FileSonic disables file sharing in wake of MegaUpload arrests

[iceberg]

Hmm. If you were distributing 1 million unique songs that means you have to get them uploaded first. To upload 1 million songs at an average (And a generous average, mind you) of 300 kb/s and an average song size of 5mb it would take you 202 days to upload all of them, roughly. That's almost 7 months. If you're paying about $40 for your internet (Which is also generous, considering if you have 300 kb/s upload capability, it's probably more expensive) that means you're paying a little over $240 to be able to transfer that kind of thing and your bandwidth is saturated the whole time.

I can buy a pack of 100 DVD-R at 4.7 GB each at $24.29

http://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-...1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1327340128&sr=1-1

To fill the same capacity of songs as I would transfer over the net would cost me about $260, but remember that the above scenario assumes a very good upload rate at a very cheap price. So the difference is about $20.

There you go

Hopefully my math didn't fail anywhere along the way.

he's trying to compare the 80s to today. burning a dvd at the time was almost unheard of much less a cd, so we have to stick to cassette/vhs tapes. i also said i can upload 1 song and it can be downloaded 1 million times. now copy 1 million tapes with that 1 song on it and pass it out as easily as we do today.

your upload is way off. i don't upload it 1 million times, only once and share the link. now people can download it in minutes and NOT buy a thing outside the cost of their own connection.

on the flip side, i can also just take my music library and put a DNS name on it and share the entire thing online. that would be p2p sharing and done all the time as well. hit a centralized search engine and since i'm online and have my directory "shared" the songs come up in hits and people download from all over the world.

and i never uploaded a thing in this scenario.

all i'm saying is comparing online pirating a song to copying a tape is stupid.

 

[JonJon]

The thing is, piracy will always be around in some form. As soon as lawmakers pass a bill to ban whatever, there's going to be hackers that will find a way to steal material and post it, and their will be pirates that find the posted material and download it. Even the SOPA bill that was/is being proposed has several loopholes that can be/will be exploited. That doesn't make it right or justified, but I'm just saying it will always be around so the best thing to do is just accept it and continue to advertise to those that will buy honestly and not worry about those who steal the product.

I want to introduce a new point in this whole piracy thing. How do you guys feel about p2p video sharing? I'm sure most on this site have benefited from watching Cowboys games that were not available in their area by watching it online. Well those sites are in violation of copyright was well. But here is my whole problem with the viewing areas and NFL Sunday Ticket; Who should I have to pay for something that someone else gets to see for free? Those that live in the Dallas area will get to watch the games for free on their local stations, but because I live in a different viewing area, I have to shell out hundreds of dollars a year to watch the game. That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Dallas]

The thing is, piracy will always be around in some form. As soon as lawmakers pass a bill to ban whatever, there's going to be hackers that will find a way to steal material and post it, and their will be pirates that find the posted material and download it. Even the SOPA bill that was/is being proposed has several loopholes that can be/will be exploited. That doesn't make it right or justified, but I'm just saying it will always be around so the best thing to do is just accept it and continue to advertise to those that will buy honestly and not worry about those who steal the product.

I want to introduce a new point in this whole piracy thing. How do you guys feel about p2p video sharing? I'm sure most on this site have benefited from watching Cowboys games that were not available in their area by watching it online. Well those sites are in violation of copyright was well. But here is my whole problem with the viewing areas and NFL Sunday Ticket; Who should I have to pay for something that someone else gets to see for free? Those that live in the Dallas area will get to watch the games for free on their local stations, but because I live in a different viewing area, I have to shell out hundreds of dollars a year to watch the game. That doesn't make sense to me.

Very interesting topic and will be fun to see what folks think on it. I am with you. I think its rediculous I can't watch what I want, simply because I am not in the tv market. That is just pure stupid BS and I would love to have NFL Ticket be on all cable PPV. You want to watch the Cowboys for that day? 20$ or w/e...

Good discussion JonJon

 

[iceberg]

The thing is, piracy will always be around in some form. As soon as lawmakers pass a bill to ban whatever, there's going to be hackers that will find a way to steal material and post it, and their will be pirates that find the posted material and download it. Even the SOPA bill that was/is being proposed has several loopholes that can be/will be exploited. That doesn't make it right or justified, but I'm just saying it will always be around so the best thing to do is just accept it and continue to advertise to those that will buy honestly.

I want to introduce a new point in this whole piracy thing. How do you guys feel about p2p video sharing? I'm sure most on this site have benefited from watching Cowboys games that what not available in their area by watching it online. Well those sites are in violation of copyright was well. But here is my whole problem with the viewing areas and NFL Sunday Ticket; Who should I have to pay for something that someone else gets to see for free? Those that live in the Dallas area will get to watch the games for free on their local stations, but because I live in a different viewing area, I have to shell out hundreds of dollars a year to watch the game. That doesn't make sense to me.

