Kim Dotcom interview with JC

[Big Dave]

It's more than a few sheckels & a long way off quick. True, it is getting their, though. My other hindrance is a dislike for all things Apple.

Download from Amazon is still cheaper than buying CD's. Pretty quick on my box too.

[SMOKEU]

Download from Amazon is still cheaper than buying CD's. Pretty quick on my box too.

Downloading from www.torrents.to is even cheaper.

[Big Dave]

Downloading from www.torrents.to is even cheaper.

Depends on the price of your conscience.

[SMOKEU]

Depends on the price of your conscience.

I don't see what having a conscience has to do with digital media piracy. It's like comparing a cheesecake to a Ducati.

[Katman]

Getting back to workshop manuals........

Who exactly am I ripping off? (Fuck Mr Haynes and Mr Clymer - their manuals contain so many mistakes you're better off doing the job blind-folded while paralytic).

For the motorcycle manufacturers to copyright their manuals and make them unavailable to the public is nothing short of trying to line their dealer's pockets.

[Big Dave]

I don't see what having a conscience has to do with digital media piracy. It's like comparing a cheesecake to a Ducati.

It's Cheesecake that someone else stole from the shop.

And even if it's only a corporate crumb, the artist doesn't get the bit they are entitled to.

[Big Dave]

Just desserts - geddit!

[TripleZee Dyno]

You are paying a wealthy, greedy studio exec, not the artist. Dotcom is not charging anyone and if you had bother to watch the interview you will see he set the site up for file sharing such as manuals, technical documents etc. He provided the studio with their own access to delete their content, he is not allowed to view what others put on his site.
Get real, this is never been about the artists, it is about protecting a revenue stream for corporations that are too ingrain to change their business model.
This is the mis-use of criminal law to protect civil issues and corporate interests and the mis-use of the civil issues at that.
If it did anything to protect and encourage creativity of artists I would agree with you but as it doesn't and just promotes the raping of artists by the corporation I have to say wise up.

Last year Megaupload started trialing Mega Box a new music distribution service with a twist
from KDC interview
That is, MegaUpload was planning to offer 90 percent of revenues back to artists, even on free downloads. Which sort of fits into a very shady revenue model that actually paid uploaders based on the number of subsequent downloads received. "We have a solution called the MegaKey that will allow artists to earn income from users who download music for free," Dotcom outlined. "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."

With MegaBox the uploaders will be the artists themselves.
Imagine if this caught on

KDC' opinion of the major labels

"These guys think an iPad is a facial treatment, the internet is the devil, and wired phones are still hip," Schmitz blasted. "They are in denial about the new realities and opportunities. They don't understand that the rip-off days are over. Artists are more educated than ever about how they are getting ripped off and how the big labels only look after themselves."

[Big Dave]

Yep - self-publishing - even like that site Fatt Max uses seem like the future.
The challenge for emerging artists is the getting the punters to the site.

It's still a long way....

[SPman]

Dotcoms comparisons in his interview certainly begs the question "Why just him?"

Well - perhaps this sums it up......

One of the key rules to winning any fight is to make sure you always pick on someone who's small enough that you can guarantee to prevail over them -- which is what the FBI seems to have done in this case.

Can you imagine the massive fallout and public reaction if the Feds had taken down YouTube in the way they took down MegaUpload?
Oh the humanity -- think of all the poor videos of cats playing the piano that would be lost forever!
Let's face it, the public outrage would have been greater than any government would ever want to create -- and the MPAA/RIAA also knew that killing YouTube would effectively produce so much resentment that their own industries would feel a possibly fatal backlash.

So they opted to knock out MegaUpload. It was big enough to represent a significant precedent but small enough that it wouldn't be a major problem to bully NZ's own law enforcement agencies into submission as an ally.

