Closure of Megavideo and Megaupload

Dear Simone, you write very interesting things that I agree with 100%. The world is not actually free, because it does not belong to the peoples who inhabit it. There have always been scoundrels who have desired to dominate the masses. Furthermore, for centuries someone has attempted to emulate the Roman Empire by trying to conquer the world. Napoleon, mad Hitler and others have tried without succeeding; instead, capitalism succeeded, "quietly" (so to speak). Will better times come, times when the world will finally belong to its legitimate owners, the peoples?

Open content (youtube)

I already knew these videos...

Will there be better times, times when the world will finally belong to its legitimate owners, the peoples?

As long as respect between people fails to prevail over "money god," this will be the situation. The earth belongs to no one and, in fact, we are literally "CHILDREN OF THE EARTH." This argument has been presented to me many times, and when asked, I have always responded with another question of my own:

"But did the world weigh more when it was still unpopulated, or today when we are almost 7 billion people?"

In the answer lies the solution to the entire discussion. We will talk about it again...

Dear Simone, I will be a voice outside the chorus but frankly I do not share your reflections, which are nonetheless legitimate and respectable.

I used Megaupload to exchange heavy files for work, so I regret its closure, but there are many alternatives. The problem is that most people use these servers to illegally download works protected by Copyright.

If we continue down this path, very soon the film industry, just like the music industry already does, will no longer have the possibility to finance new works, and precisely as is already happening with music, it will worry only about financing "Sure Thing" works where nothing or almost nothing is at risk, and so let's forget about: young authors, debut works, experimental cinematography, niche works that perhaps do not meet the taste of the "masses" but might enrich us culturally. Infringing on freedom of speech as you imply means shutting the mouths of real journalists, closing news outlets, blocking search engines like they do in China........ Certainly not closing the possibility to "see for free"....

With affection and respect

Francesca

Certainly... Everyone has their own vision of the matter. However, I do not like to reason in an isolated way; I always try to rely on mathematics and statistics rather than asserting my personal theses, especially when talking about economic damages, where numbers are what command, and in this case, we are talking about alleged damages to film companies (alleged because they have no point of comparison to use as a sample); and the statistics show exactly the opposite, even if it may seem absurd. The research was conducted by the German GKF, a very famous statistics agency, like our ISTAT here in Italy for clarity, which after collecting various data has demonstrated that video piracy (whether right or wrong, it is not my intention to question this topic, and I leave it to everyone to decide based on their own moral and social norms) actually helps the promotion of cinematographic products. I repeat, these are numbers, not opinions! (Here is the article)

Infringing on freedom of speech, as you imply, means silencing real journalists, closing news outlets, blocking search engines like they do in China....

But this has been happening in Italy for perhaps 20 years now! And I can show you free documentaries by RAI journalists that show the list of words forbidden from being spoken on news programs and TV broadcasts, absurd!!! Starting to ban freedom of expression on the internet, which until today is the only place where true freedom of expression and speech exists, and which does not necessarily have to be aimed at watching copyright-protected content, is in my opinion something extremely serious!

Copyright was born with Verdi; I don't know if you are aware of this, it is right on one hand and completely wrong on the other... Taking inspiration from the inventions of others has always been the engine of innovation. Gounod completely copied Prelude No. 1 of The Well-Tempered Clavier and added a melodic line on top... It doesn't seem to me that they were locked in a cell. Copyright was born not to protect, but solely and exclusively for profit. Once at university, a young man who worked for a very famous company (whose name I cannot mention for obvious reasons) came to explain the use of this software produced by them. At the end of the lesson, he told us: "You are young people and it is clear that you cannot afford to purchase this software (which costs several thousand euros); for now, download it from the web, use a pirated copy to study and learn, but if one day you have to work with it, it is only right that you buy the licensed copy!" It seems to me that the reasoning holds up... To this day, when we want to achieve something, we start from foundations laid by others. Copyright, just like patents, is something that limits development in both cultural and technological fields. I agree that it is wrong to copy and distribute material owned by others for free when sums of money have been invested in its creation; at the same time, it does not seem right at all that copyright lasts until 70 years after the author's death, or after the death of the last of the authors if it is a work created by an author and co-authors—in this way, I am not only paying the author but two other generations... What does that have to do with it? Furthermore, it seems stupid to sentence the creator of a site to 50 years when, for obvious reasons, they do not have the possibility to control the millions of files being uploaded to their servers every day, especially after they themselves created a disclaimer and were prepared to remove material from the archives upon report of protected content. Perhaps it is time to take it out on the uploaders and not with those who offer a service complete with a disclaimer. To draw a parallel, it would be as if starting tomorrow, millions of users began posting files on this site (on which I have also written a disclaimer, where I do not assume responsibility for material uploaded by other users... I can only limit myself to providing the uploader's IP address to the authorities; some of these files are pirated). The question is: I, being just one person, how can I control millions of files that are uploaded every day? Is it my fault then if other people use my service illegally? Well, this person is given 50 years, while someone who kills doesn't even get 20. I repeat... Let's give things their proper weight. I like to sing my own tune and play my own way. Assuming that all streaming sites—which will never end, but let's say one day the authorities manage to close them all—do exist, do you really believe that people accustomed to streaming will start going to the cinema?

