Megaupload stormed by the FBI

dendrin · January 26th, 2012, 19:58

Filesonic has removed all their peer to peer sharing. You can still use the site for personal storage.

http://www.filesonic.com/

dp · January 27th, 2012, 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by dendrin

Filesonic has removed all their peer to peer sharing. You can still use the site for personal storage.

http://www.filesonic.com/

Most file sharing services based in the US (or having servers in the US) are probably not the best places to store files anymore. Could be a lot of dead links here soon, even if we've tried to play nice with copyright holders. I'd recommend a safer file sharing service if I could, but I have no idea which ones are in the clear (if any). It's probably best to use a video-only site like YouTube for content that doesn't violate its TOS (i.e., no adult content). YouTube is backed by Google, and has advanced algorithms to filter out copyrighted content (at least it's more effective at it than any other site I know).

March 1st, 2012, 16:47

Any one over here can suggest good site to upload bigger files of around 500 mb or so. It need not be long lasting. I need it only for few days.

ownsville · May 1st, 2012, 04:55

I think any talk of users being prosecuted is hogwash. No legal system in the world could cope with the number of cases they'd have to process - many across national borders - and then there's the small matter of sorting out who's getting what money after being prosecuted by which laws in what countries...

No, they're after the big fish who film it then flog it up there. The distributors. Same with drugs and any other form of contraband - you can only confiscate the contraband on the user, if you want to tackle to problem, cut the source.

It simply isn't expedient or profitable for them to go after everyone who's ever downloaded a copyrighted file. They might make an exception for piss takers, who have downloaded hundreds of gigabytes, but these days monthly limits of 50GB + are being maxed out.

With regards to fighting back, its a slightly ridiculous notion given most people can't be bothered to object when their government taxes them for a problem caused by lying bankers. Who also tax them.

I'm more concerned that too little is being made of the declining quality of media versus its price. Media is the only product you cannot return for being shit. If you order food at a restaurant and it is not to your taste, you are within your rights to return it and expect a replacement or your money back. If you buy paint to do up your house and its the wrong colour from what's in the tin, you can take it back and get it replaced.

If you watch a film thinking its going to be good, but actually its bollocks, you cannot take it back and get your money back. I think that's wrong, because it means there's now a massive oligarchy of rich jerks who are buying up licenses to very good franchises - and systematically obliterating them with their shit film-making.

What I'm talking about is best illustrated in the now-cancelled (thank God) Live Action remake of the blindingly excellent and seminal anime, Akira. Changes to which involved switching the setting from Tokyo to New York, and changing the main characters name from Tetsuo to Travis. It just doesn't work.

As much as it annoys me that idiots pay to see films they know are going to be shit, it infuriates me even more that there is no mechanism in place to reimburse offended parties who are dissatisfied with the product/services they have purchased. If I took a game back to a shop and said "This was billed to me as good, but actually its a bit shit", they wouldn't have it back off me. Why not? If I find flies in my soup at a restaurant I'd be well within my rights to demand a replacement.

That, to me, is why downloading is so prominent. Because people are so pissed off with shoddy product that they feel the need to try before buying - and why shouldn't they, if they're going to be screwed out of a good time by crap work and cheap shortcuts? In the majority of cases, media that sits well with the downloader will be purchased, if not immediately then within months of viewing. If it sucks...well, rightly no one will buy it.

In England it costs ?10 or more for a cinema ticket. That's one viewing of a film. The dvd release, if it divebombs, will cost as much, dropping to ?5 only after two or three months of it floundering. If its a successful film, it will cost double this for double the amount of time.

The other thing I'd like to add to this rant, and I apologise but the subject irks me, is that the marketing for movies these days has become outright propaganda. Have you noticed that every dime-a-dozen, two-bit, cookie-cut film these days has some big quote on the back from the New York Times or the Daily Mail or some shit, proclaiming it "The best action film of the year" or some crap? Anyone who'd woken up not understanding the devolution of film over the last ten years might be forgiven for assuming that actually, every film thats made now is in fact a box office smash. When in fact, everyone who paid to see the highly anticipated movie felt it was bollocks, didn't buy it, and now own a copy they haven't opened because their aunt bought it idly at christmas for them.