SOPA was just stupid across the board and nothing to really do with piracy in as much as control.

don't get me wrong - there should be the ability for people to share their work w/o issue, even copyrighted if they feel like it. i also agree that it will always be around, but that doesn't make it right or something people should just "ok". i can name any other crime out there and some major felonies as well - they'll always be there so should we just accept it?

didn't think so.

but where to draw the line is what this is exactly about. how to draw it, who will control it, what exactly is "theft of IP"?

downloading a song on a p2p / megashare server? yes. 100%. you can "listen to it" anywhere and if you like it, buy it. no demo argument here.

downloading a game you were not going to buy anyway? yes, 100%. just because you'd not buy it doesn't give you entitlement to it. i'm not gonna buy a ferrari either but i'm pretty sure i'd get in trouble if i took one. something being "digital" doesn't mean it's any less real to the person trying to make a living off of it.

watching a video on youtube someone made with a copyrighted song in the background? technically yes. you have like 3-5 seconds (trick do you know for sure) where you can leverage it but if you use the whole song there are tons of laws saying whether you can or not. will the band care if you do that? likely not but here is where SOPA or anyone else can shut you down because technically that's not legal. but people do make videos to songs they love all the time, so is it "wrong"? something like this is where the middle ground is.

if i post a copyrighted pic on facebook, am i in violation for simply reposting it? posting it to begin with? again, gray area between intention and just use of IP.

so yea, there is a ton to figure out. from what i've seen of SOPA our government is either too stupid to do this for us or they just don't care and want power now, understanding later.

no one is denying there is a lot of gray area out there. i'm just amazed people can deny stealing a song or game or whatever is ok when it's just stealing.

 

[iceberg]

Very interesting topic and will be fun to see what folks think on it. I am with you. I think its rediculous I can't watch what I want, simply because I am not in the tv market. That is just pure stupid BS and I would love to have NFL Ticket be on all cable PPV. You want to watch the Cowboys for that day? 20$ or w/e...

Good discussion JonJon

yea, the watching of games is another "gray area" but backed by a ton of laws done for the benefit of the NFL and networks also. but if you don't like the laws, is it ok to go around them because of that simple purpose.

i'm pretty sure if i told an officer i ddn't like the speeding laws so it shouldn't apply to me i'd get a chuckle. the trick here is it's far easier to just watch it online w/o getting caught and many will do it because of that reason.

this is also why i think before long the NFL will be pay per view anyway.

 

[Barbarino]

agreed. the internet isn't a playground where people have free reign to do whatever they want on it.

Including the Government.

 

[tupperware]

he's trying to compare the 80s to today. burning a dvd at the time was almost unheard of much less a cd, so we have to stick to cassette/vhs tapes. i also said i can upload 1 song and it can be downloaded 1 million times. now copy 1 million tapes with that 1 song on it and pass it out as easily as we do today.

your upload is way off. i don't upload it 1 million times, only once and share the link. now people can download it in minutes and NOT buy a thing outside the cost of their own connection.

on the flip side, i can also just take my music library and put a DNS name on it and share the entire thing online. that would be p2p sharing and done all the time as well. hit a centralized search engine and since i'm online and have my directory "shared" the songs come up in hits and people download from all over the world.

and i never uploaded a thing in this scenario.

all i'm saying is comparing online pirating a song to copying a tape is stupid.

Oh I didn't know it had to be VHS/Tapes. I also assumed he meant 1 million songs as in 1 million unique songs, not upload a single song to be downloaded a million times.

 

[Dallas]

Including the Government.

I agree to a point. I don't want censorship at all but you do have to have some sort of enforcement of rule breaking and lets face it, the blatant stealing of copyrighted material does need to be put in check.

I would imagine something quiet being done and nothing else coming from it. This storm will pass and will be no more important next year as it was 2 years ago.

I really see no teeth coming at all from any government, be they US or Iran.

 

[iceberg]

Oh I didn't know it had to be VHS/Tapes. I also assumed he meant 1 million songs as in 1 million unique songs, not upload a single song to be downloaded a million times.

well i'm just trying to address "well you copied tapes!!! SAME THING!" to show it's not. 1 song can be digitally downloaded a million times - do that distribution on tape somehow.

I agree to a point. I don't want censorship at all but you do have to have some sort of enforcement of rule breaking and lets face it, the blatant stealing of copyrighted material does need to be put in check.

I would imagine something quiet being done and nothing else coming from it. This storm will pass and will be no more important next year as it was 2 years ago.

I really see no teeth coming at all from any government, be they US or Iran.

we've got to have SOME law!!! : )

the entertainment industry has a ton of lobbyists in DC, this is going nowhere and sooner or later will have to be figured out as best it can.

