MegaUpload and MegaVideo are gone.

rcoobc

BBC News - Megaupload file-sharing site shut down

Truly incredible for many many reasons. Firstly they are the perfect example of profiting from copyright violation, far more so than TV-Links which just links people to other websites, including legitimate sites. Secondly it seemed like they where always on good terms with the copyright holders. Minor violations such as TV video was often overlooked, whilst Movies and Music was often taken down immediately, and seemingly the IP of the person responsible shared with the authorities. And in many ways their business model was completely legitimate, identical to YouTube in the early days except with the added download service.

But the craziest thing is that they are far less at fault that a thousand other almost identical sites. Other video/file services allow porn/movies/music etc, whereas megavideo seemingly where very sharp at taking down all of those categories.

Drifter

Really shocked and angry about that.Seems like they really mean business this time.

Mick1991

I wonder where they got that figure from? Projection?

africanspur

Looking like it. Hugely disappointing, that was always the most reliable method of watching material online for me and was one of the more reliable download sites as well.

Drifter

Exactly for me the best for downloading.Always got maximum speeds as a free user.

Sir Matt

Where will I watch Dr Who now?

It's not on Netflix yet and BBC America OD isn't offered here.

Lance Uppercut

SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act)

Wibble

I have heard, from an evil friend, that fileserve, particularly as a member, is as good or better.

Wibble

They were idiots hosting some of their servers in the US.

gooDevil

I bet it will be back, probably under a different url.

It's like drug dealers getting kicked off their corners, except getting a new corner is as easy as getting a new url, and there are infinite urls.

Guy Incognito

This. Damn you government.

Damien1990

For anyone up for a bit of light reading, the court documents: Mega Indictment

sammsky1

does that mean sites like pirate bay will soo be no more too?

Wibble

I doubt it. The yanks got them because they were stupid enough to host some of their services on servers in the US.

a_devil_inside

shame, Megaupload was always quick and easy to use

RedKaos

It's a simple solution really, don't host your servers in the US and you won't have the US authorities going all Gestapo on you.

So long as they don't touch Pirate Bay...

Drifter

At least Pipa as been dealt a blow

Pipa weakened as Senate majority leader retreats from pushing vote | Technology | guardian.co.uk

sglowrider

Not so simple really. If you have a lot of your traffic coming from the States, then you save a lot of bandwidth costs by hosting in the States -- local loop charges (which is negligible) as opposed to having stream your videos from foreign-based servers and buying international bandwidth (which ain't cheap.)

The Taurean

one of the majors sites to be shut down. pity.

WeasteDevil

I you were British, I'd tell you.

Smores

Thank god the entertainment industry is saved from going under, all those poor sods having to cut back on their spare luxury yachts, truly heart breaking.

Until another site pops up next week that is. The main reason they want to go to such extremes in the two bills is because they know they can't stop piracy they're just forcing them to be more careful. Groups like Anon will only become more popular over the next few years.

WeasteDevil

How about not nicking stuff in the first place?

RedMist99

Nah, I'm fine thanks

Smores

There is that option. Every programme I watch online these days I've paid for through my TV license or Sky. House M.D for example, I've paid to watch it live but If I miss it they expect £1.50 to watch it through Sky Go which has adverts anyway, I have no qualms over 'stealing' in those circumstances.

My moral compass only goes as far as the effect of my actions which in this case is minimal. If I buy something and share the hard copy with everyone I know it's not a crime so what make sharing the digitised copy a crime?

evra

RIP megavideo

WeasteDevil

Because you're not sharing it are you? You are giving someone a copy of it. If you passed the file to someone and then deleted it yourself so that you can't use it, I'll agree with you. Is photocopying a book for someone ok?

mjs020294

Actually that is not quite true. The copyright that comes with records/tapes/dvds etc is for personal use only. So technically it is illegal to lend a hard copy to a friend. The industry always turned a blind eye to it because it wasn't a huge problem. These days with the internet one person can share with tens of thousands without leaving their home.


Reading some of the reactions on here is hilarious. Its stealing, and its a illegal. You wouldn't keep walking in a store and helping yourself to DVDs, and nicking stuff of the internet is no different. People really have lost all sense of reality and right and wrong in recent years.

Wibble

If it is stealing why has nobody been prosecuted for theft?

WeasteDevil

People have have they not in certain circumstances? Case in point is that it's in the "ether" so to speak. Picking it up is or "receiving" it is not illegal no more than it was with pirate radio stations in the 60s. The fault lies with those that distribute it. As for my original sentence in this paragraph, it's likely that those that have been prosecuted were also "sharing" themselves, so they also became distributors, which is what torrents rely on, consumption and distribution by all.

MikeUpNorth

Legally it isn't theft in most jurisdictions as you're not depriving the owner of their property. It's copyright infringement.

Morally it is theft, in the same way we can talk of 'stealing an idea'.

Smores

No as it's fucking awful reading photocopies.

I understand your point but the issue is more of access than ownership if the item was only streamed. It's a losing argument anyway as of course you're purchasing the usage rights of a product not the ownership and rights to redistribute.

