Dan Bull Raps About How Megaupload Takedown Screws Indie Artists Like Him

from the helping-the-artists? dept

Mon, Jan 23rd 2012 8:18am — Mike Masnick

Independent musician Dan Bull, who we've written about a number of times, is one of many independent artists who used Megaupload on purpose, to distribute his own album. All of the links out there to download his album -- which he wanted -- point to Megaupload. And, unfortunately, they now all point to nowhere, because the US government used questionable reasoning to completely shutter the site. So Dan did what Dan does best... he wrote and recorded a song and video about it. Check it out below: My favorite line? "Make money giving away things for free? Ah! Why can't the majors do similarly?" It's a key point. As we explained on Friday, tons of artists have figured out that Megaupload and similar sites are a fantastic new business model, but they're a business model that the major labels hate... so they work double-time to make it look like some evil conspiracy. If anyone in the US government actually bothered to understand how music is distributed, marketed and monetized today, they would have realized that Megaupload isn't the problem -- it's one way to make things better for artists. But, as we know, the folks in the US government only get their information from the RIAA. So they end up making life much more difficult for indie artists by shutting down useful services for those artists. And, in the end, that is exactly what the RIAA wants.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cyberlockers, dan bull, independent artists, megaupload
Companies: megaupload

132 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 7:58am

Convenient links to awesomeness for anyone new and unfamiliar with Dan Bull (all of these are worth watching, though the first three are my personal favourites):

Dear Lily [Lily Allen]

Dear Mandy [Peter Mandelson]

Home Taping Is Killing Music

Death of ACTA

SOPA Cabana
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Loki, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:57am
  
  Re:
  It's kind of entertaining that Dear Lily mentions Micheal Masnick.
  
  Sometimes I wonder how many people like a Dan Bull or a Wil Wheaton actually read Techdirt and how regularly they do so. Or how many of them might be anonymous posters.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike C. (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    I know that Wil Wheaton is at least a casual reader and reposts/links to TechDirt as evidenced by a recent Tumblr post of his:
    
    http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/16246156406/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-w ho
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jupiterkansas (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Eeek! Celebrities use the internet too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What is it with Wil Wheaton recently. First I help my friend set up Google+ on an old foundation, and WW ends up in my circles. Then every other post I read mentions him. I am beginning to believe its a conspiracy, and he is out to take over the world. ;)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701 (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 4:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sheldon Cooper: Damn you, Wil Wheaton!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 4:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Eliza Dushku reads here on occasion as well.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 7:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        great now im horny, thanks jerk
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:27am

Dowloading digital copies should legal, unlike blu-ray disk. Cuz the plastic in blu-ray discs causes cancer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:30am

Something funny
Sometimes when I click to play a YouTube-hosted video from TechDirt, it inexplicably vanishes from the page and there's just a white space where the video was formerly embedded. It just happened again with this video.

Interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re: Something funny
  i've been finding lately that any attempt to view a video on youtube linked from techdirt, using the embeded player or by actually going to youtube, produces the message 'an error has occured, please try again later' rather than the video. the rest of the page is fine.
  
  as error messages go, that's pretty terrible.
  
  it's also quite suspicious: other videos work fine.
  (of course, it Might just be an excess of viewers overloading the system, but i find that unlikely.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 7:55pm
    
    Re: Re: Something funny
    "as error messages go, that's pretty terrible."
    
    psssh that's nothing compared to my favorite general error on any Windows HOME edition (vista, xp, 7) "An error has occured please contact your system administrator." This is a home computer, I am my system administrator jackass
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PajamaJesus, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:32am

Another one bites the dust
Filesonic just committed suicide to avoid a punch in the dick from the feds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Call me Al, 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:10am
  
  Re: Another one bites the dust
  Thanks for posting this. I'll have the make sure they stop taking money from me each month for my premium account with them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:11am
  
  Re: Another one bites the dust
  Suicide is cheaper.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:43am
  
  Re: Another one bites the dust
  And yet, it's the pirates that are killing jobs in the entertainment sector of the economy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceboy (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:34am

Serious question
Now that Megaupload is gone, what alternatives do people like Dan Bull have? If Megaupload was his main distribution method, and he was only sharing his own content, what can he do?

This is EXACTLY what the MPAA and RIAA wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:41am
  
  Re: Serious question
  "This is EXACTLY what the MPAA and RIAA wanted."
  
