gets stored again.

Of course if I'm wrong, and they do dedupe across separate accounts, then that's a very, very flawed encryption/security model.

Fine, but my point was... if you can dedupe encrypted data at all there are two options:

1) Your encryption is rubbish

2) You know the original data, so must have the key.

At the end of the day there's a big old pile of hype somewhere.

[Jockdooshbag]

I would argue that if they got into the business for the sole purpose of making money, rather than the love of their art then they are not someone i would want to listen to any way.

Makes these things 'affordable' and piracy would take a massive blow. If it cost me £3.50 to see a film at the cinema i would go all the time, instead it costs a couple £20+ in tickets alone. If you also reduced the time between cinema release and an affordable 'other media' be that DVD or streaming then people would be less inclined to download it illegally to see it sooner.

I reackon most artists make music for the love of it and when you become popular due to people liking you then the riches follow. By your logic no-one would make music as they couldnt afford to feed themselves due to "doing it for the love of it. So you reakon succesful artists should be punished as people like their music so much that they sell millions of records and make millions of pounds? I dont think so.

Going to the cinema, buying a game, buying a song or buying a DVD or whatever is not that expensive. They are essentially luxury items as they are not essential for living hence why they cost more than bread and milk etc.

If you grudge paying to go to the cinema then dont go, or get a better paid job but its not an excuse for theft.

You deem something expensive but that cost is only relative to your circumstances. If you cant afford the luxury then you dont deserve to have it im afraid. I want a ferrari but i cant afford one so will it be ok if i steal one as ferrari are obvioulsy corporate rip off merchants??

Edited 6 February, 2013 by Jockdooshbag

[AlphaPapa]

I reackon most artists make music for the love of it and when you become popular due to people liking you then the riches follow. By your logic no-one would make music as they couldnt afford to feed themselves due to "doing it for the love of it. So you reakon succesful artists should be punished as people like their music so much that they sell millions of records and make millions of pounds? I dont think so.

Going to the cinema, buying a game, buying a song or buying a DVD or whatever is not that expensive. They are essentially luxury items as they are not essential for living hence why they cost more than bread and milk etc.

If you grudge paying to go to the cinema then dont go, or get a better paid job but its not an excuse for theft.

You deem something expensive but that cost is only relative to your circumstances. If you cant afford the luxury then you dont deserve to have it im afraid. I want a ferrari but i cant afford one so will it be ok if i steal one as ferrari are obvioulsy corporate rip off merchants??

Woah there tiger! Before you continue calling me a thief and insulting my income..

At no point did i say performers deserve to earn nothing! What i was saying was most artists just want their music to be appreciated and listened to, hence the big rise in artists simply giving their music away. How much does the original artist get from the sale of a CD any way and how much goes to record company share holders?

I would argue that going to the cinema is very expensive whether you earn £1m a year or £10k a year. Ferrari ownership and an evening out at the cinema are hardly comparable are they? I am not saying people have the right to steal simply because they can't afford it, i am saying by making it more affordable people might reconsider their opinion and wouldn't mind paying for it. I think services like Netflix are on their way there, but the content is limited and isn't always that new.

You could apply the same argument to drugs for example. If you dispensed heroin over the counter from a controlled source for free, would you wipe out the drugs industry in the UK overnight? You would probably also stop a hell of a lot of burglaries, muggings and car crime. I am not saying its a brilliant idea, but it is food for thought.

[gac]

You deem something expensive but that cost is only relative to your circumstances. If you cant afford the luxury then you dont deserve to have it im afraid. I want a ferrari but i cant afford one so will it be ok if i steal one as ferrari are obvioulsy corporate rip off merchants??

Sorry, but you've made the classic mistake there. A slightly better (but still not perfect) analogy goes like this:

"I want a ferrari but i cant afford one so will it be ok if i create an exact replica of someone else's without affecting them in any way as ferrari are obvioulsy corporate rip off merchants??" to which the answer is pretty much "yes" every time.

