Now it works. It may be better to contact them directly, but AFAIK about how Ninjavideo worked:
All content was stored externally, usually on the likes of Megaupload. Using some fancy schmancy tricks (a java applet), the streaming they provided could get the content from there.
There may have been a more direct relationship with uploaders, especially due to the higher effort they put in to getting shows up as quickly as possible and in good quality, but it may be better to ask them directly if they're able to talk about it.
The site had advertising on it, and accepted donations from users (who would then get special mention and higher priority in the forums with site isues, and they're user name turned yellow).
The site branched out into other areas - they actually promoted a few artists through the site (one called Lowkey in particular I think), produced a comic via its forums and held one or 2 other forum focused things.
The forums for one the site that was taken down are up (not at the same domain as before), but note they were the site that also had been raided (at home and the servers abroad). Apparently they're part of a separate investigation, and you can read their side of the story here:
We always were, every step of the way. No one did this to get rich. We supported independent artists, released podcasts, fostered growth and debate. We were on our way to opening the Ninja Design Firm, wanted to set up an Independent Film Festival, a Spotlight Artist Music Concert... We had and still have so many wonderful plans. So many ideas to change this world. At least part of it. Ninja was the beginning of something that meant more than money. It was a small corner in a much larger debate. Now Ninja is the debate. And we are Ninja personified. We’re not bankrolled by a major corporation. We’re not funded by taxpayers. We’re individuals who banded together through the internet, just like you did. We played in the grey space of the internet, and they’re going to try to use our case to shade that area black.
I think it's you that needs brains little Michi. You don't seem to have presented anything that refutes the article. Don't let that stop you trolling though, I'm sure you're not here for any kind of debate around facts or about what people actually said.
You mean that citation noting that copyright has changed over time that had nothing to do with showing copyright is needed nor gives any insight into the history of copyright?
Then you are disingenuous or merely deliberately ignorant.
Copying an MP3 does not take away an opportunity for an artist to make money, and in fact the ability to copy may produce an opportunity in itself to make money. The only thing it takes away from the author is their belief that they have the absolute right to control how publicly released works are used, exchanged or shared amongst the wider public, and hopefully will eventually replace it with a far more realistic view of how the world works.
Again:
Do you get to exclude other people from recreating that piece of furniture? Do you have exclusive right over the design of that piece of furniture? Do you get royalties when ever a new chair you designed is sold? Do you get to use legally enforced measures of stopping people who buy it from being able to use it how they wish or reselling the chair? Nope.
If the majority of mankind were against copyright, we wouldn't have copyright.
If the majority of mankind didn't want Guantanamo bay to exist or for water boarding to be done to people interrogated there, we wouldn't have either!
Let's say you create a beautiful piece of furniture. Once you create the furniture, does it belong to the world? Nope.
Do you get to exclude other people from recreating that piece of furniture? Do you have exclusive right over the design of that piece of furniture? Do you get royalties when ever a new chair you designed is sold? Do you get to put legally enforced measures of stopping people who buy it from being able to use it how they wish or reselling the chair? Nope.
Copyright only became necessary when the technology to copy other people's works became more abundant...
...and there was an economic disparity between people who could widely distribute and those who couldn't. Now that isn't true any more - bye bye copyright!
Copyright does not take away something from the public. It does precisely the opposite. The whole point of copyright is to give to society something it otherwise would not have.
Why are you so insistent that the 2 are mutually exclusive?
Copyright trades away a natural ability and right to copy as a means to further the creation of works to benefit society and the public domain. It assumes that copying would be detrimental to society, partially based on the assumption of an economic disparity between gatekeepers of publishing and the artists themselves, where the public (including artists) do not have access to the required technology for widespread distribution and are thus dependant on middle men who might gain financially from publishing works and not compensating the artists whom they're publishing.
There is no natural nor moral right in stopping people from copying works unless you assume that it is detrimental, the only case I can think of being precisely when you have little access to the technology that allows for widespread distribution and there is significant money to be made in being a middle man. Suffice to say this is becoming rarer, and copyright in turn becomes more and more pointless and detrimental to society.
Publishing someone elses work under your name is plagiarism, not copyright infringement. Redistributing/publishing a work without authorization from the copyright holder is infringement.
And yes, there is a natural right and ability to copy and reproduce works. It's the law that says you cannot under the assumption that allowing it would be detrimental to society, but it should be noted that assumption was made when it was still difficult and costly for the public to do so at the time, quite different from now.
Not one that could probably be considered reputable, no.