  Quite obviously. And it will continue to happen...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:46am
  
  Re: Serious question
  Rapidshare is still there - and being hosted in Switzerland is probably beyond the reach of the US authorities.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:47am
    
    Re: Re: Serious question
    Don't worry, they'll find a way to block the site. It's only a matter of time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Serious question
      Like they did with the Pirate Bay?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 23 Jan 2012 @ 4:11pm
        
        Re: Like they did with the Pirate Bay?
        Pirate Bay isn�t a file locker.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jailbait, 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:20am
    
    Re: Re: Serious question
    Not necessarily, mate. Switzerland is fast becoming the next Australia and/or New Zealand. Just look at how completely the Swiss are willing to give up banking information on Americans... they should no longer be considered the "neutral" country where one can go to for protections. If BANKING in Switzerland is so open to American authorities, then it would be stupid to think that HOSTING would be safe.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:18am
  
  Re: Serious question
  Mediafire, rapidshare, filesonic (well...not anymore), multiupload, sendspace, dropbox, do I really need to keep going?
  
  There are plenty. Just look around. I personally think megaupload was one of the better ones (in terms of service) though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:49am
    
    Re: Re: Serious question
    check the list, most of these sites are running away from any US traffic, leaving him unable to try to connect with US fans and sell to them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:47pm
  
  Re: Serious question
  "Now that Megaupload is gone, what alternatives do people like Dan Bull have? If Megaupload was his main distribution method, and he was only sharing his own content, what can he do?"
  
  He can't post his song on YouTube or dump it onto a web site? Are you kidding me, MegaUpload was the indie artists only means of content distribution?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 24 Jan 2012 @ 1:06am
    
    Re: Re: Serious question
    So, it's OK for indie artists to have to keep hopping services at the whim of the RIAA when they decide not to like things? It's OK for them to lose a potential avenue of revenue because YouTube also happens to exist and it's currently in better standing with corporations? Hmmm...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:38am

Well they got what they wanted, they have terrified cyberlockers into altering their business model to avoid being seized by the US government.
Filesonic and Fileserve have altered their business model to locking files only to the original uploader.
https://torrentfreak.com/cyberlocker-ecosystem-shocked-as-big-players-take-drastic-action -120123/

Another player has blocked all US ip addresses. Other sites are folding in a panic, ending the ability to share any files, ending affiliate programs, and doing everything to avoid any problems.

So the **AAs have won this round. They managed to kill a huge chunk of the internet which had many uses, because they fear filesharing. These sites complied with the laws and rules, often times going above and beyond and still they find themselves in court with the **AAs just trying to bankrupt them.

Explain again how this benefits society...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:43am
  
  Re:
  They want all file-sharing stopped. What good is an online database if its use is confined to one individual? It defeats the purpose.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, they do. But how will this make them more money?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They will force a major player into bankruptcy and then scoop up the assets, and from the ashes they will rebuild it how they want it.
      
      Like Napster... that worked out so well.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You have it all wrong. They aren't trying to make money off of this. They're trying to protect artists like Dan Bull from having MegaUpload steal Negative Money from him.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chargone (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 1:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm assuming sarcasm here so i can laugh.
        
        otherwise i'd have to find a way to punch you in the face via the internet... and that would take time and money i don't have.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    Unless you use it, like I do, for transferring files between home and work.
    
    Email is too big. USB drives are disabled. How else am I supposed to get files back and forth?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Might I suggest RFC 1149.
      
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 7:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    moving large files between computers, especially useful when traveling to foreign countries seeing as the TSA thinks it has a right to anything on your computer. Also you could share an account with friend, family, business colleagues to move shit around.
    
    It doesn't have no value now, but it certainly has less.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Also I don't know what is going to stop pirates for sharing account info instead of links now. Unless maybe they shut down an account if too many IPS hit it in a timeframe. But thats more monitoring, more tons of info thats hard to keep up with and more chance for errors effecting legitimate customers. Not like the AA cares.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tor (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:55am
  
  Re:
  It's going to be interesting to see if this increases the willingness of people to engage in a political fight concerning these issues. After all, all this file hosters combined should have a quite significant user base.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stuart, 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:11am
  
  Re:
  If you can not win by passing a new law then you can still win by instilling fear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Loki, 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:35am
  
  Re:
  so we won a volley, and they countered with a volley of their own. The thing is, though, is their opposition is growing on a daily, weekly, yearly basis, and a fair amount of that opposition is now even growing among their own ranks.
  
  Bill Gates discussed in his book the topic of threshold, reaching a certain tipping point, in the success of technology. But I think that also applies to other areas as well. At some point, the opposition to the content industry will reach a certain threshold (could be a month from now, a year from now, a decade from now - but eventually it will come) and from there it will rapidly collapse. Sadly for them, in their effort to ward off the inevitable, they are actually doing a great deal to accelerate the process.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I want to be rich now, fuck the future!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loki, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:43am

Having done a fair amount of reading on the topic, and several discussion with other informed people I know, I do think there is enough circumstantial evidence to support some very questionable business dealings.