Obviously it's not OK to steal a car, but that's because you're physically removing something from someone else. Stuff I know I want, I buy. Stuff I don't know I want, I won't buy until I've heard it, and then if it's actually any good, I'll buy it. So you can't count me as a "lost sale to piracy" because unless I was absolutely sure it would be good, I wouldn't spend my money on it anyway. So in fact, piracy has helped because it's increased my chance of buying something from zero to more-than-zero. All academic now mind since I pay Spotify a fiver a month and get as much music as I want, which gets me through the days at work and evenings at home without resorting to illegal downloads.

[@Lee]

Doesnt make sense as they still know files are being shared illegally and they provide the storage to facilitate this. Its like they are turning a blind eye to illegal activities that they know is happening and that they provide the process for.

change the words files for 'money'

Doesnt make sense as they still know money is being distributed illegally and they provide the storage to facilitate this. Its like they are turning a blind eye to illegal activities that they know is happening and that they provide the process for.

That's what Swiss banks do, and governments. That's the problem, somebody's working their patch and they don't like it

[Jockdooshbag]

Woah there tiger! Before you continue calling me a thief and insulting my income..

At no point did i say performers deserve to earn nothing! What i was saying was most artists just want their music to be appreciated and listened to, hence the big rise in artists simply giving their music away. How much does the original artist get from the sale of a CD any way and how much goes to record company share holders?

I would argue that going to the cinema is very expensive whether you earn £1m a year or £10k a year. Ferrari ownership and an evening out at the cinema are hardly comparable are they? I am not saying people have the right to steal simply because they can't afford it, i am saying by making it more affordable people might reconsider their opinion and wouldn't mind paying for it. I think services like Netflix are on their way there, but the content is limited and isn't always that new.

You could apply the same argument to drugs for example. If you dispensed heroin over the counter from a controlled source for free, would you wipe out the drugs industry in the UK overnight? You would probably also stop a hell of a lot of burglaries, muggings and car crime. I am not saying its a brilliant idea, but it is food for thought.

I dont remember calling you a theif but piracy is theft thats the law.

Why should we pander to the criminals? Oh drugs are bad lets give them away. Thats not the answer.

I also think you are wearing rose tinted glasses when it comes to music artists. Coldplay gave away an album but yet they are loaded. You have missed the point however its not the artists responsibility to pander to music pirates. The law states piracy is theft so that is the end of it, you may think the law is wrong and thats up to you but changing laws to suit the criminals breaking the laws is total nonsense.

Car crime is rife up in Aberdeen at the moment particularly Audis getting nicked. Your analogy suggets Audi should give their cars away or massively reduce their price to encourage the little scroats to stop stealing and therefore cure the epidemic.

Little scroats are housebreaking and terrorising families to fund their drug habbit so your logical solution is to give them the stuff for free? Obvioulsy they will then all go out and get volunteer work to help the less fortunate. Dont be so naieve.

If i had £1 million pounds i dare say i wouldnt think the cinema was expensive how you think that the cost of something is not relative is beyond me. It couldnt be more relative or directly linked to your wealth, the problem is you and me cant think like a millionaire as we arent millionares hence why you make assessments on the expense of an item based on your current level of income.

Finally, netflix is pants. The films have all been out for ages on sky box office so id rather pay £3.99 to see the latest films that i want to see as i dont think £3.99 is expensive. If it is then fine wait months to see them on netflix but dont watch pirate copies.

No matter how you try and argue for piracy the bottom line is its illegal and if anyone does it or uses it then they are a crminal and i dont want to pander to criminals although you do.

[Jockdooshbag]

Sorry, but you've made the classic mistake there. A slightly better (but still not perfect) analogy goes like this:

"I want a ferrari but i cant afford one so will it be ok if i create an exact replica of someone else's without affecting them in any way as ferrari are obvioulsy corporate rip off merchants??" to which the answer is pretty much "yes" every time.