Correlation != causation. The fact that copyrights exist do not mean they were responsible for the creation of the work. It is possible if not likely he may have created them if copyright had not existed, and been been able to make money even if they had not existed. Not to mention whether copyright for society as whole is a benefit.
On the post: Can The Operators Of A Site Targeted By Homeland Security Crowdsource A Defense?
Re:
All content was stored externally, usually on the likes of Megaupload. Using some fancy schmancy tricks (a java applet), the streaming they provided could get the content from there.
There may have been a more direct relationship with uploaders, especially due to the higher effort they put in to getting shows up as quickly as possible and in good quality, but it may be better to ask them directly if they're able to talk about it.
The site had advertising on it, and accepted donations from users (who would then get special mention and higher priority in the forums with site isues, and they're user name turned yellow).
The site branched out into other areas - they actually promoted a few artists through the site (one called Lowkey in particular I think), produced a comic via its forums and held one or 2 other forum focused things.
That's AFAIK. There's a whole bunch more stuff around what's going on now here: http://www.ninjavideoforum.net/viewforum.php?id=71
On the post: Can The Operators Of A Site Targeted By Homeland Security Crowdsource A Defense?
http://www.ninjavideoforum.net/viewtopic.php?id=35777
There were already quite a few pledges of support and donations.
On the post: Homeland Security Decides If It Just Keeps Interchanging Counterfeiting With Copyright Infringement, Perhaps No One Will Notice
http://www.ninjavideoforum.net/viewtopic.php?id=35777
On the post: A Million Dollar Record Deal Is Probably Not What You Think It Is
Re: Re:
Did you have fun setting up Asterisk?
On the post: Google Explains Why Making Special Copyright Laws For Newspapers Is A Mistake
Re: Re: Re: Some quibbles with Google.
On the post: Deutsche Bank Report Notes That It's Time To Rethink Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Deutsche Bank Report Notes That It's Time To Rethink Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Pay What You Want Works Much Better With A Charity Component
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Pay What You Want Works Much Better With A Charity Component
Re: Perhaps Charity helps but the restaurants keep dropping
On the post: Deutsche Bank Report Notes That It's Time To Rethink Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copying an MP3 does not take away an opportunity for an artist to make money, and in fact the ability to copy may produce an opportunity in itself to make money. The only thing it takes away from the author is their belief that they have the absolute right to control how publicly released works are used, exchanged or shared amongst the wider public, and hopefully will eventually replace it with a far more realistic view of how the world works.
Again:
Do you get to exclude other people from recreating that piece of furniture? Do you have exclusive right over the design of that piece of furniture? Do you get royalties when ever a new chair you designed is sold? Do you get to use legally enforced measures of stopping people who buy it from being able to use it how they wish or reselling the chair? Nope.
On the post: Deutsche Bank Report Notes That It's Time To Rethink Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Deutsche Bank Report Notes That It's Time To Rethink Copyright
Re: Re: Re:
...and there was an economic disparity between people who could widely distribute and those who couldn't. Now that isn't true any more - bye bye copyright!
On the post: Massachusetts May Be The First To Get A Right To Repair Law
Re:
On the post: Composer Jason Robert Brown Still Standing By His Position That Kids Sharing His Music Are Immoral
Re:
On the post: Composer Jason Robert Brown Still Standing By His Position That Kids Sharing His Music Are Immoral
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yes, there is a natural right and ability to copy and reproduce works. It's the law that says you cannot under the assumption that allowing it would be detrimental to society, but it should be noted that assumption was made when it was still difficult and costly for the public to do so at the time, quite different from now.
On the post: Composer Jason Robert Brown Still Standing By His Position That Kids Sharing His Music Are Immoral
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correlation != causation. The fact that copyrights exist do not mean they were responsible for the creation of the work. It is possible if not likely he may have created them if copyright had not existed, and been been able to make money even if they had not existed. Not to mention whether copyright for society as whole is a benefit.
On the post: Composer Jason Robert Brown Still Standing By His Position That Kids Sharing His Music Are Immoral
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Composer Jason Robert Brown Still Standing By His Position That Kids Sharing His Music Are Immoral
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there's no evidence of harm, how is it right that they can stop me creating copies of something I already own?
Plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement. Entirely different issue.
Like taking away peoples right to copy and share things they own.
On the post: Copyright Serves Middlemen, Not Content Creators
Re: What about middle men like "TechDirt" or "newser"?
On the post: Peter Jenner Admits That Stopping File Sharing Is Impossible
Re: Apply this to Steam
http://www.gametap.com/
Next >>