I don't particularly judge my actions based on whether it's illegal or not I judge them on my own morals as do most surely?. My regular streaming of House maybe classed as illegal but I've paid to watch it in an alternative format so I couldn't give a damn. Any crime that has a raised status only because of it hitting large corporations profits rather than the moral nature of the act doesn't sit well with me.

Be interesting to see people's opinions when football streaming is targeted.

mjs020294

The legal costs of pursuing individuals is prohibitive. There have been thousands of people that have been hit with internet copyright infringements.

In all fairness many sites have taken down illegal streams when they are warned. It literally happens thousands of times a month.

Another thing worth noting with the recent actions by the US Authorities, the sites involved have had multiple warnings regarding infringements. They know they are on the edge of the law but their greed gets the better of them and they continue.

WeasteDevil

The ethics behind this are slightly different, and it's where IMO it becomes a bit wishy washy. If you have no legal access to the content in the first place, then is it a problem? I have no problem with streaming a football match if I have no other legal alternative to access that said content. Nobody is losing anything in such a case. It's the same with the BBC. I'd gladly pay them the licence fee for access to their content, however they don't want to take my money, so I have to circumvent their blocks and restrictions, be it online or a satellite beam tightly focused on the UK.

rcoobc

So basically your moral compass lets you get away with whatever you want, but not anything else?

Say you decide to watch a Mexican football match, but its not broadcast anywhere in your country so you have no problem streaming it "illegally" from another. You say "well if they had decided to show it, I'd be happy to pay for it". But the TV companies say "hang on, we bought you loads of this other crap. Had you not watched that Mexican game illegally you might have watch the Chillean game we did pay for"

Same with BBC Content, although you are fine with streaming it because you cant get it elsewhere, if you didn't stream it, you might watch something else and pay for the TV Companies choices.

There really is no way about this, either your a goody two-shoes who never does anything wrong, never streams anything, never downloads anything which might approach illegal, or you are like the rest of us. And although what your are doing might not be strictly moral, it is the TV Companies that need to compromise and find new way to broadcast their entertainment. If you could watch LOST online with adverts on Channel 4 as soon as it airs in America, you wouldn't have to download it in the UK the next day so as not to get spoiled.

Either the internet dwelling population need to give back their freedoms, or the multimedia companies need to adapt and compromise.

Cristobal

Emule strikes back!!!

Smores

It's not surprising that they'd be a generational disagreement over this to be honest. Us 20 something's have grown up seeing easier and easier access to any media develop, it's become a social norm.

A generation that only had the old telebox as entertainment must see those younger complaining about not being able to illegally stream material as a little spoilt and I'd partially agree. I have conflicting views, I do recognise it as wrong but I just don't care as the so called negative effect doesn't exist yet and there's so many more important issues. The entertainment industries caused a lot of their own problems in mistaking the internet as a threat and being slow to adapt new business models.

We all justify our own actions at the end of the day, streaming the weekly football game is as much as a crime as any other piracy, yet all ages on the caf feel it's justified.

WeasteDevil

If I have no legal access to the content, they lose nothing.

That's their business. Nothing is lossed if I have no legal means to pay for it. Give me a legal means to pay for it and I will.

No, because I don't want to watch Ana Rosa 24 hours a day thank you very much. I want to watch the BBC, and I get it through what the BBC put into the "ether", not from alternative sources. If I stick a 2m dish on my roof I can access the BBC programming, it's as simple as that! It's not encrypted, it's a radio signal flying around.

No, because I don't download copied content I have no other means of accessing.

No, I'm quite willing to pay the BBC for access to their content, and I'm quite willing to pay the Premier League for access to their content, but they don't want my money.

I have no interest in watching LOST, it's shite, but I do have a means to access that content if I so wanted to watch it at some point. Why you are bringing timelines into the discussion I'm not quite sure, I never brought timelines into my argument, you brought that to the table.

Access to broadcast (at least) is already being dealt with within the EU.

WeasteDevil

I have no ability to watch United legally every game. It's not an option for me. I'd gladly pay for it if it were an option, but it's not. Therefore nobody is losing any money on it are they?

rcoobc

I wasn't having a go Weaste, but do you get what I mean. I can't justify watching a 3:00 kick off of United via an Illegal stream because its the media's fault for not having the content? I know there are good reasons for protecting the 3:00's, and I appreciate their reasoning. But I justify it to myself because I want to watch the game and the punishment is probably not going to be too heavy.

You can't pick and choose which is immoral and which isn't. It's all slightly immoral, but that doesn't mean anyone is going to stop. The media companies do need to learn to put their content online and make it easily available, but if they don't it doesn't mean it's okay for us to steal it...

We just do it anyway.

WeasteDevil

It's slightly different again isn't it? The 3pm thing is to protect lower league clubs. Well, I can't go to those matches anyway.

Certain matches they do broadcast in Spain, but I have no access to commentary in English. They seem to have that in Holland where they can choose either the Sky commentary or the Dutch commentary, I don't have that option.