Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: yuezhi on January 19, 2012, 05:06:32 pm
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16642369
what a coincidence that it happens a day after the blackout. personally, i'm not fond of megaupload anyways since it only lets you download one file at a time... or am i thinking of some other site?
EDIT: i guess the kardashians love having pics of their stupidity exchanged and that's why they support megaupload.
-
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/justice-department-charges-leaders-of-megaupload-with-widespread-online-copyright-infringement
-
And Anon retaliates, shutting down fbi.gov (and thus making it impossible to read that press release) :P
-
What's the odds that SOPA supporters will try to twist that retaliation into "And this kind of thing is why we need SOPA!" (and yes, I know they have nothing to do with each other, but do the lawmakers?)
Round and round it goes...
-
those guys are fking retards
edit: was talking about anon but applies to SOPA supporters also.
-
does lulz do anything nowaydays? atm i figure they're either doing low profile stuff unworthy of the headlines or they've finished their mission and picked up shop or they've been shut down by an0n or law enforcement completely, reasons being rivalry for the former and justice for the latter.
-
they quit abruptly, did one or two things after that, but stopped the rampage.
-
A coupleof (alleged) members got arrested, so they stopped.
The copyright war is entering full swing. I think disturbing changes are ahead.
-
And Anon retaliates, shutting down fbi.gov (and thus making it impossible to read that press release) :P
Well, if you can't read it... (I can now, but there might be another strike, so I will just post it here:)
WASHINGTON—Seven individuals and two corporations have been charged in the United States with running an international organized criminal enterprise allegedly responsible for massive worldwide online piracy of numerous types of copyrighted works through Megaupload.com and other related sites, generating more than $175 million in criminal proceeds and causing more than half a billion dollars in harm to copyright owners, the U.S. Justice Department and FBI announced today.
This action is among the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States and directly targets the misuse of a public content storage and distribution site to commit and facilitate intellectual property crime.
The individuals and two corporations—Megaupload Limited and Vestor Limited—were indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia on Jan. 5, 2012, and charged with engaging in a racketeering conspiracy, conspiring to commit copyright infringement, conspiring to commit money laundering, and two substantive counts of criminal copyright infringement. The individuals each face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison on the charge of conspiracy to commit racketeering, five years in prison on the charge of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, 20 years in prison on the charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and five years in prison on each of the substantive charges of criminal copyright infringement.
The indictment alleges that the criminal enterprise is led by Kim Dotcom, aka Kim Schmitz, and Kim Tim Jim Vestor, 37, a resident of both Hong Kong and New Zealand. Dotcom founded Megaupload Limited and is the director and sole shareholder of Vestor Limited, which has been used to hold his ownership interests in the Mega-affiliated sites.
In addition, the following alleged members of the Mega conspiracy were charged in the indictment:
Finn Batato, 38, a citizen and resident of Germany, who is the chief marketing officer;
Julius Bencko, 35, a citizen and resident of Slovakia, who is the graphic designer;
Sven Echternach, 39, a citizen and resident of Germany, who is the head of business development;
Mathias Ortmann, 40, a citizen of Germany and resident of both Germany and Hong Kong, who is the chief technical officer, co-founder and director;
Andrus Nomm, 32, a citizen of Estonia and resident of both Turkey and Estonia, who is a software programmer and head of the development software division;
Bram van der Kolk, aka Bramos, 29, a Dutch citizen and resident of both the Netherlands and New Zealand, who oversees programming and the underlying network structure for the Mega conspiracy websites.
Dotcom, Batato, Ortmann, and van der Kolk were arrested today in Auckland, New Zealand, by New Zealand authorities, who executed provisional arrest warrants requested by the United States. Bencko, Echternach, and Nomm remain at large. Today, law enforcement also executed more than 20 search warrants in the United States and eight countries, seized approximately $50 million in assets, and targeted sites where Megaupload has servers in Ashburn, Va., Washington, D.C., the Netherlands, and Canada. In addition, the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., ordered the seizure of 18 domain names associated with the alleged Mega conspiracy.
According to the indictment, for more than five years the conspiracy has operated websites that unlawfully reproduce and distribute infringing copies of copyrighted works, including movies—often before their theatrical release—music, television programs, electronic books, and business and entertainment software on a massive scale. The conspirators’ content hosting site, Megaupload.com, is advertised as having more than one billion visits to the site, more than 150 million registered users, 50 million daily visitors, and accounting for four percent of the total traffic on the Internet. The estimated harm caused by the conspiracy’s criminal conduct to copyright holders is well in excess of $500 million. The conspirators allegedly earned more than $175 million in illegal profits through advertising revenue and selling premium memberships.
The indictment states that the conspirators conducted their illegal operation using a business model expressly designed to promote uploading of the most popular copyrighted works for many millions of users to download. The indictment alleges that the site was structured to discourage the vast majority of its users from using Megaupload for long-term or personal storage by automatically deleting content that was not regularly downloaded. The conspirators further allegedly offered a rewards program that would provide users with financial incentives to upload popular content and drive web traffic to the site, often through user-generated websites known as linking sites. The conspirators allegedly paid users whom they specifically knew uploaded infringing content and publicized their links to users throughout the world.
In addition, by actively supporting the use of third-party linking sites to publicize infringing content, the conspirators did not need to publicize such content on the Megaupload site. Instead, the indictment alleges that the conspirators manipulated the perception of content available on their servers by not providing a public search function on the Megaupload site and by not including popular infringing content on the publicly available lists of top content downloaded by its users.
As alleged in the indictment, the conspirators failed to terminate accounts of users with known copyright infringement, selectively complied with their obligations to remove copyrighted materials from their servers and deliberately misrepresented to copyright holders that they had removed infringing content. For example, when notified by a rights holder that a file contained infringing content, the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in place to make it seamlessly available to millions of users to access through any one of the many duplicate links available for that file.
The indictment charges the defendants with conspiring to launder money by paying users through the sites’ uploader reward program and paying companies to host the infringing content.
The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia and the Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs, Organized Crime and Gang Section, and Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section also assisted with this case.
The investigation was initiated and led by the FBI at the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center), with assistance from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations. Substantial and critical assistance was provided by the New Zealand Police, the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand (OFCANZ), the Crown Law Office of New Zealand,and the Office of the Solicitor General for New Zealand; Hong Kong Customs and the Hong Kong Department of Justice; the Netherlands Police Agency and the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Serious Fraud and Environmental Crime in Rotterdam; London’s Metropolitan Police Service; Germany’s Bundeskriminalamt and the German Public Prosecutors; and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Greater Toronto Area (GTA) Federal Enforcement Section and the Integrated Technological Crime Unit and the Canadian Department of Justice’s International Assistance Group. Authorities in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the Philippines also provided assistance.
This case is part of efforts being undertaken by the Department of Justice Task Force on Intellectual Property (IP Task Force) to stop the theft of intellectual property. Attorney General Eric Holder created the IP Task Force to combat the growing number of domestic and international intellectual property crimes, protect the health and safety of American consumers, and safeguard the nation’s economic security against those who seek to profit illegally from American creativity, innovation, and hard work. The IP Task Force seeks to strengthen intellectual property rights protection through heightened criminal and civil enforcement, greater coordination among federal, state, and local law enforcement partners, and increased focus on international enforcement efforts, including reinforcing relationships with key foreign partners and U.S. industry leaders. To learn more about the IP Task Force, go to www.justice.gov/dag/iptaskforce.
-
Conspiracy charges... I feel that's pretty ironic. The way they frame the wording it's like 'terrorists on computers' or something.
Anyway, this to me shows the USA lost the moral high ground (this has quite an effect around the world as the USA seems to be an example to many other countries) and that the internet as we know it may soon (ie: several years) be replaced by a intranet type system (Corporate Internet2, pay per view/minute apparently). Typical that after the backlash against SOPA and PIPA they respond like this.
I think it's a good time to think about alternatives to communication, contact, hosting, and so on to preserve places like HLP from becoming unreachable in the future. The internet won't get shut down immediately but when you still have time to work on alternatives and communicate them I think it should be done.
-
If Megaupload is down, I'm sure Mediafire, Rapidshare and other similar sites are sure to follow
Afterall, they're really all the same thing
-
Perhaps this also has to do with it?
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-to-sue-universal-joins-fight-against-sopa-111212/
Read full article, it also has to do with something called 'Mega Song' that they wanted to put out.
Furthermore, if they can already shut places like this down, why even need SOPA/PIPA?
-
So nope I didn't read the whole thing, but I am just wondering.... did Megaupload actually do anything other than allow other people to host content?
I mean... how about next, we ban car rentals because cars are always used in robberies,
ban private ownership of houses because criminals usually hide in privately owned houses
why don't we take down airlines because a terrorist used one of their planes, sheez.
I.e. did they actually do any crimes (money laundering was mentioned), in which case this whole mess becomes understandable, or were they merely banned for allowing people to host files?
-
they ALLEGEDLY "encouraged" copyright infringement for monetary gain (advertising). the amount of detail they describe what they think is the master-plot of the site founders/owners is quite something. i'd love to see what evidence they have to back it up other than pure speculation. hell they even called selling the premium memberships criminal.
as for the rest of the file sites following, i HIGHLY doubt that. there are so many different ones it's rediculous. there's no way they think they can actually put a stop to this method of downloading. to me, this smells of the same "sue the pants off them" scheme for a quick buck that copyright "protection" groups have been using forever. i know this is a criminal case, but the civil suits are sure to follow. oh, and $500 million in damage MY ASS. assuming every copy downloaded is a lost sale is just flat out wrong.
-
As much as I think actions like this are silly and pointless and how IP laws tend to suck and all that usual stuff:
As alleged in the indictment, the conspirators failed to terminate accounts of users with known copyright infringement, selectively complied with their obligations to remove copyrighted materials from their servers and deliberately misrepresented to copyright holders that they had removed infringing content. For example, when notified by a rights holder that a file contained infringing content, the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in place to make it seamlessly available to millions of users to access through any one of the many duplicate links available for that file.
If the above is true, then I don't really care if they get taken down, just like I wouldn't if The Pirate Bay was taken down. Yes, they're only allowing people to host files or links or torrent files or whatever and it's not nice to hold them accountable for what their users do. However, if someone points out infringing uploads to them and they specifically refuse to take them down, then it's not especially unfair to get charged for that (in a legal sense, that is; in a moral sense IP wouldn't exist in the first place).