Now I'm pretty sure that, based on the events to date and our own government's unbridled enthusiasm to suck up to the USA, Dotcom will be extradited to the USA to face trial.
I am also pretty certain that he will be found guilty of at least some of the charges that have been laid against him -- not because he is guilty but because the USA's justice system is even more cheque-book driven than our own and the RIAA/MPAA have purchased some very powerful allies in the halls of power.
When this happens, the big question will have to be -- "who is next?"
When the USA effectively dismantles the carrier-indemnification aspect of the DMCA, the whole model of user-created content online will be destroyed.
No company (inside or outside of the USA) will be willing to risk being raided at gunpoint and having their management incarcerated through the actions of their users -- as has happened with Kim Dotcom.
Of course, without sites willing to host user-generated content, the freedom of speech that the Net currently provides will be well and truly quashed.
Which is perhaps another reason why the US government (and most governments in fact) are so keen to lend the Feds a hand to crush the likes of Kim Dotcom.
Enjoy your freedom while it lasts perhaps?
And -- it's goodbye to the cloud.

[tigertim20]

I believe artists should receive money for their work and not him

I have never used a file share or torrent thingy, always hire or purchase my music or video media (except youtube)

If his fortune is due to talented others, which he pimps without reimbursing them, he needs to pay them back

Really?
well lets think about that a minute.
Pimps get rich off sluts that can deepthroat.
its the same in any business. You go and get a job, your boss sends you out, and charges you at $50, 60, 70, whatever an hour, and pays you what, 15, 20, 25 an hour. Your boss, and everyone elses boss in the world is getting rich off the abilities and talents of others.

I dont see a massive difference between the two.
In the case of the artist, their songs get big as a result of radio play and massive record sales, so more often that not, their songs etc arent downloaded until after the item has already become big, and already generated a massive income.
further, look at the cost of a CD nowadays vs the cost of a taoe 10 or 15 years ago, the cost of buying music has gone up, despite the fact that producing CDs etc is generally lower than the cost of producing taoes etc years ago.
On top of that, as it is, artists continue, on a regular basis to outsell yesteryears greatest hits etc, so the sales are still increasing, the cost of buyign is going up, the cost of producing is going down . . .

and really, when you make a 3 minute song and make 25 million dollars off it, you can fuck up about some half broke cunt who downloaded your song, because he didnt want to pay $30 plus for a shit filled CD with 18 boring, mindless, shit songs on it when they only wanted one fucking song.

[Big Dave]

and really, when you make a 3 minute song and make 25 million dollars off it, you can fuck up about some half broke cunt who downloaded your song, because he didnt want to pay $30 plus for a shit filled CD with 18 boring, mindless, shit songs on it when they only wanted one fucking song.

The issue for me is the emerging artists who make a small amount from their three minute song (or Filmakers, writers, or doodle artists) - and don't get an opportunity to make another one because they were ripped off on a download site.
That punter could legally buy the one song for a buck or two now.

[HenryDorsetCase]

So what is stopping you? There are numerous options.

not realistic, not cross platform, not available in New Zealand. (referring to my recent emusic experiences.)

[HenryDorsetCase]

Getting back to workshop manuals........

Who exactly am I ripping off? (Fuck Mr Haynes and Mr Clymer - their manuals contain so many mistakes you're better off doing the job blind-folded while paralytic).

For the motorcycle manufacturers to copyright their manuals and make them unavailable to the public is nothing short of trying to line their dealer's pockets.

well, from a manufacturers perspective, isnt that the point?

[HenryDorsetCase]

The issue for me is the emerging artists who make a small amount from their three minute song (or Filmakers, writers, or doodle artists) - and don't get an opportunity to make another one because they were ripped off on a download site.
That punter could legally buy the one song for a buck or two now.

isn't the massive growth in pay download sites evidence for the proposition that most people, most of the time dont want to be criminals, or to rip off struggling artists? As I have said, (about music) I go out of my way to buy stuff when I could download it for nothing more than the cost of the internet connection. I love my rock and roll and I want the people who make it to be able to continue to make it.

But TV? The shaved chimps are going to air that shit for free, au, so why should I pay? unless I love it so much I spend $350 on DVDs (TRAILER PARK BOYS FTW)