Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Putlocker and Sockshare might be first though.
...and if you tolerate DiS...
But most of them don't have any money and labels won't risk much on them either. Hence "dodgy digital".
yesterday felt more like a well-timed message. you have to remember that just because they've shut the place down and put people in cuffs, doesn't actually mean a judge will see it quite the same way. and the authorities do know that, which is precisely why these kinds of raids have slowed way way down over the last 4/5 years.
here's an idea, which it occurred to me last night. if this owner dude REALLY has 500mil in profit from ONE year of MU (which is what they're claiming) surely that means there's potential for a system whereby that profit gets given back to the musicians who's music was downloaded for free? there's holes in that idea i know, but it seems almost viable.
they were the top result on google for a while for nearly every film and album if you added .zip or .rar or whatever to the end of your search. Google were forced to hide them from the results or at least to stop the autocomplete adding .mp3 as a suggestion :)
SoundCloud recently raised $50million, and they charge artists and labels for premium accounts, so, er, maybe that is the new model but it all seems a bit inverse..? http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/02/soundcloud-funding/
but i guess it doesn't really solve the issue of how an artist actually gets paid
i think profits would be spread pretty thin using my idea above, especially if you give royalties to movies and ebooks too. there's also the problem of how to stop people abusing the system (ie getting friends to download their music constantly).
Megaupload was registered in Hong Kong but I don't think they have any business there. And they blocked IP from Hong Kong to access their site since 2009.
I don't think the US really care what they can or can't do to be honest
They shut down Oink and several even bigger sites took its place. There is now a huge gap in the market for a similar site to spring up.
or whack-a-node/nerd as i like to call it
is this site is very useful to legally host files for work purposes etc
so many times you have to send things to people whose file size limits on their email systems prevent them. Sites like these are a godsend
Dropbox http://db.tt/GqJrB4r (2gb of space!)
that the two main supporters of this shutdown are old-timer DiSers (KennyDope and rue_the_day). Okay, lets forfeit all online filesharng the music world can only benefit. Yeah.....sure
Best hosting site, period. Period.
You can rip off the music industry.
You can even participate in something which may be devaluing music.
If we're going to condemn lets think through what we say first other wise this starts to look like the comments board on the Daily Mail site.
something "next" always comes along.
but I'm glad you did.
... even though I think that's going to be an ongoing battle. Most people will jump at getting something for free if it's offered to them and the chances of being caught are pretty low.
Most of the authorities know this and they accept it. It's the truth that dare not speak it's name these days - people need some authority and regulation to stop them pursuing their own self-interests at the expense of others.
I will say this though that even though I fully acknowledge that downloading music for free without the rights holders' consent is a form intellectual theft, I'd have to dispute that this has affected how I value music.
If anything, it increased my love for music and opened my eyes to lots of stuff I would never have otherwise listened to. If I were to look back and ask where would I be now if I'd not done any of it in the past, I'd have to say I'd be saddened by the thought of the great bands I almost certainly wouldn't even know anything about now.
On the flip side, when I buy CDs exclusively, I still end up shedding money on things that get shelved after one or two listens - the ten pound price tag didn't make me want to listen to it any more than if i'd had it for free.
I guess I could have streamed a lot of it but I don't listen to most stuff at home and streaming has only really become something you can do while on the move in the last couple of years as far as I'm aware.
Still, non of this justifies piracy - you simply can't do that. It's wrong but no more wrong than taping music off the radio was. That was wrong too - just because it wasn't as wide spread and potentially damaging doesn't make it any less wrong. Theft is wrong end of - it's not wrong by virtue of it's consequences.
I never felt so bad when I taped music for friends or I burned an album so why do I feel self conscious about file sharing in this manner?
The answer's simple - I was worried I might get caught and so I stopped doing it as much and do it less and less. So my impetus to stop was not a moral one but in the end, self-interested just like it was when I first started.
In answer to the first question, I'd expect Mediafire to go next or at some point. It's where most people go these days for their downloads.
but so will the pirates. There will be something else to replace Megaupload, Mediafire and whatever else gets shut down soon enough. If the last decade's proved anything it's that the problem is too difficult to police.
nothing is changing.
Do it as much as you like.
Other than that it's theft - you're stealing something and it doesn't matter if it's not a material thing because an abstract thing or an immaterial thing can be worth money to someone and taking and replicating that thing is denying that person their ownership of it and their right to make a profit from it should they wish to.
Of course you can disagree with that but unless you can present a persuasive enough line of reasoning to support your point of view then the opinion is wrong.
Here's me saying this yet I'm certainly not going to cast the first stone.
i don't have the patience to argue this with someone who's seeing the issue in such pointlessly narrow terms.
it's not an argument of stealing music is right vs stealing music is wrong, which is probably exactly why it's still an ongoing debate 10 years on.
someone should cast a stone at ur posts
Don't talk nonsense and respond to arguments with respect, consideration and thoughtful replies rather than childish insults.
Intellectual theft is a real crime because a person has ownership of their ideas and they can make money from them.
Intellectual theft is a real concept and a clear one. You can buy and sell and idea and property rights do not simply apply to material things - in fact one's claim to own immaterial things goes back much further than that.