Most of everything else about how the case and how it has been handled is probably bollocks, as well as the sentences these guys might end up getting, but that bit is one thing which does kinda make sense.
-
If the above is true, then I don't really care if they get taken down, just like I wouldn't if The Pirate Bay was taken down. Yes, they're only allowing people to host files or links or torrent files or whatever and it's not nice to hold them accountable for what their users do. However, if someone points out infringing uploads to them and they specifically refuse to take them down, then it's not especially unfair to get charged for that (in a legal sense, that is; in a moral sense IP wouldn't exist in the first place).
The problem with a site as big as mega upload is that hard to keep track of all the downloads. So if a copyright holder says "You ahve been hosting THe INcredibles, here are the links" and MegaUpload does a scan to get rid of the Incredibles, it is very likely that it will simply miss a few files, or that new files with a slightly differnet name will be re uploaded. Quite sure that it is either bollocks or a failure to understand how these sites work.
Either way, it looks good to megaupload
I do not understand WHY the site was taken down though. Doesn't a charge first have to be proven in court? Innocent untill proven guilty and such? Or is taking down the site part of the arrest process?
-
If the above is true, then I don't really care if they get taken down, just like I wouldn't if The Pirate Bay was taken down. Yes, they're only allowing people to host files or links or torrent files or whatever and it's not nice to hold them accountable for what their users do. However, if someone points out infringing uploads to them and they specifically refuse to take them down, then it's not especially unfair to get charged for that (in a legal sense, that is; in a moral sense IP wouldn't exist in the first place).
The problem with a site as big as mega upload is that hard to keep track of all the downloads. So if a copyright holder says "You ahve been hosting THe INcredibles, here are the links" and MegaUpload does a scan to get rid of the Incredibles, it is very likely that it will simply miss a few files, or that new files with a slightly differnet name will be re uploaded.
Sure, if that was the case then slapping them with anything more than a very minor fine (if that) for being sloppy would be unreasonable.
-
:nono:
So many...............mods,..................perished.
-
Actually this shows that the Government doesn't need SOPA to take down sites.
-
The more I think about it the more the whole case made against Megavideo feels and comes across as total idiocy, it's almost like a play of power to show the people resisting SOPA and PIPA only a day earlier that they can just destroy a big service like Megaupload without a care for anyone.
If everyone that has been duped by this act would file charges, that could certainly change things around. There's plenty of businesses, organisations and communities that put their work on Megaupload.
Anyhow, for solutions, time to download, back-up and save all mods, work, programs, that are important to you that would vanish if, say, Rapidshare or other hosting services go belly up. I'm pretty certain all SCP and mods of HLP are safely stored and backed up but saving stuff locally is in my opinion a good idea until the attack against free flow of information stops, or a underground alternative can be readied.
-
we'll still have freespacemods, gamefront and moddb, right?
EDIT: do these hack attacks really work? there were a lot apparently after the lockdown on wikileaks but that site doesn't look like it's anywhere near its former glory.
-
The problem with a site as big as mega upload is that hard to keep track of all the downloads. So if a copyright holder says "You ahve been hosting THe INcredibles, here are the links" and MegaUpload does a scan to get rid of the Incredibles, it is very likely that it will simply miss a few files, or that new files with a slightly differnet name will be re uploaded. Quite sure that it is either bollocks or a failure to understand how these sites work.
And if that's all that happened, then MegaUpload wouldn't be in the boatload of trouble it's in.
One of the key points in the indictment is that MegaUpload did NOT remove files when it got a takedown notice: it would remove the link, but continue to host the file. The way they worked, instead of storing duplicate copies of the same file they would just have different URL links that pointed to the same one. Like the DMCA or not, it's pretty clearly a violation to not take down the files.
Pretty good summary here: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/oouwm/can_someone_explain_why_the_megaupload_takedown/
I'm having a hard time mustering up any sympathy for MegaUpload.
-
I have an easy time mustering up sympathy for those that uploaded their (legal) works on MegaUpload.
-
So it's a violation of the DMCA, probably. The DMCA sucks. Civil disobedience ftw.
-
I have an easy time mustering up sympathy for those that uploaded their (legal) works on MegaUpload.
Yeah, I'm kind of left wondering how the DoJ can pull the plug on the site without giving notice to its customers. In a certain sense, people aren't able to access their own property right now.
-
sounds to me like files were taken down and then immediately re-uploaded by users. and potentially by users that previously downloaded the file. i mean were talking millions of uploads and downloads every day. add that to the lagtime of an infringement notice being sent out and responded to. it is totally reasonable to say that megaupload was doing what was necessary to prevent piracy. i never used their service, ive always fond it somewhat fishy. they are in it for the money just like their accusers and i really dont care one way or the other who wins.
sites like the pirate bay still seems to chug along nicely no matter how many law books get thrown at them. they are in it more for the openness of information and frankly i dont see how they are funding their organization, i certainly dont pay them anything to use their "service", while mega upload and sites like it want me to pay a subscription. i do want to see the mpaa and riaa both collapse in on themselves for failing to adapt to changing technology by crippling it so they can stick to their archaic buisness model. lets ignore the damages they do to the arts and society as a whole, let alone the damage they want to do to the internet. the fact that they want to reduce our tech level to what they would allow and to curb our our freedoms to share information just to further bloat their already bloated coffers is enough to make me want to see them burn.
best thing i can say is boycott their movies and music. there are plenty of independent films and music that are far superior to the drivel they churn out. we just need to show them that we no longer need them to enjoy media. on top of that film makers, actors, and recording artists, etc (the ones who actually make the content) need to do the same, and realize how much they are being exploited and having their creativity stomped out by these media corporations.
-
Research me this: by what means was megaupload shut down?
Did they go to the DNS? The web host? Did they disable the physical servers it was hosted on?
-
sites like the pirate bay still seems to chug along nicely no matter how many law books get thrown at them. they are in it more for the openness of information and frankly i dont see how they are funding their organization, i certainly dont pay them anything to use their "service"
Advertisements
They have a **** ton
-
i never noticed (adblock 4tw). :D
-
They also sell t-shirts. You can see the links for those even with the adblock.
-
disable the physical servers it was hosted on
-
Conspiracy charges... I feel that's pretty ironic. The way they frame the wording it's like 'terrorists on computers' or something.
Anyway, this to me shows the USA lost the moral high ground (this has quite an effect around the world as the USA seems to be an example to many other countries) and that the internet as we know it may soon (ie: several years) be replaced by a intranet type system (Corporate Internet2, pay per view/minute apparently). Typical that after the backlash against SOPA and PIPA they respond like this.
I think it's a good time to think about alternatives to communication, contact, hosting, and so on to preserve places like HLP from becoming unreachable in the future. The internet won't get shut down immediately but when you still have time to work on alternatives and communicate them I think it should be done.
The more I think about it the more the whole case made against Megavideo feels and comes across as total idiocy, it's almost like a play of power to show the people resisting SOPA and PIPA only a day earlier that they can just destroy a big service like Megaupload without a care for anyone.
If everyone that has been duped by this act would file charges, that could certainly change things around. There's plenty of businesses, organisations and communities that put their work on Megaupload.
Anyhow, for solutions, time to download, back-up and save all mods, work, programs, that are important to you that would vanish if, say, Rapidshare or other hosting services go belly up. I'm pretty certain all SCP and mods of HLP are safely stored and backed up but saving stuff locally is in my opinion a good idea until the attack against free flow of information stops, or a underground alternative can be readied.
we'll still have freespacemods, gamefront and moddb, right?
EDIT: do these hack attacks really work? there were a lot apparently after the lockdown on wikileaks but that site doesn't look like it's anywhere near its former glory.
Does this mean HLP will become a darknet?
Or will it become even more unreachable and retract into the dark internet?
-
no.
-
I have an easy time mustering up sympathy for those that uploaded their (legal) works on MegaUpload.
Fair enough. They are in a sucky position.
I've assumed that the servers were deactivated so they could be physically secured as evidence. It's not really feasible to do that AND leave the site running. My guess is that the feds simply don't really have a good procedure in place for dealing with this situation while being fair to innocent customers, so they did it the easy way (for them). Not ideal, and I suspect a lot of it is that the people doing it (and the policies constraining them) really aren't up to speed with the technology.
-
i never trust my data to be stored or backed up on any hardware that i do not own. want something done right, do it yerself.
-
i never trust my data to be stored or backed up on any hardware that i do not own. want something done right, do it yerself.
don't you have a bandwidth cap? it'd be kind of absurd for you to want to backup your stuff on a commercially run server somewhere if it'll cost you more money to get it, much less put it there.
-
i never trust my data to be stored or backed up on any hardware that i do not own. want something done right, do it yerself.
Amen. **** the cloud.
-
i never trust my data to be stored or backed up on any hardware that i do not own. want something done right, do it yerself.
Amen. **** the cloud.
I remember when the "cloud" was still scoffed at as a worthless buzzword. It wasn't even all that long ago really.
-
i still do.
-
I remember when the "cloud" was still scoffed at as a worthless buzzword. It wasn't even all that long ago really.
Cloud computing will continue to become more and more practical for end users, too. Not everyone has as awful of an ISP as Nuke.
-
Amen. **** the cloud.
that's what i thought about twitter.
-
I remember when the "cloud" was still scoffed at as a worthless buzzword. It wasn't even all that long ago really.
Cloud computing will continue to become more and more practical for end users, too. Not everyone has as awful of an ISP as Nuke.
its not that bad, you have to realize my problems are more of being a rural connection. considering i live on an island with a population of 3000 in the ass end of some state noone wants to live in, id say my internet is pretty good. also we had it upgraded to 4 megabit, with a cap raised to 25gb. i know people who have it much worse off.
my main issue with cloud computing is not the need to be constantly connected to the internet, but that you loose control of your own computing experience. your computer becomes nothing more than a terminal for accessing remote services and content. it is no longer a stand alone do everything machine, and it gives others the power to dictate what you can and cannot do with your own hardware. im rather disappointed with how dependent on the internet computers have become. with drm going to call home clients its created a situation where it is impossible to own a computer without also having to have an always on internet connection.