However, there are a few questions that beg to be asked. If he really did have substantial illicit dealings that were the source of the greater part of his income, why did he hire a high profile "industry insider" to run the company? Why did he announce plans to launch a competing service, and set up a systems that looked like it stood a good chance of luring some high profile talent away from the major labels? And if his activities were so illicit, why did the industry/government wait until he unfurled plans to basically "go legit" (assuming he was doing wrong in the first place)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:43am

well done to Dan.

i still think this whole Mega episode is in retaliation for them having the nerve, the audacity, to go to court over the take down of their video by Universal Music. 2 year investigation, my arse! after being in operation for 7 years, if they were really being such naughty boys, they would have been sued a lot earlier!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:48am
  
  Re:
  Agreed - possibly also provoked by the success of the SOPA protests into a petulant retaliation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ramil, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:46am

This is what I get when trying to see the video:

"Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany because it may contain music for which GEMA has not granted the respective music rights."

...something is really wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:53am
  
  Re:
  Yeah - gives the lie to all those A/C 's who have said that "you can give your stuff away if you want to" doesn't it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    uh, you still can.
    
    Have you suffered a head injury recently?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh, wait, I forgot GEMA weren't crminals committing rampant copyfraud to line the MAFIAA's pockets!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      uuuh can you read two posts consecutively to understand what a person is referring to or have you suffered a head injury recently?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:55am
  
  Re:
  Well Germany is very openminded and progressive in this manner, they currently allow content producers to accuse people and the burden of proof falls on the accused to prove they did not do it. Oh and not actually owning a computer is not a defense.
  
  Sorry but Germany is becoming a very good example of what to avoid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    becoming?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:56am
  
  Re:
  ...something is really wrong...
  
  Your VPN is misconfigured?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:58am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, GEMA is what the RIAA wishes to become one day. In Germany, all musicians have to be a member of GEMA in order to distribute their music. If a musician is not a member, the music gets blocked. Isn't that grand?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- alex (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:22am
  
  Re:
  Same here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwiz (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:59am

Antitrust?
As we explained on Friday, tons of artists have figured out that Megaupload and similar sites are a fantastic new business model, but they're a business model that the major labels hate... so they work double-time to make it look like some evil conspiracy.

I have been wondering about something ever since I read the article on Busta Rhymes. Obviously I don't have all the facts surrounding this, but I have to wonder how involved the RIAA or the labels were in this indictment. Based on other cases, I would assume they were heavily involved. Now if what Busta says is true and artists were using MegaUpload to profit directly from their works independently of the labels, would that not be considered anti-competitive behavior and be in violation to US antitrust laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:07am
  
  Re: Antitrust?
  ...would that not be considered anti-competitive behavior and be in violation to US antitrust laws?
  
  No.
  
  When "competitive" ISPs agree to fix prices at $35, that used to be a per se violation of Sherman Act � 1. Maybe it still is�in some other industry.
  
  But it's become very clear that DoJ will not apply their own antitrust guidelines when Hollywood wants something.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:10am
  
  Re: Antitrust?
  Yes, that breaks Sherman Antitrust laws.
  
  But the DoJ is firmly one sided. I was thinking that the Megaupload could countersue the government for violating those laws, but something fills me with trepidation as a judge might nitpick their arguments into nothingness.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:56am
    
    Re: Re: Antitrust?
    ...That might be because the DoJ is full of former MAFIAA and USCoC staffers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Antitrust?
      If I ever run for president, I have a LOT of people to fire...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chargone (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 1:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Antitrust?
        i recommend 18" naval guns.
        
        the US still has some of those, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:03am

Paywall!!!???!!!
In other words, you're claiming that MegaUpload is effectively a paywall that charges people to see/hear/read content. Then they go through some odd, inscrutable accounting scheme to pass some unauditable amount back to the artist(s). Sounds like the old studio system to me.

And if you don't pay, you're throttled to a tiny flow.

Fascinating business model. Now that you point out that it's a paywall, I can see some of the advantages.

Now if only they didn't sell other people's content at the same time....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:13am
  
  Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
  I don't know what you're trying to say here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:08pm
    
    Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
    he wants to try and make everything we like a paywall because we don't like paywalls. Its usually poor logic, ranting and insults. Like most of Bobs posts, nothing to see here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 24 Jan 2012 @ 1:11am
    
    Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
    He's one of the local inbred hicks who drops by and attacks one of the facets of Mike's previous arguments at the expense of all others.
    
    In his case, he's obsessed with Mike's previous criticism of paywalls as attempted by the NYT and others. He now tries to pretend that any business model that involves payment is not a paywall, and that Mike is a hypocrite because he's able to see advantages to those models not present in those he previous criticised.
    