Meaning the douche who made it has the money to continue producing bilge.

I despair

May 1st, 2012, 04:55	#4
ownsville STANDARD Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: UK Posts: 86 : 0 For This Post 18 Total	I think any talk of users being prosecuted is hogwash. No legal system in the world could cope with the number of cases they'd have to process - many across national borders - and then there's the small matter of sorting out who's getting what money after being prosecuted by which laws in what countries... No, they're after the big fish who film it then flog it up there. The distributors. Same with drugs and any other form of contraband - you can only confiscate the contraband on the user, if you want to tackle to problem, cut the source. It simply isn't expedient or profitable for them to go after everyone who's ever downloaded a copyrighted file. They might make an exception for piss takers, who have downloaded hundreds of gigabytes, but these days monthly limits of 50GB + are being maxed out. With regards to fighting back, its a slightly ridiculous notion given most people can't be bothered to object when their government taxes them for a problem caused by lying bankers. Who also tax them. I'm more concerned that too little is being made of the declining quality of media versus its price. Media is the only product you cannot return for being shit. If you order food at a restaurant and it is not to your taste, you are within your rights to return it and expect a replacement or your money back. If you buy paint to do up your house and its the wrong colour from what's in the tin, you can take it back and get it replaced. If you watch a film thinking its going to be good, but actually its bollocks, you cannot take it back and get your money back. I think that's wrong, because it means there's now a massive oligarchy of rich jerks who are buying up licenses to very good franchises - and systematically obliterating them with their shit film-making. What I'm talking about is best illustrated in the now-cancelled (thank God) Live Action remake of the blindingly excellent and seminal anime, Akira. Changes to which involved switching the setting from Tokyo to New York, and changing the main characters name from Tetsuo to Travis. It just doesn't work. As much as it annoys me that idiots pay to see films they know are going to be shit, it infuriates me even more that there is no mechanism in place to reimburse offended parties who are dissatisfied with the product/services they have purchased. If I took a game back to a shop and said "This was billed to me as good, but actually its a bit shit", they wouldn't have it back off me. Why not? If I find flies in my soup at a restaurant I'd be well within my rights to demand a replacement. That, to me, is why downloading is so prominent. Because people are so pissed off with shoddy product that they feel the need to try before buying - and why shouldn't they, if they're going to be screwed out of a good time by crap work and cheap shortcuts? In the majority of cases, media that sits well with the downloader will be purchased, if not immediately then within months of viewing. If it sucks...well, rightly no one will buy it. In England it costs ?10 or more for a cinema ticket. That's one viewing of a film. The dvd release, if it divebombs, will cost as much, dropping to ?5 only after two or three months of it floundering. If its a successful film, it will cost double this for double the amount of time. The other thing I'd like to add to this rant, and I apologise but the subject irks me, is that the marketing for movies these days has become outright propaganda. Have you noticed that every dime-a-dozen, two-bit, cookie-cut film these days has some big quote on the back from the New York Times or the Daily Mail or some shit, proclaiming it "The best action film of the year" or some crap? Anyone who'd woken up not understanding the devolution of film over the last ten years might be forgiven for assuming that actually, every film thats made now is in fact a box office smash. When in fact, everyone who paid to see the highly anticipated movie felt it was bollocks, didn't buy it, and now own a copy they haven't opened because their aunt bought it idly at christmas for them. Meaning the douche who made it has the money to continue producing bilge. I despair __________________ "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy" - Tom Waits

January 26th, 2012, 19:58	#1
dendrin Administrator Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 4,029 : 0 For This Post 11,128 Total	Filesonic has removed all their peer to peer sharing. You can still use the site for personal storage. http://www.filesonic.com/

March 1st, 2012, 16:47	#3
goneju Guest Posts: n/a : 0 For This Post 0 Total	Any one over here can suggest good site to upload bigger files of around 500 mb or so. It need not be long lasting. I need it only for few days.