-
It is strange how the "cloud" line of development seems to be returning to the ancient mainframe/terminal model.
-
see the problem with digital content and software (from the perspective of the rights holders) is that it can be duplicated indefinitely for free. they hate stand alone computers, because they let people do things outside of their control. so they insist that you do everything on their machines. they tell you that its the way of the future, that its better, that you cant live without it. all of the sudden they get control and you have an expensive terminal that cant think for itself and a monthly bill on top of it. all so they can continue selling information as if it was a physical product.
-
its not that bad, you have to realize my problems are more of being a rural connection. considering i live on an island with a population of 3000 in the ass end of some state noone wants to live in, id say my internet is pretty good. also we had it upgraded to 4 megabit, with a cap raised to 25gb. i know people who have it much worse off.
my main issue with cloud computing is not the need to be constantly connected to the internet, but that you loose control of your own computing experience. your computer becomes nothing more than a terminal for accessing remote services and content. it is no longer a stand alone do everything machine, and it gives others the power to dictate what you can and cannot do with your own hardware. im rather disappointed with how dependent on the internet computers have become. with drm going to call home clients its created a situation where it is impossible to own a computer without also having to have an always on internet connection.
Telling me that you have a 25gb/month bandwidth limit because you live in a rural area where "noone wants to live" and then in the same post griping that computers are too dependent on the Internet really doesn't help a general argument.
Personally, it's nice having a way to get to important files without toting them around on my flash drive, and it's great to always have access to computer systems that cost more than I make in a couple years. But I'm an engineering student living in a huge university town.
But the general Internet-faring population isn't too different. The most obvious differences are that they'll probably never care about distributed computing (if it's not available, I doubt I'll be in a position to whine about it anyway) as much as simply using the cloud. It is, however, incredibly useful to be able to make files portable or share them without handing someone a thumb drive or telling them to download it off of an FTP server you host in your basement.
To reiterate, if you need your own desktop computer chances are you have one. Give it a few years and I'm sure most people would be happy with whatever the Chromebook could turn into. I don't think cloud computing will ever replace the conventional computers we know and love, it's far too easy and feasible to write good software for them, but it's a convince I'm sure will catch on.
see the problem with digital content and software (from the perspective of the rights holders) is that it can be duplicated indefinitely for free. they hate stand alone computers, because they let people do things outside of their control. so they insist that you do everything on their machines. they tell you that its the way of the future, that its better, that you cant live without it. all of the sudden they get control and you have an expensive terminal that cant think for itself and a monthly bill on top of it. all so they can continue selling information as if it was a physical product.
It's as simple as not buying their product.
-
Telling me that you have a 25gb/month bandwidth limit because you live in a rural area where "noone wants to live" and then in the same post griping that computers are too dependent on the Internet really doesn't help a general argument.
theres a reason i used two paragraphs instead of one. i addressed one point in the first paragraph and the other in the second. they have nothing to do with each other. i merely tried to clarify a perception about the kind of internet i have.
Personally, it's nice having a way to get to important files without toting them around on my flash drive, and it's great to always have access to computer systems that cost more than I make in a couple years. But I'm an engineering student living in a huge university town.
But the general Internet-faring population isn't too different. The most obvious differences are that they'll probably never care about distributed computing (if it's not available, I doubt I'll be in a position to whine about it anyway) as much as simply using the cloud. It is, however, incredibly useful to be able to make files portable or share them without handing someone a thumb drive or telling them to download it off of an FTP server you host in your basement.
To reiterate, if you need your own desktop computer chances are you have one. Give it a few years and I'm sure most people would be happy with whatever the Chromebook could turn into. I don't think cloud computing will ever replace the conventional computers we know and love, it's far too easy and feasible to write good software for them, but it's a convince I'm sure will catch on.
my major issue is when you put data on the cloud, you create a dependency upon that cloud. sure it gives you some convenience points, but what you loose far outweighs them. say you had data on megaupload that you need right the **** now, is that convenient at all for you? no. you put the control and availability of your information in the hands of others and they are failing. no level of convenience is worth the loss of control of what is yours. granted its a convenience i have no use for. i do not like to advertise my technical prowess in public.
It's as simple as not buying their product.
and that is exactly what i do. this is also a major reason i refuse to use cellphone technology. though i have been know to use parts of the radio spectrum that the fcc would rather have me not use.
-
theres a reason i used two paragraphs instead of one. i addressed one point in the first paragraph and the other in the second. they have nothing to do with each other. i merely tried to clarify a perception about the kind of internet i have.
You mean it's just a coincidence that the person here that is arguing against Internet file hosting has a 25gb bandwidth cap and the person without capped Internet is arguing for it? No, it's probably not the reason you argue that but I can't help but think it's likely you might have a slightly different opinion if you lived in a less out-of-the-way part of the world.
my major issue is when you put data on the cloud, you create a dependency upon that cloud. sure it gives you some convenience points, but what you loose far outweighs them. say you had data on megaupload that you need right the **** now, is that convenient at all for you? no. you put the control and availability of your information in the hands of others and they are failing. no level of convenience is worth the loss of control of what is yours. granted its a convenience i have no use for. i do not like to advertise my technical prowess in public.
I don't think I know anyone that keeps their only copy of all of their files in the cloud, and I doubt you do. I'd go as far to say that it's such a bad idea that even the general public doesn't do it, though I don't have any statistics to back it up.
With regards to megaupload you'd have to be double stupid to lose important files because you would have had to have the file to upload it, and then delete your local save to lose it.
-
let me put it another way:
**** THE CLOUD!!!
if i wanted to terminal into a mainframe id have lived in the '70s.
-
all right I kind of assumed you knew what cloud computing was when you actually don't.
edit: my post was equally as unclear as yours; the problem I have with your post is that it implies an antiquity that simply isn't there. In the 70's not everyone had a computer. In the 10's not everyone has their own cluster, especially not to the extent of university or commercial ones. This is true, but you can still do everything and more that a mainframe could do with whatever computer you'll be using the access your desired cloud service. furthermore, the limitations of access to a mainframe in the 70's are much greater than that of access to a cloud service in the 10's. Citing the need to access the cloud serves as a reason to not use a cloud service is like citing the long walk to a terminal to not use a mainframe.
-
i never noticed (adblock 4tw). :D
When I'm downloading my pornz, I like the ads. They get me started :D
-
all right I kind of assumed you knew what cloud computing was when you actually don't.
edit: my post was equally as unclear as yours; the problem I have with your post is that it implies an antiquity that simply isn't there. In the 70's not everyone had a computer. In the 10's not everyone has their own cluster, especially not to the extent of university or commercial ones.
And in the 12's, not everyone has access to broadband or a computer for that matter. I know of more than a few areas that only has 'net access via dial-up or expensive satellite connections.
The 'problems', as I see it, with the whole push to "cloud computing" (ick, I feel dirty using that term in the manner it's being used now) as others have mentioned, are the lack of control and privacy that comes with using an online service, as well as the potential of suddenly having a fee tacked onto something you have become somewhat dependent on. It also assumes a level of connectivity (read, speed and availability) that just is not there.
This is true, but you can still do everything and more that a mainframe could do with whatever computer you'll be using the access your desired cloud service. furthermore, the limitations of access to a mainframe in the 70's are much greater than that of access to a cloud service in the 10's. Citing the need to access the cloud serves as a reason to not use a cloud service is like citing the long walk to a terminal to not use a mainframe.
I don't think the intent was to compare the functionality of a mainframe to the functionality of a desktop machine (I've had pocket calculators that had more computing power than some mainframes), but a comparison to the style of system usage a mainframe was. If everything was 'put into the cloud', it would be a lot like a mainframe, where the end user accesses their data and computing resources via a dumb terminal and nothing is local to the user. Think of an 'Internet Kiosk', that's the mainframe model right there.
But I may be misreading the intent of your post, and this is far enough off topic as is, so I'll stop typing now. :)
-
And in the 12's, not everyone has access to broadband or a computer for that matter. I know of more than a few areas that only has 'net access via dial-up or expensive satellite connections.
First of all, if someone doesn't have access to a computer then this entire discussion in completely moot. You need a computer for normal computing! I want to say that a decent internet connection is much more common for people that could use cloud computing than terminal access for people that could use a mainframe, but I really don't know. Anyway, household consumers by no means need a top-tier Internet connection for cloud computing to fill whatever needs the have. It's probably more important for commercial users, but chances are a company that relies on cloud computing isn't based in an area with a bad internet connection.
The 'problems', as I see it, with the whole push to "cloud computing" (ick, I feel dirty using that term in the manner it's being used now) as others have mentioned, are the lack of control and privacy that comes with using an online service, as well as the potential of suddenly having a fee tacked onto something you have become somewhat dependent on. It also assumes a level of connectivity (read, speed and availability) that just is not there.
AFAIK most cloud services already cost money, and most of the time the people that could actually use them effectively are in a position to afford it. Speed and availability could be an issue, but honestly I'd sooner think problems would be on the consumer end than the cloud end. Honestly, control and privacy are probably just as much of a concern as they would be for any other task that requires an internet connection; the stakes are just upped. For the household consumer, again, this probably isn't an issue. And I doubt any company would have used something like Megaupload over Amazon if they could avoid it. (though I wouldn't exactly call Megaupload a cloud service provider...)
I don't think the intent was to compare the functionality of a mainframe to the functionality of a desktop machine (I've had pocket calculators that had more computing power than some mainframes), but a comparison to the style of system usage a mainframe was. If everything was 'put into the cloud', it would be a lot like a mainframe, where the end user accesses their data and computing resources via a dumb terminal and nothing is local to the user. Think of an 'Internet Kiosk', that's the mainframe model right there.
Again, I don't think anything is this heavily invested in the cloud. Even google's chromebook can do things offline. I don't think there will be anything like this until our internet technology approaches gets much better. I wouldn't want to do any computing on a piece of hardware that was nothing more than a screen with a few MB of ram and a wifi card on it; even really expensive Internet would be too slow to do much with painlessly. Plus, like I've mentioned earlier in the thread, 90% of all things people do on the computer wouldn't benefit from cloud computing. Data hosting happens to be one of the most practical things for a household user you can get with cloud computing, and that's more of a side-effect of doing things in the cloud rather than any "real" use of the cloud. Lots of that benefit is gone, however, if you only have a local network (eg your home network) that you would access the data from. With that not only can you only access the data from a physically small area, but there's usually only a small number of people accessing the data at any given time. In situations like these, you wouldn't stand to benefit from hosting your backup copies on Amazon rather than something like Megaupload.