    As with most "counter arguments" here, it's annoying repetitive and blatantly false, but this keeps them off the streets, I suppose.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 24 Jan 2012 @ 1:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
      "any business model that involves payment is a paywall"
      
      FTFM. Early. Need coffee.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:16am
  
  Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
  Selling content? So the free option didn't impress itself on your flat little brain.
  
  0/10 - DUDE SERIOUSLY stop posting when your high.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bob, 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:53am
    
    Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
    And where did they get the money to pay the artists-- and buy all of those swish cars and mansion(s)? Answer: from making sure that the free service was sooooooo bad that the alternative was to pay. So in other words, it offered just enough free to fool the fools around here into thinking it was a new business model.
    
    Consider this reviews:
    
    "Cool, huh? Too bad if you get an error message saying all the slots for your country are full. ... you probably won't be getting your download."
    
    http://www.knowledgesutra.com/discuss/tmtfmm-review-megaupload-file-sharing-service.html
    
    The tiny free pipe was just as much of a paywall as the strongest encryption.
    
    Face it: you're in love with a paywall!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
      You could usually use MU once an hour, with speeds low-mid (around the 1MB/s mark for me as a former free member). You could pay for three things:
      
      1) longer link-hosting;
      2) more bandwidth for your account: and
      3) unlimited downloads.
      
      The service provided was decent, the DMCA responses were quick and they actualy wanted to give money to the artists directly.
      
      Stop trying to say that free doesn't work, and that any charges made are paywalls. It makes you sound like a broken record industry, and makes you look like Special Fred.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bob, 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
        Okay. Why don't you explain when asking people to pay counts as a paywall and when it doesn't. Here's my list:
        
        * Free samples/slots: New York Times and MegaUpload
        * Charge for unlimited consumption: New York Times and MegaUpload
        * Extra features for paying customers: New York Times and MegaUpload
        
        So I think if you say "paywall" for the New York Times, you should say the same for MegaUpload.
        
        But you can live in your own little bubble and deny reality if you like. Just illuminate how you distinguish between the so-called paywall at the New York Times and the wonderful so-called free world at MegaUpload.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
        The NYT wasn't unlimited, even when it said it was: it permitted 10,000 page views from that account, then you had to pay again. So the unlimited there wasn't actual unlimited (believe me, I checked this out the hard way).
        
        Also, can you name the last time the NYT allowed you to store stuff on their servers? Moreover, can you tell me the last time the NYT's "samples" refreshed each hour, rather than once in a blue moon?
        
        When MU said unlimited, it meant it, and even if you didn't keep on paying them, they kept your files for X period of time over the upload limit. It was a free service that was easy, convenient and useful. The same cannot be said of the NYT online.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
        * Free samples/slots: New York Times and MegaUpload
        
        Megaupload didn't provide "samples" of downloads. You could still download the entire file for free.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
        Except that the two are intrinsically different. Of course you knew that, you're just a lying little prick. The Times lets you see a portion of an article. MU let you download a file for free every hour. Got trollolololol somewhere else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
      So because they had limits on their service they were evil?
      This seems to be the argument your making.
      
      As to paying the artists, why would they?
      They had not opened their music platform yet, they offered a service for people to upload and share files.
      
      Other people seemed able to use the service with never paying them anything, so your mostly just blowing the smoke from your bong up your own.. nevermind.
      
      Encyrption, paywall, pipe...
      
      0/10 - DUDE STOP POSTING WHEN YOUR HIGH! Your messing up the buzz words from your talking points email.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bob, 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
        It is fascinating. I never said they were evil here. I was just appreciating how much of a paywall they had built. It's all in the marketing it seems.
        
        MegaUpload builds a mansion and a car collection worthy of being in the 1%- nay the 0.1%. They charge you for decent access to the content. They even make you suckers curate it.
        
        Then you sit around and defend the money grubbing and pretend that it's all "free".
        
        I tell you what. I'm going to host "free" job training at my house. In it, I'm going to "crowd source" the training by giving more "mod points" to the best painters of the fence in my backyard. Then I'm going to charge the people who want want the best sections of the fence to paint. Isn't it nice of me? Some trade schools charge a lot for job training, but I'm going to let you paint my fence for free. And make sure you do a good job or I'll take away your mod points.
        
        See ya all this Saturday. And be there right at 9am or I'll take away mod points.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
        You tried so hard... and in the end you reveal yourself to be the creepy man in the van offering candy to children.
        
        MU earned the money, didn't have it dropped in their lap by birthright. Didn't get it after destroying the global financial system, didn't get it by polluting the planet, didn't get it in hundreds of other ways. They earned it.
        
        They arrested the companies graphic designer, this is about trying to terrorize.
        
        Thanks for playing, but your having a hard time coming off as believable.
        
