What do you mean by "ok"? Morally ok? That is subject to opinion. I don't have a problem with them now, and I never did. Legally immune? They very well could be. Certainly any action against them is going to be much harder this time, if only because a bunch of people in New Zealand are still pissed about what happened last time without the revisions that were made. If their system works as they claim, and renders the…
As soon as a file goes public and anybody can get it, then it seems to me irrelevant that its encrypted on mega servers. They'll have to respond to takedown requests because the contents are known. And if mega is de-duping content then that could technically eliminate "whack a mole" for the copyright holders (except for people re-encoding the file and re-uploading). I had heard in the past that mega would only take d…
I dont think the content can be accessed by mega without the full URL. The URL probably contains the information about the location of the data plus a passphrase to unlock the key to decrypt the data. In this way mega could hold the data without knowing the URL to access and decrypt it. The full URL would only be retrievable through the user interface, which mega would not have access to unless their servers are storing your login password. Which I assume they are not for legal reasons. I am making assumptions here.
What do you mean by "ok"? Morally ok? That is subject to opinion. I don't have a problem with them now, and I never did. Legally immune? They very well could be. Certainly any action against them is going to be much harder this time, if only because a bunch of people in New Zealand are still pissed about what happened last time without the revisions that were made. If their system works as they claim, and renders the…
However you feel about copyright, profitting off of the distribution of other peoples work, without their permission, is not something that should be encouraged or tolerated.
No artist is ever paid when Vevo displays an artists music video on Vevo. Yet, google pays artists who post their own work. That means Gangnam Style has probably make over a million dollars from advertising on Youtube. So who is stealing more? The distributors or Google. The answer is: they are all stealing. The largest portion always goes to the content manager. Pulling distribution from the hands of companies and putting it back into the artist control will see a much fairer distribution of wealth. Thus the conflict and artificial moral discussions we see pushed from media about this. Sharing is a moral act.
However you feel about copyright, profitting off of the distribution of other peoples work, without their permission, is not something that should be encouraged or tolerated.
Congratulations, you've just made criminals of Google. Because clearly they profit off the distribution of other peoples work without their permission every day.
Gmail shows me ads related to the content of my email. Worse, it shows ads related to the content of emails sent by my friends and family.Some of which have no relationship or agreement with Google. Google does this to maximize advertising revenue. Google is profiting off the original works of my friends and family without their permission and provides them absolutely nothing in return. Now you may complain about the moral and ethical practice of distribution rights. But sharing with people you know is not distribution. Most countries have different laws for sharing then distribution. In my country it is naturally legal to share music and other recorded content. Your country may convince you that this immoral, but in the natural sense, sharing is never immoral. In fact it is compassion.
"A node token ("magic cookie") grants access to a subtree of the issuing user's filesystem. An associated symmetric key is required to decrypt and/or store decryptable data." https://mega.co.nz/#developers Apparently, they use unsalted symmetric key encryption which allows them to discover [hash(file), password] duplicates. By comparison, the old Megaupload would apparently deduplicate based on [hash(file)] matches.…
> I would personally feel unsafe storing private documents on Mega due to the lack of public/private key encryption, but that's me. It is probably worth pointing out that all of this encryption stuff is only for them. Nomatter how they brand it, the purpose is to give them plausible deniability, which they lacked with the previous Mega. If you want encryption meant for you, then you should probably just encrypt your…
In order to maintain the plausible deniability, Mega cannot store an decryption passphrase. Meaning they will not have the links to the unencrypted files. As the URL will contain the passphrase within it. The only thing required to make this private is to plug a Tor hidden service onto the front end. That way the direct link to the data is not known by the download user and Mega will not store this link without losing plausible deniability. Win win. Bad part is that all downloads now have to go through Tor (slow).
Everyone knows that it's Daft Punk. Credit isn't needed. What do you want? "Bigger. Better. Faster. Stronger. Safer. Thanks Daft Punk for all the music!" Daft Punk sold out by their second album anyway, they're hardly underground geniuses in want of credit now. Nonetheless, I think it's just more grandiosity and find it irritating that he riffed on the chorus at all.
What do I want? For him to be thrown in jail. I honestly don't care about people swapping media between themselves. But setting up an exchange to do that, and paying for it by selling space to advertisers? That's not "sharing". That's business. And that business would collapse if he had to pay the copyright holders he depends on. In general, audiences have NO idea how much time, effort, etc. it takes to produce decen…
> In general, audiences have NO idea how much time, effort, etc. it takes to produce decent work.
I stopped listening to commercial music and watching commercial movies when industries started suing private individuals. I was surprised how easy it was. The only time I hear or see commercial content is when it is pushed on me through advertising and other expensive marketing techniques. I wish hollywood and big distribution would vanish tomorrow. Do you really think that talented artists would simply disappear and stop producing quality work if they're wasnt the possiblity of becoming a star behind it? Nonsense. Art is from the heart. I hear quality all the time from local street buskers and playing in bars in my city. Everywhere in the world there is great quality work that is having money taking out of there mouths by big industry who would rather have a huge fan base for a minimal set of artists. The reason it costs so much to produce what you consider 'decent work' is because that is what you have been convinced to believe. Quality is not expensive, and yet its rarely paid because most of the money is being funnelled through distribution companies who simply cannot possibly handle the many millions of people around the world who deserve a piece of the entertainment revenue pie.
I listen to Jamendo, Soundcloud and CCmixter. I watch videos on youtube and vimeo. I am entertained. So when megaupload was taken down... for me it had nothing to do with losing the ability to break someone's copyright, but rather it was simply another example of big distribution shutting down an alternate channel of distribution.
For me, the sooner distribution companies die, the better. They have no purpose anymore because distribution costs are $0. We all pay for distribution ourselves when we pay our ISP for bandwidth. The only remaining purpose for distribution companies is to sue for their lives in order to limit the number of artists who receive income for their work.
What do you mean by "ok"? Morally ok? That is subject to opinion. I don't have a problem with them now, and I never did. Legally immune? They very well could be. Certainly any action against them is going to be much harder this time, if only because a bunch of people in New Zealand are still pissed about what happened last time without the revisions that were made. If their system works as they claim, and renders the…
However you feel about copyright, profitting off of the distribution of other peoples work, without their permission, is not something that should be encouraged or tolerated.
> However you feel about copyright
What do you have to say to those of us who disagree completely and fully with the entire concept of intelectual property?
With the way I feel about copyright, I believe distribution of other peoples work, with permission or otherwise is something that should be actively encouraged and praised.
Whether they profit off of it or not is completely irrelevant.
For what it's worth, I also have a much bigger problem with commercial copyright infringement than non-commercial copyright infringement. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5084439 I can see how the Daft Punk thing would get on your nerves. It seems like all this man does is use people.
"Uses" people by creating products other people are willing to pay for. Just like your local pig farm "uses" the animals to provide you food you are willing to pay for. Mega is just being a midleman here. What's so wrong about it, really? If an industry goes down because it can't compete with "free", then maybe it should go down because technology makes the business model unprofitable? Big players go down and small o…
I'm waiting for machines to build the next Mega and put Mr. Dotkom out of a job. Afterwards, machines can replace all the layers and sue us for pirating the content they create.