-
I feel it important to note (what with cloud computing being discussed) that most ISPs will likely not support / offer "unlimited" data plans in the foreseeable future.
-
id like to point out that computers are far more accessible than internet access. you can have a computer shipped to you in most major towns and cities. there are probably some more remote places where you need to make rather complicated arrangements to get a computer shipped to you. of course in those areas your probably not going to have reliable internet access. you might be able to get access over an expensive satellite service. for most of us its probibly not an issue but if you needed a computer in a 3rd world country it would probably be impossible to get internet.
my issue now is that almost every piece of commercial software out there these days needs to phone home to validate its license. i know people who have turned away from buying newer pc games because they did not have internet access and it was impossible to activate them. they insist on an artificial dependency on the internet to use their products. go down to the local software store and look at requirements on various software titles. id bet that %75 of them list an internet connection as one of the minimum requirements. it kinda puts the industry in a position to charge you a fee for you to use hardware that you own. you already see this kinda thing with smartphones (i do not now nor will i ever buy a smartphone). its likely they wont stop with computers.
that probibly doesnt have anything to do with cloud computing, but its a trend id like to see die.
-
yeah your issues have less to do with cloud computing than with an industry that likes to tell people that they use cloud computing as a marketing gimmick
-
i never trust my data to be stored or backed up on any hardware that i do not own. want something done right, do it yerself.
I trust all my data to S4 Storage. (http://www.supersimplestorageservice.com/) It is provably 100% secure, and I don't have to worry about anything getting deleted.
-
how exactly do you get your data, or link to it, or much of anything (in case of crash or otherwise) if it can't be read from S4?
-
i keep all my data on 4 hard drives. 1 in each of my good computers, 1 in an external enclosure and a 4th one i keep at my sister's house. nothing short of a tsunami or a nuclear war could make me loose data. super critical stuff i keep a copy of on my hacked 4g ipod.
an online backup service would not suit me well, as i have a lot of data, and a capped internet connection.
-
how exactly do you get your data, or link to it, or much of anything (in case of crash or otherwise) if it can't be read from S4?
(http://spud.wetfish.net/b/the-joke.jpg)
-
let me put it another way:
**** THE CLOUD!!!
I agree on principle but disagree in a very specific case: I love my own personal cloud server that lets me access all my files not just on my PC, but anywhere on my laptop, tablet or even cellphone as well. :)
And it's MY cloud... with MY harddiscs, i.e. MYYYYY Mainframe (mwahahaha? lol). But yeah, I totally agree: **** the centralised clouds run by megacorporations only out to make us dependent on it before they start nickle and diming us to death for everything that is free and natural right now.
-
yes and sandwich runs HLP from a server in his basement
edit: cobbled together on garbage picked hardware, no less
edit2: because it's clear there are still huge misconceptions on what cloud computing is: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/cloud-computing/cloud-computing.htm
-
if i wanted to terminal into a mainframe id have lived in the '70s.
I really don't see cloud computing any differently than you do. Our computers are terminals to the internet. Accessing google docs or whatever would be accessing a mainframe.
It really seems to be a recycling of an old way of using computers for the modern day where all of your work gets done on some big iron mainframe somewhere else. I just think it's ridiculous (and a huge waste of money) to relegate computers with a quad core with 4gigs of ram and a terabyte hard drive to cloud computing (if cloud computing becomes that retardedly prominent). If the computer is going to be a terminal, then i wouldn't be using something that can stand on it's own two feet for a terminal (that quad core example can stand on it's own two feet; it's its own big iron).
Instead of cloud computing, there's software that costs money to install on your hard drive. If a penny scraper, there's software to install on your hard drive for free.
Cloud computing, the work your getting done is actually getting done on some other computer that's not in front of you. **** the cloud since i guess we don't know what it is so we don't need it :lol:
megaupload?
-
we know exactly what cloud computing is, and we still dont like it. i may bring up points loosely related to cloud computing (call home licensing), but that does not mean i dont know what it is. i want to run my own copies of software on my own computer, i do not want to be spied on by corporations when i do this. i do not want to run them on some server cluster or even a bonerfied supercomputer. these systems share time with multiple users and will not offer much benifit over an above average computer on a per user basis, and is also subject to lag, downtime, and periods of low performance at peak user capacity.
-
we know exactly what cloud computing is, and we still dont like it. i may bring up points loosely related to cloud computing (call home licensing), but that does not mean i dont know what it is. i want to run my own copies of software on my own computer, i do not want to be spied on by corporations when i do this. i do not want to run them on some server cluster or even a bonerfied supercomputer. these systems share time with multiple users and will not offer much benifit over an above average computer on a per user basis, and is also subject to lag, downtime, and periods of low performance at peak user capacity.
This is stupid. You either don't know what cloud computing is or you fail to grasp its applications. I've said it before and I'll say it once again: your average household will not be what benefits most from cloud computing, and it's going to stay that way for the near future. Webhosts, universities, companies and similar large organizations stand the most to gain. Continuing to mindlessly tell me that you hate cloud computing because you want your own copies of software to run on your own computer does nothing but tell me that you don't understand what cloud computing is because that does not presently define all of what cloud computing is.
-
A thought:
Cloud computing introduces possible points of failure, over which you have little to no control. Isn't that what you want to avoid in your backup setup and productivity software?
-
This is stupid. You either don't know what cloud computing is or you fail to grasp its applications. I've said it before and I'll say it once again: your average household will not be what benefits most from cloud computing, and it's going to stay that way for the near future. Webhosts, universities, companies and similar large organizations stand the most to gain. Continuing to mindlessly tell me that you hate cloud computing because you want your own copies of software to run on your own computer does nothing but tell me that you don't understand what cloud computing is because that does not presently define all of what cloud computing is.
Cloud computing appears to be useful to whoever it's useful to (i would say cloud computing is not useful to a bunch of us, but rather to others). Those wanting to save money on not needing to buy a whole bunch of software licenses and installing on a bunch of individual computers. In this case, big companies managing lots of computers. Although, i think it's more worth people managing lots and lots of computers and are into cloud computing to lower costs, would perhaps be better off setting up their own internal terminal and network boot setup. With or without free software, i don't see why companies would need to rely on third party cloud computing big iron for stuff like google docs. I know there's more than google docs, and handier stuff than google docs (google docs is all i can bring to mind right now).
-
we fully grasp the concept. i hold a god damned it degree. i have set up at least a dozen terminal server + thin client networks. i use terminal services on a regular basis. i have used a actual old skool mainframe. cloud computing is not different from these kind of systems at all. it is only scaled up and uses the internet instead of a local network, and server clusters instead of a single central computer. i have read your article and while it was poorly written it did not contain anything that i did not already know about cloud computing. i have trouble seeing any potential in the concept beyond web services and remote license management (yes this is becoming a major application of cloud computing and this is why im not a fan of the concept at all), nor do i see any performance gain in using remote computers over local systems especially with how dirt cheap a pc is these days.
having your own system, even in a buisness environment, gives you a more consistent level of performance and will be more responsive over cloud computing (because usage varies as does network performance). any cost savings will be lost in the cost of additional throughput required to use these applications (businesses pay a hefty sum for high throughput connections). you will still require a large it base just to maintain the cloud clients, they will still need to be networked, routed, serviced, etc. that is in addition to the cloud service fees.
from the security side of things you could probably do a lot of damage to a company by unleashing a dos attack against their cloud service provider(s). there is also nothing left to fall back to if the service is down. with current networks you still have the local machine available even if the network is completely out of commission. if you loose the internet you still have your local servers. there are more points of failure. cloud service goes down at either end, or you loose your internet connection, you have a bunch of worthless thin clients that can do nothing by themselves. you have 2 networks that absolutely must be connected throughout buisness hours. either side goes out and your ****ed. if i ran a big company the last thing i want is a bunch of employees sitting around doing nothing because their cloud service is down.
-
can you stop throwing the "that's not cloud computing" at us please? what you call it is irrelevant to the point nuke is making. furthermore, "cloud computing" hardly has a concrete definition, especially recently. companies ARE throwing the "cloud" tag on many of the types of things nuke is describing that you are foaming at the mouth calling NOT cloud computing. if we can't get past this point, i propose that we substitute "decentralized file hosting" or whatever else makes everyone happy in its place and carry on.
-
nor do i see any performance gain in using remote computers over local systems especially with how dirt cheap a pc is these days.
I don't see how you can claim this. Sure, Microsoft office might not be getting any faster but if you have problems that have parallelization in their solution, why wouldn't the cloud give you a huge performance gain? Maybe it's just me hearing too much about parallelization at uni, but the ability to draw on the processing power of a large number of computers would be kind of great. This is what I've always would be the biggest benefit of cloud computing; you'd be able to design your programs to run on a nearly arbitrarily large number of threads. Even in business applications, you only have so many employees that could possibly be running licensed software at a time, so you can just purchase a system designed to accommodate that; there's no real need for a cloud based license system, whereas with distributed programming, I've always imagined the cloud would let you do things that would simply take too long to be feasible on a pc.
the dos attacks are a good point though, I hadn't thought about how the cloud would respond to that. I guess uptime is an issue, but afaik google and amazon both have fairly decent track records in that respect. past that, many places already are pretty dependent on their internet anyway. Data processing, for example: unless you're lucky enough to be getting the data in the same spot that you do work on it you'll probably need internet to get it, otherwise you'll be stuck anyway.
@klaust: Companies can call whatever they want anything they want, all that will happen is that I will hate them.