 

[tupperware]

well i'm just trying to address "well you copied tapes!!! SAME THING!" to show it's not. 1 song can be digitally downloaded a million times - do that distribution on tape somehow.



we've got to have SOME law!!! : )

the entertainment industry has a ton of lobbyists in DC, this is going nowhere and sooner or later will have to be figured out as best it can.

I know it's not the exact same thing I was just trying to play devils advocate and show you can do it for roughly the same cost.

 

[iceberg]

I know it's not the exact same thing I was just trying to play devils advocate and show you can do it for roughly the same cost.

don't see how it would even be close. if a tape was $1 in 1988 then it would be $1 million dollars in tapes alone to give 1 million people access to this song.

that doesn't include delivery.

 

[tupperware]

I was actually talking to a friend about this earlier. I think the problem is a lack of foresight. Piracy just kind of became out of control and it's now to a level where the only real way to control it is invasive measures which are just as bad if not worse than the piracy it's attempting to address.

I think that the old argument of "Music for $15 a CD is just too expensive" and "$20 for a movie is too expensive" just can't hold up well now with streaming services that pretty much have every song you'd ever want (rdio, spotify, etc) And movie streaming services that have a lot of movies (netflix, blockbuster).

But as long as it's easy to pirate things and there is a sense of complete anonymity even if it's not really anonymous, people will continue to do it. There is just something that makes one feel so much less guilty for stealing bits over stealing actual goods from a store. I try to be fair about it, I buy what I like. If I don't like it, I don't leave it on my computer. I know that's not technically right, but I find it's fair as I'm still paying companies who I may not of even paid because I would have not gotten to try out their product to make a determination on it.

I'm not quite sure what the solution is. I think it's scary to imagine a world where you could be imprisoned downloading a song, but when you think about it, it's like you said, no different from stealing the physical copy. You're entitling yourself to a good or piece of information you did not purchase. I've also heard other ideas tossed around like an internet fee/tax for this thing.

 

[tupperware]

don't see how it would even be close. if a tape was $1 in 1988 then it would be $1 million dollars in tapes alone to give 1 million people access to this song.

that doesn't include delivery.

That's because I was using a DVD-R example and not a Cassette tape. I didn't know it could only be cassettes. I thought any form of physical media could be used.

 

[iceberg]

I was actually talking to a friend about this earlier. I think the problem is a lack of foresight. Piracy just kind of became out of control and it's now to a level where the only real way to control it is invasive measures which are just as bad if not worse than the piracy it's attempting to address.

I think that the old argument of "Music for $15 a CD is just too expensive" and "$20 for a movie is too expensive" just can't hold up well now with streaming services that pretty much have every song you'd ever want (rdio, spotify, etc) And movie streaming services that have a lot of movies (netflix, blockbuster).

But as long as it's easy to pirate things and there is a sense of complete anonymity even if it's not really anonymous, people will continue to do it. There is just something that makes one feel so much less guilty for stealing bits over stealing actual goods from a store. I try to be fair about it, I buy what I like. If I don't like it, I don't leave it on my computer. I know that's not technically right, but I find it's fair as I'm still paying companies who I may not of even paid because I would have not gotten to try out their product to make a determination on it.

I'm not quite sure what the solution is. I think it's scary to imagine a world where you could be imprisoned downloading a song, but when you think about it, it's like you said, no different from stealing the physical copy. You're entitling yourself to a good or piece of information you did not purchase. I've also heard other ideas tossed around like an internet fee/tax for this thing.

and this is the issue. like i said earlier, just because something is digital doesn't diminish it's value. as for cd's being $15, yea that's overpriced but at best the artist got like $1.19 a sale. AT BEST. most didn't get near that from their record deals. the lables and the RIAA did. this is why they're upset cause their massive profits are historic now and those margins are likely to never be there again in the online / digital world.

we totally agree on why people do it. i'd speed my hiney off if i'd never get caught and could do it anonymously. >g< then again i do have a hemi. but this also doesn't make it right and something needs to be there to be the gatekeeper and ensure that people trying to make a living off digital works are fairly compensated.

That's because I was using a DVD-R example and not a Cassette tape. I didn't know it could only be cassettes. I thought any form of physical media could be used.

if he's going to compare this to 1988 then we have to use 1988 means and measures - in my comparison anyway.

in 2012 i can put 1 song up and it can be copied 1 million times easily.

you couldn't do that in 1988 so the only way to compare is to get that song out to 1 million people with the technology available at the time. even saying this is a comparison shows why it's an issue.

 

[Zaxor]

this is jacked up logic. if you have no intention to buy it, don't steal is because of that.

why not "test it out" on netflix or blockbuster for $5 and not worry about "stealing it" only to "buy it" if you like it?