        1/10 I gave you a pity point so maybe you'll go away and indulge in self abuse while the grownups talk.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
        I'll paint your fence....with a dog-urine finish.
        
        Remember the mantra: no-one deserves to get paid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
      Umm...did you ever use megaupload? Ever? You could download 5-10 GB a day with little to no restriction, recently (the last year or so) they did away with wait times for download and captchas, there are numerous programs to automate the process (mipony, jdownloader, plowshare, fatrat, slimrat, tucan, etc...etc...etc...). The free service was pretty awesome, and if you didn't want to pay beyond that there were alternatives based upon the way the website worked (like the third party autodownloaders mentioned).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bob, 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
        Why would I use a roach motel like that place? I'm just going by the crowdsourced reviews, which everyone around this place knows are so much better than professional reviewers. And the ones I see say that MegaUpload is pretty stingy with the free "slots".
        
        And I can also see the size of that house. I'm sure that a substantial number of people weren't able to get the free service that you describe.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
        You're an idiot, then. Unless ytou're actually allergic to trying new things, these kinds of sites were actually useful, not only for distributing works, but also for passing things that e-mails bitched and moaned at.
        
        Like, for example, the first draft of a novel I'm working on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
        Ah, so you're going by anecdotal evidence. Just like all of us.
        
        So, just as you ignore everything we say, you accept us ignoring everything you say.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
      You.. do know that you didn't have to choose your own country for a download slot, right? There were times I'd choose something overseas because it was peak hours over here. Never once had a 'server full' error that had a wait of longer than 15 minutes. Learn some patience. It might help decrease the pressure from that tumor.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
      "And where did they get the money to pay the artists-- and buy all of those swish cars and mansion(s)? Answer: from making sure that the free service was sooooooo bad that the alternative was to pay."
      
      Advertising. wait is advertising a paywall in your mind now too Bob?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:16am
  
  Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
  bob... Will you ever make sense? Megaupload was not a paywall and it didn't charge people to see/hear/read content.
  
  It gave people access to share their own files on the site. Then it charged for scarcities such as faster download/upload speeds and gave an affiliate program to those that wanted to make their own music.
  
  The "accounting" scheme you were talking about was trying to give artists more than labels, which is why the RIAA is bitching a fit.
  
  The "throttling" wasn't a tiny flow. I've used the site. It was easy to get around some of the artificial paywalls and watch content or set up new content by yourself. It was entirely your choice as the consumer.
  
  Now the government took that away. They took access away for millions of users who had legitimate backups and files that the government seized. This is far worse than the government seizing a book store. This is the government raiding a legitimate site that people used for legitimate files because less than 10% shared movies.
  
  And the chilling effects of SOPA are felt right here with this destructive censorship of a business that did its best to conform with the DMCA. It's time to sit down and take away copyright enforcement. It does no good and a helluva lot of harm.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bob, 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:55am
    
    Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
    See what I wrote above. Most people had trouble get a "slot" and so they paid. Do you think that those fancy cars and mansion came from just being a good little seeder and sharing equally?
    
    Get a clue. You're sitting around moping about the end of a paywall.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
      A "paywall" which didn't stop you from doing what you wanted with the file once downloaded, that didn't stop you from doing other stuff and wasn't actually a paywall.
      
      Riiiiiiight.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bob, 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
        Sure. And you can save files and print things from other paywalls too. I've got plenty of films I bought from iTunes that I watch on my desktop, iPad and laptop. But I'm not fooled. I know it's a paywall.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
        The handwavium is strong in this one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
        so you still don'tunderstand the difference between service and paywall? Oh well, maybe someday Bob. BTW are you still failing economics at that community college?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Atkray (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
      No no problems getting a slot.....ever.
      
      Had my son check with is college buddys, they report no problems, and say they all used it heavily. Several of them were on filesonic when it switched policies too.
      
      Sorry bob, you are creating fiction when you claim "most people had trouble".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
        I can heartily agree with this. I've only ever heard of people having a problem in a few rare cases (extremely popular files for example), and those were almost always fixed by the "wait 5 min and refresh the page" approach.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
      *Sigh*
      
      I cannot wait until these people that don't get technology die off.
      
      They are always trying to wrap terminology and situations into a single little package, and it's just not the way technology works.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
      Most people had trouble get a "slot" and so they paid.
      [citation needed]
      
      Since you seem to be some sort of authority on this, please tell us what your methodology was - what was the sample size? Were the respondents self-selected, or was it a randomized survey? What were the questions? How did you adjust for any reporting bias (such as recall/memory or attention biases ) that could have occured?
      