I believe that those who resort to streaming do so because they do not have the financial means to afford a 30-euro film or 7 euros at the cinema, which if five people go, becomes 100 between tickets, popcorn, and drinks; or it is used by a person curious to see a preview of a film before going to see it in high quality at the cinema; as for someone who uses 1000-euro software, if they can't find it on the internet, do you think they would buy it? They would perhaps opt for open source. However, maybe once they have had the chance to try it and therefore learn it, if they have to use it for work, they will be forced to buy it... In short, I don't see this piracy as a condemnation at all; in my opinion, it has and does spread much culture even to those who cannot afford it. Fortunately, I do not belong to this category and the software I own was purchased with a regular license. But what about those who don't have the money to buy and study? Are they condemned to live like beggars because they weren't lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family able to provide them with tools for study?

With maximum respect for your intervention.

I agree with what Simone said. You cannot clip the wings of culture and freedom: the problem is that these actions are used only to censor! In reality, the powerful are realizing that the internet is a free space and anyone can say what they think.

Regarding the issue of copyrights on songs, what Simone said is this: something is paid at an exaggerated price, which everyone knows does not match that price.

One should reflect on why record companies are like money-sucking machines; it's not that kids download that one song instead of a CD or an entire discography.

If they put up a promotion with records at 7 euros and ask me: would you invest about 200 euros for the Zappa albums you like most? Of course I would, if I had the money to do it. But what if I didn't? Do I have to keep listening to Modà? 😠

Francesca,

what a beautiful name!

I have a beloved daughter with this name and therefore I will pretend to be speaking to You.

Knowledge initially developed, and continued over time, through the free transmission of information.

Progressively, for reasons of power, it changed its mode of transmission and, with the progression of social organization and the division of labor, the powerful began to finance the "producers" of knowledge. These produced knowledge that enriched not only the powerful of the moment but which, subsequently, enriched all of humanity without them having to pay rents.

So the problem we are trying to address is how the production of a particular type of commodity should be remunerated, which is not knowledge, but culture, entertainment, etc.

Now, you see, the fact is that the market is born to be democratic (many towards many), but the forces in the field are not balanced and, over time, have become asymmetric in terms of culture and money (few towards many). In other words, forces are formed that are against the democratic market, seeking to manipulate it to maximize profits and transfer wealth from those who produce it to those who intercept it, eliminating the democratic market and replacing it with their own personal interpretation.

This strategy consists essentially of organizing into oligarchies that divide the market vertically.

In reality, the ideal market would be polyarchies and horizontal division, but someone says that without economies of scale there would be no development. Fine, let's adopt economies of scale and, in parallel, economies of scale in politics too, with representation only for those who produce wealth and not for those who intercept it.

What has happened is, in summary, this: a few produce oil, a few others cars, a few others credit, .... a few others records,.....

Competition is reduced and prices are increased freely through cartel operations.

Politics does not see, and when it does, it changes (whoever sees).

In this whole scheme, the citizen has disappeared and a new species has appeared, the consumer, who looks more and more like a sheep in a flock of wolves!

As is easily understood, this interpretation of the economy subtracts wealth from those who produce it and transfers it to non-productive classes, who in turn consume such wealth to accumulate even more.

But are we not capable of organizing ourselves and producing culture, information, and wealth on our own?

Are we unable to be democratic on our own and do we need the democracy proposed by those who subtract wealth from civil society?