Obviously it's not OK to steal a car, but that's because you're physically removing something from someone else. Stuff I know I want, I buy. Stuff I don't know I want, I won't buy until I've heard it, and then if it's actually any good, I'll buy it. So you can't count me as a "lost sale to piracy" because unless I was absolutely sure it would be good, I wouldn't spend my money on it anyway. So in fact, piracy has helped because it's increased my chance of buying something from zero to more-than-zero. All academic now mind since I pay Spotify a fiver a month and get as much music as I want, which gets me through the days at work and evenings at home without resorting to illegal downloads.

Your conclusion is that piracy has helped??? Really.

Do you honestly think that everyone who illegally downloads a file, say a song for example, then if they like it they then go and buy it?? Of course they dont.

Not sure what your on about when you say its ok to create an exact replica of a ferrari as its not ok its illegal as well. An example of this is Samsung getting fined millions for copying Apple as their product was far too similar to the Apple prodcut.

You seem to think these piracy and copyright laws are not real laws and they are victim less crimes but im afraid you are wrong. Piracy is theft pure and simple and effectively "Mega" are facilitating it IMO. They are expoiting a loophole but this does not make it right. They have already been shut down before for their illegal activities so i hardly think they have turned over a new leaf.

People seemt to think that corporations make to much money anyway so this in some way excuses piracy crimes? This logic is nonsense as is basically the reasoning of someone trying to justify their illegal actions.

"So in fact, piracy has helped because it's increased my chance of buying something from zero to more-than-zero" So what your actually saying is that you illegally download files and then buy the ones you like? What you fail to understand is that you have commited a crime plus what about the files you downloaded that you didnt like? You didnt pay for them did you?

Just because you havent physically taken something from someone else does not make it less of a crime or less of a theft.

If you created something electronically as it was how you made your living then heaps of peolple managed to obtain it from you illegally for free thus reducing your income would you be happy and think its ok this piracy is helping me? Im sorry but you are deluded.

Edited 7 February, 2013 by Jockdooshbag

[David 8]

There no money in CD sales anyway !!

Mechandising and tours are the money spinners, have yuou seen how much a T shirt at a concert is ??

What with file sharing and tape to tape (old skool) they may as well give it away as a lost cause as said above, I wonder how much THe Rolling Stones have lost in the digital age, I'd guess it wasn't that much as they bang out a pretty poor album which no-one buys anyway, but tour forever and make a killing.

[Huskoda]

I don't know why people equate copyright infringement with theft. It does not deprive the original owner of something.

If someone invented a way to indefinitely replicate petrol for free, they would be hailed a hero. For some bizarre reason, replicating music for free is illegal and must be banned. The rules just don't fit reality. Once the music is recorded, there are no significant further costs in its distribution, unlike the days of vinyl/cassette/cd. The media cartels have a resource that is pretty much infinite and free, yet they are attempting to enforce artificial scarcity on it just to hold onto their salaries.

Their methods I also do not agree with. Early on with CDs, they attempted to prevent copying by effectively inserting deliberate errors into the tracks. Then companies like Sony put root-kits on their CDs to infect your computer and prevent you using it in ways that are not necessarily illegal and even if it were, they have no right to try and enforce. Also media levies. Please tell me how that is fair and reasonable in any way? Especially as the law still doesn't give you the right to then use the media that is taxed for the purpose it is taxed for! And I will not go into the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, which spread itself to over here.

As for it being victimless, it is far from that. I have seen many cases in the news of individuals who have had their lives completely ruined by these cartels through ridiculously huge penalties just because they download songs. I honestly think you would easily get a lesser sentence if you went into a store and stole the music you wanted rather than created a copy at home.

How about music/film that is no longer being sold? Is it still unfair to torrent that? What about media not available in your part of the world? Or by buying a DVD/Bluray from another region, is that still something you should be punished for? Just because something is illegal does not mean it is wrong. The widespread acceptance of copying attests to that.