-
I don't see how you can claim this. Sure, Microsoft office might not be getting any faster but if you have problems that have parallelization in their solution, why wouldn't the cloud give you a huge performance gain? Maybe it's just me hearing too much about parallelization at uni, but the ability to draw on the processing power of a large number of computers would be kind of great. This is what I've always would be the biggest benefit of cloud computing; you'd be able to design your programs to run on a nearly arbitrarily large number of threads. Even in business applications, you only have so many employees that could possibly be running licensed software at a time, so you can just purchase a system designed to accommodate that; there's no real need for a cloud based license system, whereas with distributed programming, I've always imagined the cloud would let you do things that would simply take too long to be feasible on a pc.
heres the thing. in order for cloud computing to be economically viable, you will want to serve as many users with one server as possible. you will also want to scale your cluster based on usage, the idea is you want to keep the server as close to peak usage as possible. if a server isnt being used, it is reallocated to other jobs. ultimately you end up in a situation where all resources are shared. you might have 512 cpu cores in the cluster, but you might also be serving 1000 simultaneous users. that equates to about half a cpu per person. when you compare that with say a dual core, or even a single core pc, you have lesser performance in the cloud, and thats not accounting for network latency. if you needed a lot of power, like doing fluid simulation, or rendering, you create a situation where each user may require a dedicated server or 2, and this becomes less viable. you are better off renting a couple hours on a super computer.
-
megaupload?
megaupload?
i wasn't expecting the spanish inquisition to switch focus
-
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! ... to switch focus.
-
No, why, an unerring focus is one of our primary weapons...
-
it can't be helped. to sum it up:
- internet blackout
- megaupload RIP
- an0n attacks!
- similiar storage sites do something (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16679174)
now that i think about it anyone could predict this a decade in advance.
-
Piracy does not need to be combated. Piracy should not be combated.
Any time someone makes a claim like "piracy costs us X dollars", someone ought to immediately yell in that person's face "no it doesn't, supply and demand doesn't work that way."
-
all this *****ing about cloud computing, you know you CAN run your own cloud...
-
Piracy should not be combated.
i don't know about that, but it certainly doesn't need the witch hunt. it's going to be hard to shut down the entire industry that's sprung up based on copyright litigation though. part of me wants to see all copyright infringement suddenly stop. just to see what these assclowns do then.
-
Piracy does not need to be combated. Piracy should not be combated.
Yeah, and department stores shouldn't have those stupid security tags that keep you from walking out with them real casually. I hate those things, makes it so much harder to get a good pair of jeans.
**** that, it's a crime and should be combated. I don't give two ****s about supply and demand in this context, but stealing is still stealing.
-
Stealing is, indeed, stealing.
But there's a difference between the actual damages caused, and the hysteria surrounding the issue. No, I do not believe that there's no damage. Anyone claiming that is stupid.
-
i keep all my data on 4 hard drives. 1 in each of my good computers, 1 in an external enclosure and a 4th one i keep at my sister's house. nothing short of a tsunami or a nuclear war could make me loose data. super critical stuff i keep a copy of on my hacked 4g ipod.
an online backup service would not suit me well, as i have a lot of data, and a capped internet connection.
I hate saying this...but this. **** the "cloud." If I'm making backups anyway, why not just make them local? I have almost 2 Tb of random crap that's all backed up in triple redundancy and my main PC has a RAID 6 config (yeah, I'm a bit paranoid, but still). There's a great deal of personal information included in all that and, to me, putting it on a server I don't control is like going to Walmart and handing out copies of my driver's license. I'm depending on the good faith and conduct of other people. Since other people are mostly dicks, this is a bad idea.
Bit more on-topic: MegaUpload was playing with fire and got burned, apparently, but it still disturbs me that the government can make a site go dark like that.
-
If I'm making backups anyway, why not just make them local? I have almost 2 Tb of random crap that's all backed up in triple redundancy and my main PC has a RAID 6 config (yeah, I'm a bit paranoid, but still).
Leaving aside all your on-topic points, this is still unsuitable for a secure backup for anything you'll need after a long period of time. Just for one example of an event that could, despite your local storage triple-redundancy, my neighbors' house burned to the ground a couple years ago. (there was noone home, and they weren't tech people, but it could happen to you too...) If that happened at your place of residence, any non-offsite backups would be lost. Any data that you had in your house would be reduced to randomized bits of charcoal. Paranoid? You're heinously underprepared. (That said, anything even marginally sensitive backed up on someone else's servers should be reasonably encrypted. Your definition of reasonable, I leave to your paranoia...)
-
If I'm making backups anyway, why not just make them local? I have almost 2 Tb of random crap that's all backed up in triple redundancy and my main PC has a RAID 6 config (yeah, I'm a bit paranoid, but still).
Leaving aside all your on-topic points, this is still unsuitable for a secure backup for anything you'll need after a long period of time. Just for one example of an event that could, despite your local storage triple-redundancy, my neighbors' house burned to the ground a couple years ago. (there was noone home, and they weren't tech people, but it could happen to you too...) If that happened at your place of residence, any non-offsite backups would be lost. Any data that you had in your house would be reduced to randomized bits of charcoal. Paranoid? You're heinously underprepared. (That said, anything even marginally sensitive backed up on someone else's servers should be reasonably encrypted. Your definition of reasonable, I leave to your paranoia...)
In most cases, you would be right and I actually do agree with you that redundancy doesn't always equal safety. But offsite backups are always about trading security for convenience. Sure, having the "cloud" servers automatically back up your data is convenient, but you could have your privacy compromised. Even home encryption programs are capable of encryption that would defeat brute force attempts by supercomputers these days. But the problem I see is that as it stands, the "cloud" is touted mostly as a solution for small businesses that don't have the resources to run their own clusters. I'm not saying I think small business owners are idiots, but business savvy doesn't necessarily include technological savvy and there will be a lot of them who won't know about encryption or won't bother with it (our society needs more technological education for the common person, but that's a whole different can of worms).
People like me that have one backup in a fireproof safe in a structure not attached to the main house and another backup at a completely different property with everything under tight encryption weren't the intended targets of the cloud anyway. :p
Dear wonderful mod(s): thinking the cloud discussion should probably be split.
-
yea i do offsite backup, i keep a drive over at my sisters house. if you dont have a relative you could always get a safe deposit box in a bank or perhaps a climate controlled storage unit (based on level of paranoia) and keep a hard drive in there as well would be pretty secure, go in and swap it every couple weeks. id trust those methods over the cloud any day.
-
**** that, it's a crime and should be combated. I don't give two ****s about supply and demand in this context, but stealing is still stealing.
I can argue this on either moral or economic grounds. You seem to want to go the moral route, but I think you ought to at least know what the economic argument is before you dismiss it.
Consider...
(1) Not every pirated copy would have ever been paid for—but if it's a good game, they'll tell their friends about it.
(2) Not every pirated copy wasn't paid for—some people get pirated copies of games that they also bought—either to try the game out or to bypass ****ty DRM which decreases the value of the product
If you piss off the the group of people for whom (1) applies, you deny yourself free word-of-mouth advertising. And if you piss off the people for whom (2) applies, people either don't buy it because they couldn't try it, or they don't buy it because they know how ****ty the DRM is.
-
Consider...
(1) Not every pirated copy would have ever been paid for—but if it's a good game, they'll tell their friends about it.
(2) Not every pirated copy wasn't paid for—some people get pirated copies of games that they also bought—either to try the game out or to bypass ****ty DRM which decreases the value of the product
Consider...
(3) There are people who will pirate something without any intention whatsoever to pay for it, even if it is good.
(4) There are groups of people who will pirate something, and market it as a legit product to make a profit.
The groups I mention are the ones who cause actual damage, even if the damage caused by members of group 3 is hard to quantify. It is these latter, very definitely criminal groups that need to be targeted. The other 2 in your list are people who wouldn't normally consider doing illegal stuff, but for whom the benefits of pirating outweigh the negative aspects at the moment they do the pirating.
-
Your (3) sounds equivalent to my (1)
And your (4) is plagiarism, which I dislike as much as anybody else.
-
Your (3) sounds equivalent to my (1)
And your (4) is plagiarism, which I dislike as much as anybody else.
(4) is organized crime pirating titles and selling them as legit copies. this harms both the rights holders and the customers. it robs the rights holders of actual sales to people who were willing to pay for it. it also robs the customer of a valid license which they though was what they paid for. this is the most damaging for of piracy. it is also not easily circumvented by drm, as the criminal organizations have access to resources to break it (hackers, hardware resources, places to operate, media duplication equipment, etc). this is also the only kind of piracy that law enforcement seems to target (megaupload was treated as such an organization in this case) because of its direct impact on the economy. all other non-profit piracy is up to the rights holders to enforce through civil suits.
-
No, it is not plagiarism. Not even close.
And you're ignoring that regardless of economic reasons a crime should never be considered acceptable simply because the alternative only mildly inconveniences someone. There's a big difference between actively hunting down pirates and giving whoever feels like it carte blanche pirate anything.
-
(4) is organized crime pirating titles and selling them as legit copies. this harms both the rights holders and the customers. it robs the rights holders of actual sales to people who were willing to pay for it. it also robs the customer of a valid license which they though was what they paid for. this is the most damaging for of piracy. it is also not easily circumvented by drm, as the criminal organizations have access to resources to break it (hackers, hardware resources, places to operate, media duplication equipment, etc). this is also the only kind of piracy that law enforcement seems to target (megaupload was treated as such an organization in this case) because of its direct impact on the economy. all other non-profit piracy is up to the rights holders to enforce through civil suits.
when you put it that way, it reminds me of those fake apple stores. not sure if they sold valid licenses though.
-
Your (3) sounds equivalent to my (1)
And your (4) is plagiarism, which I dislike as much as anybody else.
(4) is organized crime pirating titles and selling them as legit copies. this harms both the rights holders and the customers. it robs the rights holders of actual sales to people who were willing to pay for it. it also robs the customer of a valid license which they though was what they paid for. this is the most damaging for of piracy. it is also not easily circumvented by drm, as the criminal organizations have access to resources to break it (hackers, hardware resources, places to operate, media duplication equipment, etc). this is also the only kind of piracy that law enforcement seems to target (megaupload was treated as such an organization in this case) because of its direct impact on the economy. all other non-profit piracy is up to the rights holders to enforce through civil suits.
megaupload wasn't representing its downloads as legitimate distribution AT ALL.
-
Your (3) sounds equivalent to my (1)
And your (4) is plagiarism, which I dislike as much as anybody else.