      I'm certain someone with your posting history wouldn't possibly be saying something that can't be corroborated with evidence, so please post what you have here so that we can all see how wrong we are.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
      OMG I just figured out why your so damn butthurt about this.
      You paid to access files because you didn't want to wait, so your nuts are in a bunch because that Nigerian Prince didn't come through with the money so your mad at MU rather than at yourself for being a freaking moron.
      
      0/10 - I bet you have lots of problems getting a slot unless you pay upfront.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:20am
  
  Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
  Do you even know what you're a) commenting on or even b) what you just said?
  
  You're a fucking idiot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:45am
    
    Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
    "You're a fucking idiot."
    
    No he isn't.
    
    He is a Big fucking idiot!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 1:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Paywall!!!???!!!
      No he's not. He's a shill, he only pretends to be this stupid.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CJ (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:24am

Independent musicians...
Maybe the copyright police mongers knew that some of the best Independent musicians were at Megaupload so that gave them even more incentive to go after Megaupload?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 9:26am

So copy protection privileges are only being used to hurt artists a whole lot more than they help them by being used as a means to deter service providers from providing them with distribution. What's new. These are the same laws that have been used to make it legally too risky and expensive for restaurants and other venues to host independent performers, which makes it very difficult for musicians to gain recognition. Many musicians in the past have gained recognition due to playing at various venues, like Ritchie Valens got signed due to the attention he got from playing music in an open venue. If you look at old movies it wasn't uncommon for restaurants and other venues to host independent performers who played music. Back in the days, this was very common and many musicians got their start and initial publicity doing that. You don't see it much anymore because of copy protection laws. These laws aren't helping artists, they're intentionally hurting them by requiring musicians to go through an artificially needed gatekeeper to get their content distributed. They're being used to make it legally too risky and expensive for venues to host independent performers and they're even being used to make it too legally risky and expensive for bakeries to host user and child generated drawings on cakes. How harmful, a child drawing a picture on a cake for his birthday!!!!

and with wrongfully granted government established cableco and broadcasting monopolies/cartels, outside of the Internet, content creators have little choice but to go through a government established monopolist gatekeeper to get their content distributed. This hurts musicians, it hurts content creators and the public, it only helps the middlemen. and the government established media cartels want to do to the Internet exactly what they have managed to accomplish outside the Internet, to scam artists and the public alike.

If this is the harm IP is going to cause artists and society I say we abolish these laws. These laws are only intended to help the middleman, no one else. Abolish them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:06am
  
  Re:
  How about we kill all the middlemen in entertainment and take their stuff? After all, they won't be needing it once they're all dead.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "How about we kill all the middlemen in entertainment and take their stuff? After all, they won't be needing it once they're all dead."
    
    No need.
    Their lifestyle will do what needs to be done.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I was htinking more about...hurrying along....that prospect.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
md1500 (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:25am

Could Dan Bull sue for loss of sales?

Megaupload removal is killing music!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:50am

Dan Bull makes the one serious mistake that most indie artist make using services like mega. They assume that the public is paying for their stuff. They are not.

The public pays to get access to pirated material, plain and simple. Some of that income is used to allow artists like Bull a place to put their stuff. Without the pirated material, the file locker site wouldn't be able to make the money to support Bull's flawed business model.

Kim dotcom didn't make 150 million off of guys like Dan Bull. He made it off of pirated material, plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:55am
  
  Re:
  Kim Dotcom made money off providing free or cheap storage. Other people uploaded the pirated material. Why should he be responsible for what they did (ah ah ah, no bringing in "he helped blaaah" or "he knew about blaaah", you didn't feel the need to use it in your argument, so no new material now. Let's just focus on what you've said). Based upon what you've said, the mailman is a terrorist for delivering letters that contain anthrax, as is the USPS.
  
  Now, if you'd like to bring some more information to the fore about why Kim is responsible we can talk about that. With just what you said so far there's not a whole lot of substance, just a whole lot of misplaced blame, opinion, and stupidity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:56am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 23rd, 2012 @ 10:50am
  Which would then mean that the MAFIAA have a deeply flawed business model based on old practices. Perhaps people wanted to share their legally purchased content with their friends.
  
  You cannot stop nature.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:13am
  
  Re:
  Dan Bull makes the one serious mistake that most indie artist make using services like mega. They assume that the public is paying for their stuff. They are not.
  
  I am not exactly sure how it worked, but I think you are wrong.
  
  The public was paying. Not with cash, but with eyeballs. From what I understand, MegaUpload payed the uploaders for files that were downloaded many times (ie: lots of eyeballs on the ads on the download pages). This was money from all the eyeballs on the ads. This is a win-win for the Indie artist - tons of exposure and the more your stuff is downloaded, the more money you make.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    and these sites did respond to DMCA takedown notices and infringement takedown requests, so it's unlikely they were making much at all from the tiny fraction of infringing material that might have existed on their servers. If anything, it cost them more to police this material than what they allegedly made.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Are you seriously suggesting that Mega made 150 million on content from guys like Dan Bull? This isn't Fantasy Island... wake up!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you seriously suggesting that Mega made 150 million on content from guys like Dan Bull? This isn't Fantasy Island... wake up!
        