Also, there is the view that piracy is pretty much free advertising for them anyway, something they already pay for. Would Psy's Gangam Style be the success it was if it wasn't plastered all over YouTube for free? The guy has made vastly more money from piracy of his music.

Besides which, I'd love to know just how much from all these fines and levies actually makes it back to the artists who did the work to produce the music? I would guess its not far from nothing.

Sorry, between their manipulation of the law, their demand for artificial scarcity and their relentless and ruthless persecution of the fans of their products these companies will get no sympathy from me.

[hertsnminds]

I don't know why people equate copyright infringement with theft. It does not deprive the original owner of something.

So the VAG group invent the DSG gearbox and every car maker in the World can copy how it works and use it at no cost, Bosch invent the ABS system and no one else who uses it has to pay a royalty fee.

It is not just about the thing itself be that a piece of music or something physical. It will take any musician or engineer years of studying and many failed attempts to get something right. This has a cost, how do they live during this time, should there not be some reward for this? If you want films to cost less to make why not pay actors less money, if you want your Sky subscription to cost less why not pay footballers less money?

If there is little or no reward for taking the time to create a piece of art or invent something new how many people would take the time to do it. Maybe this is a good idea as it would stop shows like the X Factor being on TV as no one would try to get rich by becoming a "star"

[Huskoda]

So the VAG group invent the DSG gearbox and every car maker in the World can copy how it works and use it at no cost, Bosch invent the ABS system and no one else who uses it has to pay a royalty fee.

It is not just about the thing itself be that a piece of music or something physical. It will take any musician or engineer years of studying and many failed attempts to get something right. This has a cost, how do they live during this time, should there not be some reward for this? If you want films to cost less to make why not pay actors less money, if you want your Sky subscription to cost less why not pay footballers less money?

If there is little or no reward for taking the time to create a piece of art or invent something new how many people would take the time to do it. Maybe this is a good idea as it would stop shows like the X Factor being on TV as no one would try to get rich by becoming a "star"

What happens when someone invents a cure for cancer? That will no doubt be patented and copyrighted. The choice then is realistically to either enforce that so one company lives at the cost of millions of lives or ignore it to be benefit of everyone else. Yes, music and a cure for cancer are not comparable, but they are both things covered by this section of law.

Is it really that bad for society as a whole if someone is free to take a piece of technology, improve it and make it more cheaply and sell it? That's how progress happens. Almost nothing is invented in a vacuum, ideas build on each other. If someone can take the DSG and make it even better great, consumers win. ABS being ubiquitous saves lives. Go look at the patent wars over phones for example. Its impossible to start your own company as everything is covered and the barrier for entry to even try is too high.

I fully understand what you are trying to say, yes, the artist should be able to make something from their work, I just do not agree with the current system for it. Honestly, I don't know what the correct answer is. I do like the approach of Netflix and similar services. You pay the (entirely reasonable, in my view) flat rate for their hosting and bandwidth and you get to watch their content.

I just really do not like the idea of 'this costs us nothing for you to have one of, but you can't have it'. I believe replicators and stuff like that will be invented, it will be a marvellous technology as you will be able to print off spare parts for any car you have for example, if they are not regulated to death and banned because they upset someone's business model.

[Jockdooshbag]

I am still struggling to understsand why people think they should get stuff for nothing. If we all got everything for nothing then nothing would get made in the first place.

I cant think how to make it simpler. You may argue that a certain product is too expensive but ultimately that price is dictated by demand. Music sales are massive therefore the majority of people must think the price is reasonable otherwise they wouldnt pay it.

Not sure how drugs got into the equation but the same analogy applies as it costs billions of pounds to carry out scientific reasearch to invent or discover these drugs and if they were merely given away then there would less insentive for future research to be carried out to discover a drug that may well save your life.