(4) is organized crime pirating titles and selling them as legit copies. this harms both the rights holders and the customers. it robs the rights holders of actual sales to people who were willing to pay for it. it also robs the customer of a valid license which they though was what they paid for. this is the most damaging for of piracy. it is also not easily circumvented by drm, as the criminal organizations have access to resources to break it (hackers, hardware resources, places to operate, media duplication equipment, etc). this is also the only kind of piracy that law enforcement seems to target (megaupload was treated as such an organization in this case) because of its direct impact on the economy. all other non-profit piracy is up to the rights holders to enforce through civil suits.
megaupload wasn't representing its downloads as legitimate distribution AT ALL.
no what we have here is something new. law enforcement is getting more power and resources to fight piracy than it used to. megaupload is still (supposidly) turning a profit from illegal activities, which makes them a target.
-
And you're ignoring that regardless of economic reasons a crime should never be considered acceptable simply because the alternative only mildly inconveniences someone. There's a big difference between actively hunting down pirates and giving whoever feels like it carte blanche pirate anything.
I'm not ignoring anything; I don't think "piracy" should be illegal, except in the sort of case Nuke described.
Piracy is not stealing.
-
of course, the only thing people who download things do is a mere copyright violation. legally speaking piracy is not theft.
-
Yeah, and department stores shouldn't have those stupid security tags that keep you from walking out with them real casually.
That's just plain old stealing. That is not making illegal knock offs.
-
Adding to all of this is the angle of the RIAA lawyers appointed by the Obama administration, copyright trolling as they go.
Also the following list (copypaste):
MegaUpload - Closed.
FileServe - Closing, does not sell premium.
FileJungle - Deleting files. Locked in the U.S..
UploadStation - Locked in the U.S..
FileSonic - the news is arbitrary (under FBI investigation).
VideoBB - Closed! Will disappear soon.
Uploaded - Banned in the U.S. and the FBI went after the owners who are gone.
FilePost - Deleting all material (will leave executables, pdfs, txts)
Videoz - Closed and locked in the countries affiliated with the USA.
4shared - Deleting files with copyright and waits in line at the FBI.
MediaFire - Called to testify in the next 90 days and it will open doors. Pro FBI
Org Torrent - Could vanish with everything within 30 days "he is under criminal investigation"
Network Share mIRC - Awaiting the decision of the case to continue or terminate Torrent everything.
Koshiki - Operating 100% Japan will not join the SOPA / PIPA
Shienko Box - 100% working China / Korea will not join the SOPA / PIPA
ShareX BR - group UOL / BOL / iG say they will join the SOPA / PIPA
The Chilling Effect seems in play.
-
if there is one thing that you really got to hate about the democratic party, its how much they suck on the entertainment industry's collective cock. one of my main reasons for not voting for obama was his running mate's stance on intellectual property rights.
-
Nuke, sadly it's on both sides, left and right. There are only individuals within the left and right that speak out about real issues. I look at their voting records to get a good idea.
One more link, interesting background:
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-swizz-beatz-120120/
Has to do with MegaBox, which would have caused the entertainment industry much grief and artists much joy, if i read it right.
-
Nuke, sadly it's on both sides, left and right. There are only individuals within the left and right that speak out about real issues. I look at their voting records to get a good idea.
not all of the entertainment industry is pro-democratic. you still have country music, fox news, sports networks, various radio networks, etc. but as a general rule of thumb pro democrat sectors of the industry lobby to democrats and pro republican sectors lobby to republicans. pro democrat sectors usually outnumber the pro republican ones though.
One more link, interesting background:
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-swizz-beatz-120120/
Has to do with MegaBox, which would have caused the entertainment industry much grief and artists much joy, if i read it right.
that article makes it sounds to me like the entertainment industry is trying to crush a potential competitor that has the potential of completely undermining their archaic buisness model.
-
Wait, Mediafire has been called in to testify?
-
Another article on Megabox:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/was-megaupload-targeted-because-of-its-upcoming-megabox-digital-jukebox-service/
Not that I'm seeing a conspiracy, but I'm not sure that I would be surprised if it was one of the main reasons for all of this.
After all, AT&T tried to do the 'kill off the competition and give a flimsy reason for it' thing when they tried to buy T-Mobile claiming that they needed it to improve their network, why couldn't a group that has even more pet politicians at it's disposal try the same thing?
-
the CD's and DVD's selling buisness model is a relic and should be let die. but record companies still want money, with the invention of the internet however artist can go directly to the population without the interference of record lables.
they are starting to do it, soon record companys will go broke.
-
the CD's and DVD's selling buisness model is a relic and should be let die.
Oi, some of us still very much like having physical media collections. :p
-
the CD's and DVD's selling buisness model is a relic and should be let die.
Watching movies at home will not be something that will die. Music cd alternatives however, are pretty damn popular and get used a lot. Music cd's probably will die.
-
the DVD's selling buisness model is a relic and should be let die.
Watching movies at home will not be something that will die.
I don't see how these quotes are related.
-
the DVD's selling buisness model is a relic and should be let die.
Watching movies at home will not be something that will die.
I don't see how these quotes are related.
I will say then what do you think dvd's are most famously used for in the entertainment industry (that was the cd and dvd selling business btw)? The dvd selling business is mainly about selling movies. The cd selling business is mainly about selling music.
Most people think about this in the "elimination of a medium type" thought process when they think about changing business models for the aging relic and practices of the entertainment industry. This can be said of music cd's. Mp3's and other audio formats and the players for them are very popular; cd's will have no problem falling out of the way forever for music. Dvd's and bluray (i'm including bluray since it's also a movie medium) are different however. People still like to take movies home with them for owning and renting. Since dvd's and blurays are great for holding movies, i don't see them getting eliminated.
And dvd's movies may be considered an aging relic in itself just because it's an older movie format. But, many don't share that view. And movies on dvd are still made for the people who like to take their movies home just like bluray.
If we were to eliminate a movie medium such as dvd for movies, we'd be left with bluray of course. But, i took it a step further thinking about this in the way of elmination of a music medium in favor of another, and elimination of a move medium in favor of another. The other medium for movies and video entertainment in general would be some form of streaming like netflix or something else with a lot of drm. Since people still like to bring movies home, that's why i said what i said earlier.
-
you seem to be implying that the only way one can possibly watch a visual media within the home is via a DVD.
-
and you seem to be implying that NOBODY does anymore. i don't want physical media to go away either. i will never pay for quality-raped downloaded music. video, maybe but doubtful.
-
Nuke, I completely agree with your points about cloud computing, perhaps it is the Northern climate? I personally think the whole cloud thing is a rather bad idea and cannot understand how companies look forward to seeing it. But not everybody does the stuff I do.
It really isn't that different from the old terminal system (2002 btw) that was used in the University. I really hated that system from the bottom of my heart - it never allowed doing any real work. Not that surprisingly, the university has grown out of it (happened after 2006) and provides everyone with a real PC. What I recall from my user "experience", with a centralized server there is always annoying amount of lag (even in the text interface FFS), opening MATLAB took forever (it does so also on PC, but that's even more forever with the terminal based system). The comment about running it on "peak efficiency" is well placed, "peak efficiency" being defined by the service provider and not the actual user.
One of my colleagues recently proposed a cloud based server that would run optical design optimization. Needless to say, I shot the idea down immediately before it had a better chance of taking off, some idiot in the middle management probably would have bought it. Seriously, cloud server doing heavy computing is the last thing I want to see, providing little additional computing aid but increasing the upkeep costs exponentially. This sort of center actually used to be there, but when there are no investments on it, the hardware quickly becomes outdated and still sucks a huge amount of upkeep money. And it turned out that a single laptop bought two years later provided the same computing power than a cluster of sixteen older ones. Very useful indeed... I think his reason for this was that running the optimization on a server would allow him to use his computer to do something else. But the problem is, he really should be the maestro who conducting the optimization and not the other way around. The solution was found by assigning a lower priority to the optimizing program, restoring normal computer operation but causing no perceivable slowdown on the optimization - that's human interruption speed for you.
Floating licenses are an invention straight from hell - at least from my point of view. I just don't get what's the ****ing point when you can have a small and handy USB dongle providing you a localized license that is available at any place, any time. In my current working place there are CAD software and MATLAB floating licences now, and it's always the same thing: some *********er is just holding that last license by keeping the programs open (cause he might need it later) and you need to run through every fricking office in the building to ask if any person suspected using it is using it or is REALLY using it (try saying that when you're drunk!). Or that corporate network is down (again). Or there is a local disturbance in the network traffic on your corridor and user support is looking into it - apparently from completely different location and they are doing it through network... Come to think of it, cloud based server systems are just another form of subsidizing, you don't actually own the production tools any more. It is really equivalent to trying to sell a centralized CNC machine center to several CNC machine shops and expect them to transfer all their business on that one center.
What it comes to intellectual property, let's say I'm not surprised by the decision to shut down MegaUpload. However, I really don't see this helping against piracy, what happens next is a huge surge of USB hard disks and there you have it starting all again, but this time it becomes even harder to tackle and impossible to detect. And who wants to pay for an expensive net connection that is still slower than the USB hard drive if the sole reason for that fast connection is piracy? I'd expect to see profit warnings from HDD manufacturers as well, they are quite dependent on piracy to sell their biggest HDDs.
Still related to this, I have actually been thinking of running photography business (not my main job), and after thinking a little bit about the image hosting services, I would never put full resolution images there. Ever. For preview photos (30 % of original size, or even less) that could be feasible, but not with the originals. It was also interesting to think if I wanted to sell digital photographs, but I quickly came to the conclusion that if I start this business, I'll be restricted on paper reproductions only.
-
you seem to be implying that the only way one can possibly watch a visual media within the home is via a DVD.
No i don't actually. I modified my post just a smidge of time after to help better show people what i was getting at. Go read it.
-
the CD's and DVD's selling buisness model is a relic and should be let die.
Oi, some of us still very much like having physical media collections. :p
And how! good Sir,
I just got two albums in the mail, and am not at all displeased, either.
-
the CD's and DVD's selling buisness model is a relic and should be let die.