The issue is straight forward and it is not pointless to frame it in this way unless you're intentionally trying to complicated it to ease your own conscience. I won't do that. What I did was immoral and wrong and yet I did it - people do immoral things every day. Immorality is far more common place than we often admit.
I also never said that taping music had a damaging effect on the music industry. I very much doubt that that it did but it was still wrong. I was replicating a song for my own use without the owner of that song's permission - it was the song not the bloody data on the tape that was at issue and the way in which I was using it. Perhaps the owner of that song wasn't really losing any money at all by my recording of it - maybe they even stood to make money by it - but they didn't give me the permission to replicate their song for my own use.
I believe this is wrong but I'll still be burning a CD for my mate tomorrow.
ok i wont
ageriuonaegu hiaet hihaet biouaeg bouyaeg oyuae ouybae buyb ayuabuy bauy obyau h aehnu84 aj 9 hat ahjtaj 6jt r6sjrts rthsht5ja a 5tjkui8 4riu i iu
In what sense or to what extent can a person own an idea?
"Ownership" is an idea (as is "property") — who owns that idea?
And I don't say that to complicate or obfuscate the issue, but because it's much more accurate. Copyright is an artificial institution and infringing it may or may be ok depending on whether you think its existence is justifiable, but flouting that institution is not directly comparable to outright theft.
you fail copyright 101.
was directly the basis for pretty much all the music any of us DiS posting hipsters remotely care about
but they'll be replaced by others.
It's what they were singing about in 'The Circle of Life'.
Where they completely fail to address any of the piracy issues and hide behind their Terms of Service.
but it doesn't seem like a likely target, i've barely seen it used for piracy compared to how much it's legally used by actual artists including record industry ones...
They exist to protect the site from something like this.
(Haven't read the article, just going on an assumption of what is in it)
file sharing sites spent a little more time coming up with creative ways to make money out of music if that's what they're concerned with. A lot of the complaining seems like misplaced nostalgia for a time it's not possible to get back. Shutting down these sites won't uninvent high speed internet, so why not try to work with it? If people want to file share they'll find another way. Trying to stop piracy (like when record companies briefly tried to make it impossible to rip cds onto a computer) is always a bit of a lost cause, but if there is money to be made from websites like Megaupload there should be a way of using them to make money for musicians. Even if it's relatively less than they could make before by putting out any old crap and charging £13.99 for it. Besides most bands used to make money where they did from advances (which are not so popular these days) and touring, something it's still possible to earn money from, you can even sell a few albums along the way.
I really hope they don't shut down mediafire next, it's where I go to share music (my own incidentally not other peoples'). If you're interested in making music it's pretty cheap to record and print up cds yourself. Plus being able to share your music with people anywhere in the world without having to pay for bandwidth is pretty great. I get really sick of bands (usually pretty mediocre ones) making the empty threat "if no-one buys our album, we're not going to be able to keep making music". If that's the case they can fuck off and leave making music to the people who would do it regardless.
Even if you don't want to shell out for recording and printing you could put up a project on wefund or something and ask other people to help pay for it. Basically, it'd be nice if bands and record companies realised they were operating in a time that's really exciting in terms of creating and sharing music and stopped bitching and moaning that it's not 1973. Or even 1998
so this guy not only had servers IN the united states, but he was living/hiding in a country that apparently extradites criminals at the snap of america's fingers. good going.
still, he sounds like a colossal cunt.
NZ has been sucking off the US for some time now. Yet another example of our spineless government.
comparing traffic to megaupload, mediafire, rapidshare, tumblr and the headline-grabber of 2010 chatroulette http://bit.ly/zuIBKq
The cost of security operations, insurance, enforcement, and policing against Somali pirates is an estimated €20billion a year
*source; the BBC World service programme I listened to a few weeks back
Downloading is looking like the War on Drugs
you've really got to wonder about the logic and capacity for big picture thinking of the Government-Corporate blocks around the world
They have disabled sharing on their site.
but shouldn't "they" be thinking of ways to stop an album from leaking, instead? I mean, that is the main source, isn't it? Once some music has already been put up on a site to share, it's already stolen/copied irrespective of if anyone downloads it or not. It's like the police saying 'we can't prevent a crime but you can come to us when you've been mugged and we'll take appropriate actions'.
Or maybe I'm just talking nonsense.
it's hard not to believe it, too
also, while i may be wrong, this kim dotcom chap doesn't really seem like the type of person to give away 90% of profits.
Could be interesting though with this stuff involving Swizz Beatz being the CEO or whatever...
he showed an interest in being a part of the team but was never actually involved.
"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! would disappear soon.
Uploaded - Banned U.S. and the FBI went after the owners who are gone.
FilePost - Deleting all material (so 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.
P.S. mediafire has start deleting copyright protected files. Only left is the personal files."
They've been giving away dodgy shit for ages.
The kicker was Megabox would cater to unsigned artists and allow anyone to sell their creations while allowing the artist to retain 90% of the earnings. Or, artists could even giveaway their songs and would be paid through a service called Megakey. “Yes that’s right, we will pay artists even for free downloads. The Megakey business model has been tested with over a million users and it works,” Kim Dotcom told TorrentFreak in December. Megabox was planning on bypassing the labels, RIAA, and the entire music establishment.