Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no sympathy for the entertainment industry. They did this to themselves. There is only one explanation why otherwise law abiding people would break the law: they were being gouged. The entertainment industry declined to use technology to make entertainment cheaper and more accessible.
An example:
For umpteen years, people who wanted digital music files had to either buy a CD first and then digitize it or download it for free. It is far cheaper to distribute MP3s than CDs, so consumers should share in the savings. The industry left people with no other rational choice.
Today, there has been a lot of progress in updating the business model and a lot of people have stopped bootlegging. I no longer bootleg music or movies because I have reasonable alternatives like Amazon, Pandora, Spotify, and Zune. Unfortunately, a whole generation is in the habit of bootlegging and it will take some time for them to go legal.
Costs a nickel to make a CD and they sell it for 10-15 bucks. Same with software.
You do realize there is much more involved than merely making a copy of a CD, right?
Studio time for musicians is VERY expensive, along with a myriad of other things involved.
I think it is strange that nobody in this thread bothered to look at the law itself. They are charged under Title 17 of the US Code, which refers to the Copyright Act of 1976.
When the Copyright Act of 1976 was modified in 1998, they included any copyrighted file (including images) downloaded to a PC, whether used for profit or not. Which means that since 1998 everyone who has used a browser on the Internet can be charged with copyright infringement. Just opening a web page with copyrighted material will cause that page to be cached and temporarily downloaded automatically by one's browser to their PC.
The 1998 modifications to the Copyright Act of 1976 was quite a concern at the time, even though it did not get much press. In practice, however, it was only used against those who sought to profit from other people's work. Since 1998, the Copyright Act of 1976 was modified in 2004, 2008, and 2010.
The difference between merely viewing a file and downloading a file to the hard drive has to do with intent. Technically speaking, law enforcement might be able to establish 'probable cause' and investigate anyone who has viewed a copyrighted YouTube video or audio file; however, they know that not everyone who views a file intended to infringe, which is something that it much harder to prove in court. They're not going to waste all of their resources on any and every user because they need to first establish intent before they can begin the prosecution of a suspected crime.
That's much different from what we're talking about in the case of kazaa or 'mega-upload'. In the case of someone joining a P2P site and becoming a file-sharing super node, proving intent becomes much easier. And when you're the founder of a site that is dedicated to infringement, it's extremely easy to bring criminal prosecution.
And when you're the founder of a site that is dedicated to infringement, it's extremely easy to bring criminal prosecution.
So what makes Megaupload's model different from say... Youtube? Youtube's servers contain copyrighted items, just as Megaupload. I can go to Youtube and listen to just about any song imaginable right now.
I can download a youtube video that contains copyright infringed items just as easily as one can do with Megaupload.
So why isn't the founder of Youtube (or its current owners) currently in jail for "allowing" users to post and view copyrighted items?
Costs a nickel to make a CD and they sell it for 10-15 bucks. Same with software.
It does not cost a nickel to make software. It make cost a tiny bit to manufacture the media to distribute it with, but most mainstream software products cost millions to make and support.
Microsoft Excel includes tens of millions of lines of code, developed over decades, and written and tested by hundreds of skilled and well paid people.
So what makes Megaupload's model different from say... Youtube? Youtube's servers contain copyrighted items, just as Megaupload. I can go to Youtube and listen to just about any song imaginable right now.
I can download a youtube video that contains copyright infringed items just as easily as one can do with Megaupload.
So why isn't the founder of Youtube (or its current owners) currently in jail for "allowing" users to post and view copyrighted items?
There is one huge difference. Youtube is designed and optimized for watching. Megaupload is designed to enable distribution.
It is possible to copy or download videos from Youtube. But it isn't especially easy. And Youtube videos are in almost all cases transcoded copies of the original files. They are degraded copies. Megaupload has exact copies of copyrighted works on its servers, and the entire business is based on sharing or distribution.
Many of the copyrighted works on Youtube exist with the permission of the publisher. I doubt any copyrighted works on Megaupload are there with the permission of the publisher.
Poor entertainment industry. Instead of making $60 BILLION dollars they're now down to making only $30 Billion. The spoiled, overpaid wh*re-and-drug movie executives and actors don't like living with "less". Cry me a river.
I have no sympathy for the entertainment industry. They did this to themselves. There is only one explanation why otherwise law abiding people would break the law: they were being gouged. The entertainment industry declined to use technology to make entertainment cheaper and more accessible.
An example:
For umpteen years, people who wanted digital music files had to either buy a CD first and then digitize it or download it for free. It is far cheaper to distribute MP3s than CDs, so consumers should share in the savings. The industry left people with no other rational choice.
Today, there has been a lot of progress in updating the business model and a lot of people have stopped bootlegging. I no longer bootleg music or movies because I have reasonable alternatives like Amazon, Pandora, Spotify, and Zune. Unfortunately, a whole generation is in the habit of bootlegging and it will take some time for them to go legal.
This is funny. Although I find plenty to dislike about the entertainment industry, I think legally purchased media is incredibly cheap today. A song costs 99 cents or less. Most albums are 9.99 or much less. Retail DVDS are $20 when new or much cheaper for older stuff. Netflix and other make it easy to watch almost anything you want for a few dollars a month. Twenty years ago you had to go to the theater, subscribe to HBO, or buy a VHS tape for more money. Adjusted for inflation I think most of this stuff is cheaper today.
But somehow this is not good enough for millions of people. They think 99 cents is too much to pay for a song they like. Instead they feel entitled to pay nothing for the media they consume. The only reason they do it is they can do it without fear of getting caught. I'd like a Ferrari, but I don't have $200K to buy one. I know if I stole one I'd get caught. So I do without.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.