redxavier wrote:Nonsensical. All this will do is drive filesharing sites to regions where they cannot be touched, where they will then be run by genuine criminals.
According to the indictment, Megaupload ARE genuine criminals. They weren't shut down because they happened to have some infringing content on their servers, they were shut down because:
They not only knew they had infringing content, they privately encouraged it
They claimed to remove infringing content when identified, but didn't
They used that content intentionally for personal gain
and more, all suggesting they were willfully, purposefully breaking laws for years now
So let's not be assuming Megaupload is a bunch of sweet kids who happened to have some movies on their server. The Justice Dept. has presented evidence that they were an intentionally law-breaking enterprise, and made millions at it. This case didn't come out of nowhere yesterday, it's been on ongoing investigation. And you don't get a search warrant until a judge reviews your evidence and is convinced you have a case.
And if the evidence ends up not supporting the charges, well, that's now for a court to decide. That's how we do things in the Western world.
redxavier wrote:Let's shut down dropbox too while we're at. And youtube. And ftp sites.
All of which has been attempted, sometimes with success. As a result, most every site that wants to operate as a legitimate business has now implemented some kind of takedown policy, so copyright holders have a process to identify and request removal of infringing content.
As someone who has requested removal of MY content from YouTube, MySpace, and at least one other site (Vimeo I think it was) I can tell you that in every case the removal was instantaneous. Legitimate sites have learned to take copyright infringement issues very seriously. (And if it turns out any of them simply hid the content and lied about removing it, then I hope the Justice Dept. goes after them, too.)
It's not a perfect system, no, but I still prefer it to the potential SOPA model, where theoretically my identification of infringing content could be used as grounds for the Justice Dept. to shut down YouTube, and even sites that linked to YouTube. The potential for abuse of that kind of power is far too great to allow into law.
Instead, the Justice Dept. had to do it the old-fashioned way - gather evidence, present it to a Grand Jury, convince them there was sufficient evidence for indictment, then contact law enforcement in another country and convince THEM a crime had been commited, before they could finally take action. And I'm fine with that.
redxavier wrote:And, oh wait, the internet's gone because the entire world wide web is built upon the principle of exchange of data - ergo a potential means of distributing copyrighted material.
And that's why I support the Megaupload action, but not SOPA. Civilization's a tricky thing. We've only been attempting it for a few thousand years now, it's still a work in progress. The only 100% safe society would have no freedom. A 100% free society would offer no safety. Instead, we try to split the difference, allowing freedoms even though we know they can be abused, and choosing instead to prosecute the folks that do the abusing. (Sometimes the pendulum swings too far in either direction, but as I say, it's a work in progress.)
The internet, cars, guns, steak knives, bowling balls, blank DVD's, printing presses, and cups of hot water can all be used to commit crimes. But all of those things can be used for perfectly legitimate, non-criminal activities as well. So, many things we let go unregulated, and others we've chosen to allow within certain guidelines. If you're too young or too old to do it safely, you can't legally operate a car. If you're a convicted criminal, you can't legally own a gun. But if you legally own a car or a gun or a steak knife, and then use it to do an illegal thing, society takes action.
So yeah, the downside is some folks will still get hurt or killed by cars and guns and steak knives. And sometimes content will get pirated. But banning cars, or crippling the internet, or making everyone eat steak with a spoon, isn't the answer either.
redxavier wrote:And what's more, have some goddamn security at your own offices and don't flood the awards folk with screeners AKA Copy Me.
As someone who got a stack of awards screeners last month, I can assure you that they are MORE copy-protected than consumer versions.
Every disc I received has a special menu up front which states the following:
The disc is the property of the studio, and they can assert their right to reclaim it at any time. It can't be lent or sold, and many of them even demand the disc either be destroyed or returned to the studio by a specified date. They also state that the disc is individually watermarked so that any pirated copy can be traced back to the exact person it was issued to.
You then have to press the menu button marked ACCEPT before the movie will play. And when it does, the movie has "Property of _____, not for public use" etc. burned across the screen.
The only screener I got that wasn't like that was Deathly Hallows 2... because it's already been released to video. So they just sent me a regular copy, same as you'd get from the store, with none of the above disclaimers.
The reason for this is obvious, since Hallows 2 is already out, it's already pirated. This is simply a given, it's well known that absolutely everything that gets released to video will be available in pirated form, usually a couple days before the street date. (Invariably somebody at some retail store somewhere will snatch a copy and run home with it as soon as the new inventory arrives, or somebody's advance Amazon order arrived before the street date, etc.)
But the value of a screener of a movie that isn't on video yet - I got a few that weren't even in theaters yet - would be immense. So screeners have far more restrictions than consumer versions.
It's really not because studios think industry professionals would pirate their screeners, it's because at least some of those professionals have an idiot teenager at home who wouldn't be able to resist the chance to share Transformers 3 with their buddies before it's even out. 
Michelle will explain it all later.