You want something then you have to pay for it.

An example that is simple to understand is that if you build your own house it will cost you less as you have put the effort in. If you get a builder to do it then why should it cost the same? It has to cost more as your paying for a service.

Make your own music if you want it free or dont buy it but justifying a criminal offence becasue you think a song is too expensive is a joke. Are songs not like pennies or a couple of quid nowadays?? If you cant afford that then how do you feed yourself?

People want what they dont have, we all do, the difference is some of us know the difference between right and wrong and understand that if you want something then you have to pay for it.

Someone said that if the DSG gearbox is copied then the customer wins. How do you figure that? Basically what happens is that no car manufacturers would then bother developing inovative technologies anymore as there is no incentive therefore the customer loses as no-one bothers their ass conducting expensive research only to have everyone else copy it for free.

Its really simple in fairness, would you do your job for free? No you wouldnt so why do you expect others to do so? People need paid for the services they provide. Those who dont want to pay are crooks and freeloaders. Mega effectively provide an avenue for crooks and freeloaders to carry out their illegal activities.

Piracy is a crime no matter how you try and justify it on a forum. And because it is illegal then it is wrong. You may not agree with it but it laws are not up for debate.

[Huskoda]

I am still struggling to understsand why people think they should get stuff for nothing. If we all got everything for nothing then nothing would get made in the first place.

Flipping bits in a computer effectively is getting something from nothing. When you download a song off torrents or itunes, that's all that is happening. Except one costs money, the other doesn't. There is no manufacturing process, no warehouse full of boxes. The cost to make one is identical to the cost to make 1 million. The people getting stuff for nothing are the distributors, technically.

I cant think how to make it simpler. You may argue that a certain product is too expensive but ultimately that price is dictated by demand. Music sales are massive therefore the majority of people must think the price is reasonable otherwise they wouldnt pay it.

Prices are also set by supply. When the supply is infinite (flipped bits on a harddisk) what happens to the price? It drops to zero. Hence the reason the media cartels are trying desperately to enforce an artificial scarcity.

Not sure how drugs got into the equation but the same analogy applies as it costs billions of pounds to carry out scientific reasearch to invent or discover these drugs and if they were merely given away then there would less insentive for future research to be carried out to discover a drug that may well save your life.

What use is inventing a drug if the people who need it cannot afford the license for it (I admit there may be costs in its manufacture, but the majority is going to be spent on the license)? And are you really saying nothing got invented before copyright/patents? Though I concede a free for all wouldn't work perfectly either. I admit I don't know what the perfect answer is.

An example that is simple to understand is that if you build your own house it will cost you less as you have put the effort in. If you get a builder to do it then why should it cost the same? It has to cost more as your paying for a service.

You're looking at physical things that cost resources, time and effort to reproduce. Apples and oranges. You're paying for the finite resource of the builder's time and skill in creating that one house. If you can download a house and have it pop up that would be marvellous. The only issue should be the finite resource of the land its on.

Make your own music if you want it free or dont buy it but justifying a criminal offence becasue you think a song is too expensive is a joke. Are songs not like pennies or a couple of quid nowadays?? If you cant afford that then how do you feed yourself?

People want what they dont have, we all do, the difference is some of us know the difference between right and wrong and understand that if you want something then you have to pay for it.

I neither download nor buy music. I don't have media needs that aren't fulfilled by broadcast tv/radio. I don't pay for that beyond the TV license. Is that wrong, receiving that and not paying them for each film/episode?

Someone said that if the DSG gearbox is copied then the customer wins. How do you figure that? Basically what happens is that no car manufacturers would then bother developing inovative technologies anymore as there is no incentive therefore the customer loses as no-one bothers their ass conducting expensive research only to have everyone else copy it for free.

Innovation is stifled if you cannot work on the lessons of those before you. The barrier for entry is very high due to a lot of things being covered by so many patents so we don't exactly have many working on this stuff anyway. I can't say how it would look without that. Possibly the same, for the reasons you gave.