        I wasn't aware Mega was selling content at all.
        
        The few times I downloaded stuff from Mega and I had to click through a couple few ad pages to get to the download I naturally assumed they were in the advertisement selling business.
        
        And it wasn't just guys like Dan Bull either - seems like some pretty big hip hop artists were using this site to make money by distributing their own works outside of label control.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Again, not enough to justify 50 million visits. The real money was made selling unblocked download access. Music is small and easily seeded over torrents. Why pay for access to Mega to get the music that is all over the place anyway?
        
        It's your side's logic. Why pay for what is free?
        
        There just isn't 150 million bucks to be had there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 12:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Which isn't the point. The point is that
        
        A: They can provide a distribution platform for many artists who can gain recognition from the service and use it as part of their business model to make money. This helped artists, it didn't hurt them.
        
        B: They likely made most of their money from non-infringing material.
        
        and if, as you say, music was only such a small part of their money making endeavors and people can find other (though less efficient) ways to spread non-infringing music and certainly more efficient ways to spread infringing music (since this site did respond to DMCA takedowns and made efforts to remove infringing content) then there is little point in taking down megaupload, as you seem to admit.
        
        "This isn't Fantasy Island... wake up!"
        
        No, your presented arguments are strawmen because your position is intellectually bankrupt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 1:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Here's the rub: If they can do that without the pirated material as the draw, why aren't they doing it?
        
        The answer: People won't pay for it. The business model doesn't work in the current situation.
        
        When you remove the illegal part of the business, the rest of it fails.
        
        No, your presented arguments are strawmen because your position is intellectually bankrupt.
        
        You are unable to explain why nobody is using this business model without the pirated material. I would say it's fantasy island, and you are ignoring reality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Here's the rub: If they can do that without the pirated material as the draw, why aren't they doing it?"
        
        They are doing it without the pirated material as the draw. What evidence do you have that pirated material is being used to draw people? None, whatsoever. It's something you entirely made up on your own and are assuming guilt until proven innocent. Yes, pirated material gets sneaked in occasionally, but they respond to DMCA and infringement takedown notices and take it down. But it costs money and resources and time to take it down and it's not practical to police all of the material all at once when several hours or even days of content gets uploaded per minute.
        
        "You are unable to explain why nobody is using this business model without the pirated material."
        
        You are unable to explain how service providers like Youtube and others are supposed to perfectly police all of their content when days of content gets uploaded per minute. You are unable to explain how they are to magically know what constitutes infringing material when IP holders are not required to provide for a way to reference their material for detection.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "When you remove the illegal part of the business, the rest of it fails."
        
        [citation needed]
        
        The overwhelming majority of what they host is likely legal. Again, they respond to DMCA and infringement takedown notices, are you seriously suggesting that the tiny fraction of infringing content that occasionally leaks through (and likely gets taken down) is what draws the majority of audience and hence their income? Do you have any evidence for that or are you just going to assume that people are guilty until proven innocent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If they can do that without the pirated material as the draw, why aren't they doing it?
        
        Because they can't prevent what their users upload, genius. They have no way of policing the number of uploads they get. It's up to the copyright holders, instead, to find their material if it's unauthorized, then issue the DMCA notice to Megaupload.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 6:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's like you don't even bother to read what others type. Are you really that stupid? You ask if they can do what they do without pirated material, why don't they do it after someone tells you that the take down as per the DMCA, so the DON'T do it with pirated material. Ignoring what someone tells you isn't debating the issue, it's being deliberately dense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why can't a mail carrier remove the illegal part of their bussiness? Postal service, fedex, and ups are all a bunch of drug mules. Arrest the postal service! bunch a filthy criminals
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because when the post office finds out that you are distributing drugs, they call the FBI and have your ass arrested.
        
        MegaUpload wasn't exactly unaware of what was going on on their site. Read the indictments. To make the analogy accurate, the post office would have to field your complaint about the lost shipment of cocaine and the post master general send out an e-mail saying they need to improve the care on shipments of cocaine because sometimes the baggies are getting cut and it's leaking out before delivery.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thats a shame that all these file lockers are going to close now right? Since they are no longer accepting american users or sharing they have nothing people want and will close right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Again, not enough to justify 50 million visits. The real money was made selling unblocked download access.
        
        I'm not convinced. A large amount of visitors does not equate to illegal activity. I'll reserve my judgment until after the facts of the case present themselves.
        