How is this logic my friend... IF I was just watching a movie a friend lent me... and he was 2000 or so miles away so we used technology to get it to me faster.

did I steal the movie?

It is a good question... and with the age of "internet friends" can it really be claimed to be theft or loss of property rights... if so than there should be a ban on more than a single person watching a given movie at home...otherwise he/she is providing a public viewing... and can someone tell you you can't lend your property out...sorry no rake for you.

 

[Zaxor]

I think in trying to crack down on the file sharing you have to eliminate rights and that would be a mistake all the way around...If we may go back to the patriot act and I hope this doesn't get political but at the time I heard many people say "only terrorist would have something to fear by letting the government tap phones" I told ya than that any loss of rights was a crime against humanity and even if we have to fight with one arm tied behind our back we should never sacrifice what we believe in and that is freedom...we lost when that law passed and we will lose again I fear when they try to legislate the internet.

 

[Zaxor]

sorry for the back to back to back posts...:

I understand the loss of revenue but there has to be a better way to recoup the losses concerts, television appearances...etc. atleast for the artists the problem is the compensation for those record labels and movie makers

 

[iceberg]

I think in trying to crack down on the file sharing you have to eliminate rights and that would be a mistake all the way around...If we may go back to the patriot act and I hope this doesn't get political but at the time I heard many people say "only terrorist would have something to fear by letting the government tap phones" I told ya than that any loss of rights was a crime against humanity and even if we have to fight with one arm tied behind our back we should never sacrifice what we believe in and that is freedom...we lost when that law passed and we will lose again I fear when they try to legislate the internet.

trying hard to keep it away from politics cause i'm really enjoying hearing the viewpoints and concerns.

ok, in the scenario in your above post about being "loaned" a movie, only you rip-n-send - is that legal? doubt it. many movies today give you the right to pull for your own use but i doubt they want to loan you the digital version.

HOWEVER - if they mail you the original is it ok? maybe, but what about his backup? is that now illegal?

these are valid questions SOPA was ignoring and it likely would have all been illegal and punishable - hence the outcry.

now - back to talking about your rights to things - i'm all for that. but if i'm trying to make a living off selling things that are now easy to loan simply because of technology, where are *my* rights in this scenario? if you have the right to "borrow" at will, in the end you'll just kill the industry cause everyone's just borrowing it.

i know many bands personally that had to pretty much give it up cause no one bought a thing. sometimes it's because their music sucked sure. other times, people just "borrowed it" and they couldn't afford to keep buying hardware and studio time.

any idea how much it costs to be in a good studio for a day? the bands can't "borrow" that time, they have to pay for it.

so while i understand what you're saying in this "rights" game and all, i side with the artists. we don't pay them they become plumbers and lets face it, do you really want a tattoo'd guy in leather pants screaming falsetto tunes while he unclogs your toilets?

 

[Denim Chicken]

I’m not completely sold that loss of revenue can be tied to file-sharing. Perhaps is due to the crap music that’s put out nowadays—a direct result of the corporate music scene.

 

[Zaxor]

trying hard to keep it away from politics cause i'm really enjoying hearing the viewpoints and concerns.

ok, in the scenario in your above post about being "loaned" a movie, only you rip-n-send - is that legal? doubt it. many movies today give you the right to pull for your own use but i doubt they want to loan you the digital version.

HOWEVER - if they mail you the original is it ok? maybe, but what about his backup? is that now illegal?

these are valid questions SOPA was ignoring and it likely would have all been illegal and punishable - hence the outcry.

now - back to talking about your rights to things - i'm all for that. but if i'm trying to make a living off selling things that are now easy to loan simply because of technology, where are *my* rights in this scenario? if you have the right to "borrow" at will, in the end you'll just kill the industry cause everyone's just borrowing it.

i know many bands personally that had to pretty much give it up cause no one bought a thing. sometimes it's because their music sucked sure. other times, people just "borrowed it" and they couldn't afford to keep buying hardware and studio time.

any idea how much it costs to be in a good studio for a day? the bands can't "borrow" that time, they have to pay for it.

so while i understand what you're saying in this "rights" game and all, i side with the artists. we don't pay them they become plumbers and lets face it, do you really want a tattoo'd guy in leather pants screaming falsetto tunes while he unclogs your toilets?

I hear ya my friend loud and clear...and it isn't fair to the artists not one doubt about that...but again at what point is the line drawn and if someone rips it and sends it ...was it any different for those in the postal business when the telegraph came online and "digitalized" mail... using technology shouldn't be a crime... and again lending of stuff has always been from mankind's beginning to present day so how can you stop the lending of media...If you make it an exception and have special rules than others will want that exception also because fair is fair.

but this problem is way over my paygrade... I haven't the foggiest of a clue to set it right but I fully understand both sides and in this instance they are both right imho.