If those who thought of or realized the fundamental things for our lives had patented them, we would be extremely poor and would have to settle for living under trees eating bananas and shoveling our own excrement.

On the other hand, as You say, work must be remunerated.

Capital must be too.

Speculation, which prevents healthy economic development, must be much less so (in fact, it should be repressed!)

As you see, everything boils down to a problem of how much we pay and whom we pay!

So, I am not against everyone trying to sell their nonsense at the highest price they can get, but I get quite angry when someone manipulates the information available to customers to extort a price higher than what is fair and establish a rent from illicit enrichment, because it slows down economic development by subtracting wealth from the correct productive circuit and putting it in their own pocket.

This is why the God-destined oligopolists fight their battle on the Internet, because here the entry costs for knowledge workers and true producers of wealth are much lower; using this as an excuse (given the enormous power they hold, they manage to get convictions handed out that no outlaw who robs or kills, and no manager who assaults and impoverishes people, will ever receive), they bring under control a resource that operates against their business model (which is based, I repeat, on the fact that You parrot the fairy tales they tell You and that You do not exercise Your critical thinking).

Finally, if you permit me, your idea that a Company (which is born to produce profits and remunerate people who invest money after money into it and want the maximum possible back, without many ifs and buts) acts in a way that helps deserving young people, holds little water! (a large part of those cited by You are paid with my and your taxes, not with the profits of record labels/film studios).

If that were the case, I would not be forced to endure (and so would You) a disheveled Tiziano Ferro or the long-nosed singer ex-husband of the little Swiss actress with a surname that sounds like an aperitif, just to stay within the realm of (!) singing.

But, we have time to make a list of the filth they feed us to make us swallow it.

Dear Gennarino, I am glad that my response has sparked intelligent and finally calm discussions, but your response is the one that struck me most because in your reasoning (it may seem strange to you) I see myself completely. For years I have found myself harassed by SIAE, both as an author and as a performer. Thanks to this mandatory, burdensome, and poorly distributed tribute among members, we musicians are often refused many opportunities to perform due to the high costs that must be faced.

All the more so because I now write pieces that I protect only with a Creative Commons license, so those who use them do not have to pay duties to thieves; anyway, I wasn't making money with SIAE, so it's just as well to "use" this music...!

And I agree with you, musical products or similar should cost less and thus be within everyone's reach because culture is not linked to wealth. But do you really think that if records cost 7 euros, the Italian "clever ones" would buy them.....???

They don't buy tracks on iTunes for 0.99........

I, for example, now buy albums like this and spend at most 9.90.

When we used to go around proposing our record to the Majors, they would tell us

You don't come from "Amici", from "X-Factor", from....... You are not the children of....... You don't have a dad who pays...........

who would make us invest in you ???

The Italian "clever ones" evade train tickets, tram tickets, bus tickets, and then they complain about the wrecked carriages and a service that doesn't work.....

The Italian "clever ones" evade healthcare tickets, taxes, and then they sit in bars talking bad about politicians who are nothing more than the faithful mirror of this crumbling country..........

And let's hear a great man who is no longer here

Open content (youtube)

See, Francesca,

the problem is that those who are doing somewhat well would like, with a magic stroke, to immediately find themselves in the group of the super-rich, because, essentially, they are precisely the ones he admires, not those who heroically live life in normalcy around him.

And, since it is You who happen to be near them (and they would never manage to rob the powerful), they rob You of the few things you have, because it's easier and, anyway, it's very chic.

Anyway, you are too pessimistic, probably due to the experiences you've had.

I guarantee you - even though you will have those white hairs in a few years - that if you look with confidence, you will also find much richness of feeling around You.

One last experimental observation from the undersigned: "Well-being is proportional to indifference".

Strangely, why should we have more free time to dedicate to others, as well as to ourselves?

If we all did that, imagine what a treat it would be. I am alone, others are many; imagine how many things I would receive in exchange for the few I would give!

Could it be because we are uncultured (not learned)?

In this sense, beware of becoming accomplices to a lifestyle that should not be ours.

Hi Simone, wandering around YouTube I found another funny video that I think fits well in this discussion opened by you, even if it doesn't add anything new to the 8 videos (the satanic esotericism of the Illuminati) that I already posted last January 22nd. Ugh, writing in Italian is such a struggle: you have a very complicated language. 🙂

Open content (youtube)