        Music is small and easily seeded over torrents. Why pay for access to Mega to get the music that is all over the place anyway?
        
        Umm. To support the artists who were getting paid directly for uploading their own works.
        
        It's your side's logic. Why pay for what is free?
        
        No, that is your side's twisted logic. I pay for plenty of things I could obtain for free. Cable TV (I pay twice there, once for service and again with eyeballs on ads), Netflix, satellite radio, traditional radio (ears on ads, instead of eyes), etc. etc...
        
        There just isn't 150 million bucks to be had there.
        
        Once again, I'll wait for more information before I judge the situation. I'm really not the type to convict a suspect before there is an actual trial and all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Again, not enough to justify 50 million visits. The real money was made selling unblocked download access."
        
        No no no people WANT copyright material, they fucking need it. We spend hundreds of millions telling them they want and need it so thats what they are getting. I didn't spend 70 million last year telling them to by Dan Bull stuff so the don't want Dan Bull, why can't you people understand that people only want stuff that has a commercial and nothing else is valid or desired.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and torrents are a pain to use. Many people don't use them, it's much more convenient for me to go to a centralized location where I can simply click a link and download what I went from a server than to have go to scatter across the Internet to find the torrents when they are released and load bittorrent and all of that (not to mention the administrative and potential upload bandwidth that bit-torrent uses since it needs to negotiate multiple connections to multiple computers and it can take a while to get decent bandwidth). Of course, artists and service providers who can offer the convenience of services like MegaUpload can more easily gain a much larger audience.
        
        and Dan was uploading music videos, which aren't as small as music by itself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ever heard of Justin Bieber?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "It's your side's logic. Why pay for what is free?"
        
        No that's your sides logic. That once something is free money can't be made on it anymore. Our side is happy to support artists we like.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 12:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Are you seriously suggesting that Mega made 150 million on content from guys like Dan Bull?"
        
        Are you seriously suggesting that they made the majority of their money from infringing content? You haven't presented any evidence for that. Being that you haven't it is likely they didn't. People are innocent until proven guilty, if you want to claim guilt then the burden is on you to substantiate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 11:25am
  
  Re:
  "Without the pirated material, the file locker site wouldn't be able to make the money to support Bull's flawed business model."
  
  [citation needed]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 1:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    citation? more like boot to the head.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I used to be a pirate, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 8:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        hmmm the RIAA is getting more openly violent in your neck of the woods?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 2:49pm

'This video has been blocked from your location because it contains music the GEMA has not given permission to use.'
That's a good one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ceoholla (profile), 23 Jan 2012 @ 4:10pm

The Pot calls the Kettle Black- ..AND Justice, SOPA and Pipa for All
First Summary Judgment�now Stop Online Piracy (SOPA) and Prevent Internet Piracy (PIPA).

Help Save Independent Artists� One Nation...indivisible? with Liberty...AND SOPA AND PIPA FOR ALL!This EXCLUSIVE PREVIEW shows the Human effect of these alleged UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNJUST AND UNFAIR dismissals of Copyright Infringement/IP Theft of Independent artists works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iogIhzTtKEk&feature=youtu.be

The Injustice for All..Summary Mis Judgment Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdHjrd4P9Rs&NR=1&feature=fvwp) , documented the LEGAL ISSUES involved in the alleged illegal and Unconstitutional dismissals of Independent artists� Copyright Infringement cases against multimillionaires/their companies/distributors.

In addition, the article �Death of Copyright� The Perfect Storm" written by Attorney Steven T. Lowe statistically validated our accusations of Injustice within the federal judicial system where he stated �In the last 20 years, in the Second and Ninth Circuits and the lower courts within those circuits, 48 copyright infringement cases against studios or networks were litigated to final judgment. In all 48 cases, the victors were the studio and network defendants. Most of the cases were determined by a grant of Summary Judgment;" Lowe stated that 46/48 copyright cases, 96% of all cases, IN 20 YEARS, NEVER SAW A JURY in two of the biggest circuits in the United States! Summary Judgment is simply, �allegedly� Stealing�In the Name of the Law!

Should Hollywood continue being protected from adhering to the same anti-piracy rules they now have attempted (but have since failed)to influence Congress to,once again, enact into law?

Let�s see who will take the same stand for THEIR constituents that has previously, effortlessly and continuously been taken for Hollywood.

Help Save Independent Artists� One Nation...indivisible? with Liberty...AND SOPA AND PIPA FOR ALL!�WE ARE THE 99%. Independent Artists, our children and our children�s children can NEVER allow for Copyright to DIE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 11:09am
  
  Re: The Pot calls the Kettle Black- ..AND Justice, SOPA and Pipa for All
  What ???
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]