Oi, some of us still very much like having physical media collections. :p
problem with hard copy is its becoming less hard. if you look at games, there are very few titles that can be called standalone. you cant just buy a game install it and run it without some licensing management working over the net. id hate to see that kind of licensing method applied to music and movies. i do like to buy hard copy, but not if that isnt going to work without something else like an internet connection so it can phone home and see if your license is autorized. then whats the point, you could have gotten it over the net and having a copy becomes irrelevant.
this is the kinda thing that will ultimately destroy hard copy. of course they wont disappear. i can name at least a dozen bands that still release on vinyl. i dont think cds will disappear entirely. they might get replaced by a new format. same goes with dvds. really the only way those will disapear is if the mpaa/riaa get their way and you have to get permission off the internet to watch a movie or play a cd.
-
the only way that the MPAA can stop piracy is with a good streaming service, stream for free with interspersed commercials at low quality, high quality and no commercials with a $30/mo subscription. complete access to the whole collection, none of that 'only the most recent 3 episodes' bull****.
path of least resistance.
-
if you look at games, there are very few titles that can be called standalone. you cant just buy a game install it and run it without some licensing management working over the net.
While a lot of high-profile games do that, plenty of the ones that are actually good (Bohemia Interactive games are an excellent example, most indie titles also don't need a connection) don't introduce anything so stupid. I think that those games will keep physical copies alive. Though they might be reserved for "connoisseurs", people who value having a paperback manual, a game DVD (or several) and maybe some additional material like maps or other "feelies". Most high-profile series today are aimed at casual gamers and consoles, these are most likely to end up in digital distribution only.
-
the CD's and DVD's selling buisness model is a relic and should be let die.
Oi, some of us still very much like having physical media collections. :p
Nothing is stopping you from putting your own music on CDs for your own collection yourself... well, nothing except for idiotic DRM.
and you seem to be implying that NOBODY does anymore. i don't want physical media to go away either. i will never pay for quality-raped downloaded music. video, maybe but doubtful.
Music labels are ra*ing the audio quality of our music - both downloaded AND CDs.
First, there is no reason to not offer high quality or lossless audio recordings. No reason other than an idiot music industry scared of the internet anyways.
Second... Music quality in general took a nosedive these years... with every other CD having audio clipping issues from hell because the same idiot labels that are responsible for all the other bulls*** being mentioned here... have decided that everyone wants CDs with as much base loudness as possible and to hell with audio quality.
So yeah please... let them die so some sanity *and* quality can return to the music business.
I'm f***** tired of buying a new CD just to find my favorite bands music mutilated with audio clipping to a point where a 3000$ audio system starts to sound like a crappy IPOD.
P.S. read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war if you wonder what I am talking about.
And for reference, here's just one case of the CD definitely sucking while a downloadable alternative was of superior quality (from aboves link):
Loud mastering practices caught media attention in 2008 with the release of Metallica's Death Magnetic album. The CD version of the recording has a high average loudness that pushes peaks beyond the point of digital clipping, resulting in distortion. These findings were reported by customers and music industry professionals. These findings were later covered in multiple international publications, including Rolling Stone,[2] The Wall Street Journal,[8] BBC Radio,[9] Wired,[10] and The Guardian.[11] Ted Jensen, a mastering engineer involved in the Death Magnetic recordings, subsequently criticized the approach employed during the production process.[12] A version of the release without dynamic range compression was included in the downloadable content for Guitar Hero III.[13]
Go Go record industries ruining every lasting recording of our music forever.
(While they are not busy trying to ruin the Internet.)
-
the CD's and DVD's selling buisness model is a relic and should be let die.
Oi, some of us still very much like having physical media collections. :p
Nothing is stopping you from putting your own music on CDs for your own collection yourself... well, nothing except for idiotic DRM.
There's a big difference from doing your own burn on a blank disk, and having a professionally-pressed CD or DVD, complete with album/cover art and the whole works. That's especially true if you're talking about a special-edition sort of release, with all of the cool bells and whistles. I have some really sweet DVD sets on my shelves, and I'd like to keep collecting more of them.
-
stuff
that's not an issue of physical media, it's just **** producing. having the same thing through itunes or whatever would just get you the bad production AND a crap bitrate. sure, they COULD offer lossless downloads, but i've yet to see one except for live recordings released by tapers. even if they did offer lossless downloads, i would still want to buy physical because i just like having the cd instead of a digital file that's only on my computer and ipod.
-
if an unknown metal band from the ass end of nowhere can afford to have production quality cds and even vinyl pressed, im sure anyone can. all without needing a big name label (and many have their own). im sure any band can pull it off. eliminating the middle man (the music industry) will give artists more resources and more freedom to make the music and the recordings they want to make. music industry wants to make money, not anything original or creative. so ditching the industry will result in better music. and you could even say the same thing about film too.
-
What it comes to music and especially loudness, consumers decided that. I personally don't like loudness being applied to all CDs, leaving the intended quiet bits away. But on the other hand, I understand listening to it while driving. It is weird, but loudness tends to sound better in a car. But generally I agree, music industry makes it sound rather boring and processed.
Same stuff is going on with photography, it's called HDR imaging, and that tends to kill the naturally dark areas of photos, in my opinion that is. Some people genuinely seem to like it. But I'm not the one who decides about tastes, that's a personal thing.
And don't get me even started about books!
-
the CD's and DVD's selling buisness model is a relic and should be let die.
Oi, some of us still very much like having physical media collections. :p
Nothing is stopping you from putting your own music on CDs for your own collection yourself... well, nothing except for idiotic DRM.
There's a big difference from doing your own burn on a blank disk, and having a professionally-pressed CD or DVD, complete with album/cover art and the whole works.
Did the age of cheap (below 100 bucks) ink jet printers (with many models that can also print those printable CDs/DVDs) pass you up or what? ;)
-
professional production cds arent just a cdr with a silkscreen on top. cdrs are burned chimically (the reflective material is designed to literally burn, when the right wavelength and intensity of light from the burning laser hits it), however production cdrs are done differently (the pits are stamped into the reflective material, and this is coated with plastic on both sides and then silkscreened), resulting in a higher quality, more durable media. as for inserts and artwork, the printing on production inserts are superior to what an inkjet can produce in both appearance and durability. having a collection of home made cds with home made lables and home made booklets are not what collectors want. i prefer to keep my collection on my hard drive though, i really dont like having a bunch of discs that i dont need anymore (because i ripped them all to flac) sitting on a shelf collecting dust. but the collector wants the package as the artist intended, and not some lame diy knockoff.
-
professional production cds arent just a cdr with a silkscreen on top. cdrs are burned chimically (the reflective material is designed to literally burn, when the right wavelength and intensity of light from the burning laser hits it), however production cdrs are done differently (the pits are stamped into the reflective material, and this is coated with plastic on both sides and then silkscreened), resulting in a higher quality, more durable media.
... I just don't see the "benefit" of slightly prettier/more durable CDs/DVDs comparing to the the drawbacks of a music industry that quite literally runs amok. ;)
Just my opinion.
What it comes to music and especially loudness, consumers decided that. I personally don't like loudness being applied to all CDs, leaving the intended quiet bits away. But on the other hand, I understand listening to it while driving. It is weird, but loudness tends to sound better in a car. But generally I agree, music industry makes it sound rather boring and processed.
It's the physical limitation of the CD and an industry that can't imagine doing anything else than selling CDs and is afraid of offering any alternatives with higher quality.
Do you really think everyone would buy crappy audio clipped CDs if a high quality non audio clipped version was available on the market?
How is it the consumers decision if they are not even given a choice?
-
i agree that the music industry has got to go, but i dont think that will make cd production go away. it will just take it out of the hands of the mega-corporation and put it into the hands of the artist.
-
i agree that the music industry has got to go, but i dont think that will make cd production go away. it will just take it out of the hands of the mega-corporation and put it into the hands of the artist.
That's how I see it... easy access to online distribution for anyone who wants... and the option to contract physical media production for successful artists that could turn a profit by selling physical media.
-
Nuke gets the idea. And honestly, I'm talking far more about DVDs than CDs, as I'm not a big music guy.
-
if a high quality non audio clipped version was available on the market?
Do you honest believe that such things never were available? They were once, but the industry discovered that people would buy them at lesser quality so they made them at lesser quality.
-
this is the kind of corner cutting that happens when profits are more important than creativity or quality.
-
Oh, there are still extremely high quality recordings available, but only for the people who cared enough to complain. Opera recordings, for example.
-
and a few "**** the industry" type bands. Porcupine Tree, for example.
-
this thread is starting to turn into one big circlejerk.
-
this thread is starting to turn into one big circlejerk.
:wtf:
Starting?
-
back on topic:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16787486
three US law enforcement stickers and a closing date for all that precious data. we're screwed!
-
this thread is starting to turn into one big circlejerk.
I prefer "echo chamber". And if congress is already doing it, why can't we? :P
-
I'm just waiting for someone to come out of the woodwork and sue "because the FBI deleted the only copy of 5 years woth of work done for their PHD..." (or something similar.)
... to properly conclude this mess. lol.
-
I'd honestly love for that to happen. They wouldn't really have a proper case, but it'd seem fitting.
-
Megaupload i'm pretty sure has something in their end user license agreement that says "if we lose your data, we're not liable" (in case megaupload for some reason isn't able to pay for the servers their leasing). Megaupload is great at paying their bills, but obviously right now they're not. I'm not saying that the end user license agreement of your average popular cyber locker is going to hold up in court. I'm saying that possible loss of data is a known risk of using any cyber locker service. Anyone who thinks other wise isn't thinking about the leased server part too much.
Saying that the fbi deleted data wouldn't fly either unless they actually did. Suing because the fbi put your data in a situation to be deleted would be more accurate. But, because of the known possible risk of using cyber lockers, the suit may go no where. And lawyers will be big time ass holes in court about this if someone were smart or dumb enough to sue over (i'm thinking dumb enough, doesn't seem like the best thing to sue over unless there was a guarantee of data safety which there usually isn't with cyber locker services just because of the way they do business which lets them have storage capacity on hand for people to use). The way megaupload does business to have server storage capacity on hand for free public use is why they don't have a guarantee of data safety in their end user license agreement.
-
i agree there's no guarantee of safety and the user is stupid for not having backups, etc. but, the fact remains that the FBI/whatever agency DID cause the data to be lost by abruptly taking down the site and freezing their assets, making the hosters go unpaid. if they had not done this, users would be able to retrieve their legitimate files.