Its really simple in fairness, would you do your job for free? No you wouldnt so why do you expect others to do so? People need paid for the services they provide. Those who dont want to pay are crooks and freeloaders. Mega effectively provide an avenue for crooks and freeloaders to carry out their illegal activities.

I get paid once to do my job once. I'm not the one screaming that I should be paid every time my software is used for the rest of my life and my children should also be paid for it 70+ years after my death. Yet a certain industry considers that a right and will do everything possible to defend it.

Piracy is a crime no matter how you try and justify it on a forum. And because it is illegal then it is wrong. You may not agree with it but it laws are not up for debate.

I still don't follow how illegal must always be wrong and legal always be right. Laws are very much up for debate and are frequently created/expanded/amended/repealed.

[cheezemonkhai]

How do you justify the fines they make up then?

Oh look little johnny "stole" 100 songs, so that is some figure multiplied by a bit more and 10 million pounds of loss.

At the end of the day, regardless of the fact that people deserve to be paid for their work, the current fad of copyright theft, is purely a reflection on the music industries broken business model. Their prices are too high and they release pap.

People are not willing to pay high high prices for pap. Most people who download would not have purchased it ever, so there was no actual loss.

Sure they have it, but then the fine should be high street sale price for each album not thousands.

If the music industry fixed it's business model, then theft would die.

Seriously 99p per track on iTunes is a joke too. The quality is poor and the price for an album is high.

[Jockdooshbag]

I wont quote the previous posts to try and keep things tidier but there are decent points made but for me piracy is still theft. Its not so much the re-poduction costs thats the issue its the cost of making a song for example in the first place. Recording studios cost money and a succesfull artist is also selling on their name. Some no-namer you havent heard of wont sell consistantlyb as a house hold artist. To become a household name takes a long time in most occasions granted some pop stars appear overnight but the big sellers are normally the long established well known acts. Bottom line is you have to pay for this effort they have put in over the years.

Music costs nothing to re-produce but its the up front production costs your money is paying for. Same goes for re-mapping a car engine yet no-one is moaning about paying for them. Should they be pirated as well as uploading a generic map costs nothing yet the research initailly is where your hard earned goes.

Same for lawers etc the money you pay them is because the did the front end work by going to university for 7 years.

Any kind of research or even media nowadays is like this i.e all front end costs with minimal re-production costs. Where the cost originated though is irrelevant as if you illegally download a file then you arent paying towards these costs.

Lets not differentiate between some artists i.e old songs from 20 years ago or brand new stuff just released as the principle is the same. If it is not legally allowed to be shared then by doing so you are breaking the law. When i say this is not up for debate i mean by you and me, we just have to live within the law. Certain laws will get debated in parliment but thats not our issue.

Seems im in the minority however as i dont mind paying 99p for a song or £3.99 for a box office movie on SKY as if i dont pay them they wont make any more. I could easily wait a few months and get the song for cheaper and the movie probably for free as thats how it works but if i wanted to jump the queue and get new stuff now for free then laws have to be broken.

I would happily pay to watch a film in the cinema but it seems people grudge doing this but i still havent heard a compelling argument to justify it. Just because you want it isnt good enough IMO.

Now i think about it i would guess that more people pay legally for their stuff than illegally download it so maybe im not in the minority. Even if i am its a minority id rather be in away from the crims.

[Huskoda]

Don't get me wrong, I do believe people should be paid for their work and I do understand that making the music/film costs, I just don't like how the industry works at the moment and think certain practises (like the mentioned fines) are out of whack with reality and their heavy negative influence on surrounding industries is unacceptable and damaging.

Remapping is interesting. You pay for say a 140 engine and remap it to the 170. The manufacturer 'loses' a sale of the more powerful engine. Its a hairy subject and don't take that as an attack