your talking about a human language, all of it is opinion, none of it is fact, something that could help you understand this is to study a second language

http://www.businessinsider.com/megaupload-shut-down-2012-1

It's not difficult, it's just a semantics argument. Therefore it's not convincing me of anything, and is not too interesting either.

Oh wow... There's a big website.

Piracy isn't always a lost sale. It's pretty simple, really--pirates have no reason not to get every game they want. If those same people were paying for their games, then they wouldn't get nearly as many of them. I mean, if you got games for free, you'd get lots more of them, wouldn't you?

That said, it is theft. You're obtaining something for free that the creator isn't willing to give you if you don't pay for it, which is pretty much the definition of theft. Sure, it's just a copy, but to the creator, the copies don't matter. Game developers don't sit around saying "I hope lots of people buy copies of this game--the discs make great coasters!" Writers don't say "I hope lots of people buy copies of my book--it'll come in handy if they ever run out of firewood!"

Again, what is there to convince you of? That US law clearly states copyright infringement and theft are not the same thing? Again, that's a fact. There's no questioning it. That's the reality of situation.

The only reason someone would refer to piracy as theft is either due to 1) ignorance, or 2) as a means of distortion. In the case of the former, they should be more than happy to adjust their language upon being informed of the distinction. In the case of the latter, they are making an emotional appeal. They aren't arguing in good faith, instead using charged hyperbole to make some broader point.

and here is appears again, your seem to think that the US law can dictate what the english language is... the english language does not belong to any country so no court in the world can dictate what the english language is

The real piracy problems lie in peer-to-peer networks. Taking down a site that is used simply for file storage is akin to shutting down a storage center (the ones where you get a mini-garage) because you found out someone was storing a bunch of bootleg CDs and movies in their little garage. I just don't think the government understands the internet, or chooses not to, so they do things like this. Sites like Megaupload delete pirated content, anyway, so it's not like their intent is to store pirated stuff. In real life they wouldn't allow a storage center to search through every belonging you plan to store, yet they wish to do this for the internet. It all just seems so ridiculous.
Just like hacker has taken on the connotation as a computer criminal, or mad has taken on the additional meaning of "a lot". When you say someone is pirating something, it just takes on that connotation of thievery. I hack Windows, but that doesn't mean I'm doing anything malicious. Say what you want, but when a culture sets its sights on a new connotation or meaning, it's pretty set in stone. Hacker will never mean what it used to - mad might go out of style, though.

my point of view on this is that the companies are not loosing any money because those people that illegally copy information of the internet wouldn't buy the product in the first place, in matter of fact i think they would loose money if they made a law like this because people might actually use the product that they downloaded illegally as a demo and decide to buy the next product because they liked it so much.

You never mentioned "US law" before. I thought you were talking about what the words actually mean, not their legal definitions.

Legally, you're the best kind of correct. But, in reality, you're not. It's all semantics anyway, but I'm going to stick with what I said before--getting something for free when the creator(s) aren't willing to give it to you if you don't pay is definitely theft, in any context.

I mentioned it in my second post. Though the link I posted was deemed unworthy. Presumably because I could have totally pulled a fast one by vandalizing wikipedia...

You're also going to have to explain how I'm incorrect in the context of "reality". Incorrect, how? How does one separate the legal definition of a term from the "real" definition of a term when discussing a law?


Nope. I am saying that when we're talking about the law, it's probably a good idea to use legal definitions. By refusing to and instead opting for a word that has implications beyond what piracy entails, you are being intentionally disingenuous.

It's going to be painful if the filesharing sites get taken down - who's next - photobucket? What's the future for sites like PES and Nexus?

And the internet is quick to retaliate by DDoSing the DoJ already.

Don't know what the initiative is, but it probably doesn't bode well for the rest of the internet. I used Megaupload frequently for legal purposes, prying the service from my hands because there were a few bad apples just pisses me off.

It'd like banning kitchen knives because somebody got stabbed.

Don't jinx it man.

Of all the things our useless ineffective government could be doing they find time to come up with censorship laws for the internet, oh well I guess it was inevitable 20 years was a good run i guess.

On a side note im surprised this site is even letting us discuss this.

megaupload.com was actually hosted in the US? I assumed that they'd survived for so long because they were hosted somewhere else, like Asia, Russia or Switzerland. Weird.

They had servers all over the world, including the state of Virginia. From my understanding, they'd survived so long because they'd followed the law as outlined in DMCA (basically, if a copyright holder reported that their content was on the site, they took it down). As to why they got taken down now, .

Capability and in-practice-wise Megaupload was no different than mediafire, Dropbox, Wuala, or any other cloud storage service. This is a very bad precedent.

That's... what... ?

Megaupload isn't even a piracy site. So I guess this is a taste of what this bill would end up doing, having whole websites take the fall for what their users post/upload.

No, that didn't look to his his main point. His main point was that people are too lazy, and that if SOPA were passed, it'd be a good wake up call. And that only getting congress to go back on it doesn't solve anything, removing those who drafted and support deals with the problem, not the symptom.

Oh god. That's not a good thing. The SOPA/PIPA guys will definitely try to spin this. Mark my words.

If the law was implemented as is. I could sue you if you quoted me without my permission.
If you posted reference to any brand without their explicit written consent you could be sued.
The bill/law may be needed but must be re written sensibly.

It IS going to happen eventually as will the RFID card you will have to carry with you at all times - the world is very quickly moving to total control of it's citizens using every piece of legistation they can invent that will control you and everything you do.
Most of it is already in place since 9/11. After wikileaks broke they went nuts trying to come up with a way to control the Internet this will help put more control in 'their' hands.
Get ready kids for a very controlled future in the Brave New World that's upon us.

http://gizmodo.com/5877740/supreme-court-gives-the-go-ahead-for-re+copyrighting-public-domain-works