-
why hasn't the FBI seized those hard drives as evidence?
-
because those drives were owned by a 3rd party. megaupload rented a lot of server space. instead of inconveniencing the hosting company the fbi only took a copy of the data on those drives. of course with megaupload's assets being frozen they can no longer pay their bills with the hosting companies, and they will likely reallocate that space to paying customers at the first opportunity. im sure that equipment directly owned by megaupload was seized as evidence.
-
Megaupload i'm pretty sure has something in their end user license agreement that says "if we lose your data, we're not liable"
lolno
Don't sue megaupload, sue the jerks who destroyed the data.
-
Megaupload i'm pretty sure has something in their end user license agreement that says "if we lose your data, we're not liable"
lolno
Don't sue megaupload, sue the jerks who destroyed the data.
Great way to take out of context. My post had nothing to do with suing megaupload for all of the data that's about to go kaput. Someone didn't read the whole post. And yes, megaupload is not liable if it loses your data (go check up on that).
-
o i c
Methinks you could have said all of that much more simply, and thus avoided this confusion.
-
Megaupload i'm pretty sure has something in their end user license agreement that says "if we lose your data, we're not liable"
lolno
Don't sue megaupload, sue the jerks who destroyed the data.
Great way to take out of context. My post had nothing to do with suing megaupload for all of the data that's about to go kaput. Someone didn't read the whole post. And yes, megaupload is not liable if it loses your data (go check up on that).
But is the FBI liable for losing someone elses data?
o i c
Methinks you could have said all of that much more simply, and thus avoided this confusion.
I had no problem understanding what he said, actually...
-
Megaupload i'm pretty sure has something in their end user license agreement that says "if we lose your data, we're not liable"
lolno
Don't sue megaupload, sue the jerks who destroyed the data.
Great way to take out of context. My post had nothing to do with suing megaupload for all of the data that's about to go kaput. Someone didn't read the whole post. And yes, megaupload is not liable if it loses your data (go check up on that).
But is the FBI liable for losing someone elses data?
no, of course not.
-
But is the FBI liable for losing someone elses data?
Yeah, or they ought to be.
I believe this summarizes the not-liable argument?
Megaupload users knew there was a risk of their files being lost but they used it anyway, so the FBI/DoJ isn't liable for causing it to become lost.
By that same logic:
You knew you were not bulletproof but you went for a walk outside anyway, so the person who shot you isn't liable for shooting you.
Edit in anticipation of a "strawman fallacy" accusation: If that's not what the argument was, then what was it?
-
While I get what you're saying, I think in this case megaupload's legal :WORDS: probably say something like "by using our stuff you agree not to sue us if we ever lose your datas," whereas the law of the land doesn't say anything like "by going outside you agree that being shot isn't murder/assault/manslaughter." So on paper I think this is allowed, and it's foolish not to have backups, but yeah it is kind of ****ed that the users aren't getting any kind of chance to move their data somewhere else.
-
The fbi put everyone's data in a situation to be deleted. They are not actively deleting everyone's data. They could probably care less about the data megaupload hosted right about now. Everyones data getting deleted is an effect of putting megaupload staff in irons since they can't currently pay the bills for the leased servers they use which is why the data is getting deleted. The fbi was the cause of this definitely. But, you can't say that the fbi deleted everyones data because they didn't. The leased servers owned by god knows who will be deleting the data who knows when. When you don't pay the bills, things get turned off. This is just another sucky fact about megaupload staff being in irons right now.
If i ran a cyber locker. I would totally say that my service is not liable for losing data since cyber lockers do use a lot of third party servers to expand storage capacity. Third party servers are located geographically some where in the world tended to the people who set them up. I wouldn't want to be sued for losing data that was stored on a third party server that went down in an earthquake or whatever. That's why if i ran a cyber locker, i would say that my service is not liable for losing data.
Keeping backups of your data is another thing. Cyber lockers aren't supposed to be used for backing up. Anyone using them as backup storage are going to be screwed when servers go down, or if the cyber locker gets shut down.
-
why do people keep going to the 'you can't sue megaupload/megaupload has in their contract...' stuff, has anyone said that? I think it has been exclusively that the FBI should be sued.
-
i think law enforcement agencies are exempt from being liable for damages that occur during the course of an investigation. because anyone suing law enforcement for monetary compensation is essentially suing the taxpayers.
-
I'm not saying you'd win, I'm saying I don't think anyone is suggesting suing megaupload.
-
why do people keep going to the 'you can't sue megaupload/megaupload has in their contract...' stuff, has anyone said that? I think it has been exclusively that the FBI should be sued.
What's in the contract matters big time for the cyber locker. It helps them save there ass. And it's not that contract would hold up in court. I'm not expecting it too. Using cyber lockers seems to me something that i would expect to be known by others, the possible risk of your data getting lost when using such a service (this would matter in court). Cyber lockers aren't a backup service, so they don't operate like one. Anyone who's only copy of whatever that is stored currently on megaupload is screwed. Otherwise, no one should be complaining; mirror the data you needed to share easily on another cyber locker in the mean time.
That's why i mentioned the whole megaupload not being liable for losing your data; people should sue the people who through effect got the data deleted (the fbi ****ing over megaupload in this case).
In which case, anybody suing megaupload over losing everyones data would be pretty unethical given megauploads current status. If megaupload weren't behind bars right now and lost some peoples data, i don't think it'd go very far because the person suing didn't think about risks of using what's not a backup service.
-
who has said the mega upload should be sued?
are you trolling me here?
-
No one did. I didn't even say megaupload should be sued. Rather i should be asking you suing for what?
I was going through why people shouldn't sue megaupload for deletion of their data. Because i'm sure there are some stupid harlequins out there who will try if say that they first sued the fbi with undesirable results. No, i'm not trying to troll you here.
-
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO THEY'VE TAKEN PIRATEBAY
Well, the one they could
-
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO THEY'VE TAKEN PIRATEBAY
Well, the one they could
not pirate bay! now il have to download my torrents from other trackers. really given the open nature of the torrent protocols i think it would be rather impossible to do a net wide shutdown of torrents. people would just set up their own trackers and so many clients exist that it would be impossible to shut down all the devs. should also point out that the pirate bay has gone down before and has resurrected many times.
-
I think it's already back up, or so I heard.
-
No one did. I didn't even say megaupload should be sued. Rather i should be asking you suing for what?
I was going through why people shouldn't sue megaupload for deletion of their data. Because i'm sure there are some stupid harlequins out there who will try if say that they first sued the fbi with undesirable results. No, i'm not trying to troll you here.
The only reason anyone (including myself and Bobboau) thought anyone was talking about suing Megaupload is because you brought up this business about them not being liable. It was a discussion about whether the FBI/DoJ should be sued (or at least, whether it would be amusing to watch it happen), and you came in and started talking about whether Megaupload could be sued.
-
.se
I knew Pirate Bay would do something like that, but still.
-
The only reason anyone (including myself and Bobboau) thought anyone was talking about suing Megaupload is because you brought up this business about them not being liable. It was a discussion about whether the FBI/DoJ should be sued (or at least, whether it would be amusing to watch it happen), and you came in and started talking about whether Megaupload could be sued.
I don't think it matters too much who's going to be sued. That someone will get sued, most likely. So i went through both sides of it because i think it matters.
-
http://gizmodo.com/5881860/feds-seize-300-domains-ahead-of-sundays-super-bowl
So, the feds are now taking a guilty until proven innocent approach to piracy, according to Gizmodo.
-
nuke the government before its too late!
or better yet:
nuke for president!
-
nuke for president!
The worst part is that this one of the better ideas I've heard recently.
-
THE MUTANTS SAY YES! :lol:
-
nuke for president!
The worst part is that this one of the better ideas I've heard recently.
Mhhh I'm not sure I'd want to find out how serious Nuke is about the stuff he says :)
On the other hand... honesty is a value all by itself I guess ;)
-
Yeah, we'd definitely know what we're getting with Nuke. :D
-
leegalized marijuana, leegalized prostitution, the abolishment of all anti piracy law and ip rights, capital punishment of choice changed to impalement, and the total thermonuclear glassing of all enemies foreign and domestic. oh and friday is now free beer day.
-
The influx of German immigrants will be legendary...
-
wait what where?
-
Friday escapes you, my friend.
-
Nuke what is your opinion on religion?
before you say anything, don't get started on kopimism. i've already seen enough crap for one lifetime.
-
Nuke clearly embraces nukism.
-
Nuke what is your opinion on religion?
i plan to replace all religions with a new one of my own design.
-
i plan to replace all religions with a new one of my own design.
I take it the "raining fire and brimstone from above" part will be more literal than in other religions. ;)
-
thou shalt nuke stuff is the first commandment
-
(http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/small/0909/nukes-nuke-god-birds-shiny-cake-north-korea-demotivational-poster-1253461714.jpg)next!
-
Some missing stock pile of weapons grade plutonium from other nations...i think we know who's responsible for that.
-
http://xkcd.com/1013/
Seemed relevant to where this thread is going right now. :)
-
see i dont want to wake up the sheeple, i wand them to be surprised when i nuke them :D
-
Just get them stoned. It's great.
-
that reminds me i also plan to replace the earth's atmosphere with pot smoke.
ind before i nuke people i will give them lsd so they can have a little fun before they die horrible horrible deaths.
-
any special treatment for the non-believers? you know those mormons, buddhists, shamanists etc.
Starting with me.
ATHEIST AND PROUD! :ick:
-
Anyway, i'm just waiting for the big thing to happen that i was getting after. When the fbi tries to convince people to turn finger pointing away from them to megaupload.
-
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/megaupload-got-a-death-sentence-without-trial-says-kim-dotcom-in-first-tv-interview.ars
Kim Dotcom released + interview
You know that Viacom sued YouTube and YouTube claimed that they were protected by the DMCA and they won. And if you look at the YouTube case files, the emails that were exchanged internally, we are a lamb compared to what was going on at YouTube at the time but these guys got away. They won their lawsuit and I’m sitting in jail, my house is being raided, all my assets are frozen without a trial, without a hearing. This is completely insane, is what it is.
-
does he have someone he can sue?
-
does he have someone he can sue?
The USA? The FBI? Hollywood? lol. ;)
Guess not.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17257308
just posting cuz i'm bored