The closure of the Megaupload and Megavideos websites was recently ordered by the U.S. authorities and four of their managers were arrested. These sites allow Internet users to "host" all subject content, and other Internet users can view or even download it onto their computers free of charge.

Some of the users host songs or movies without having paid absolutely nothing to the copyright holders, thus allowing many others to have access to such songs or movies for free. Authors have thus seen their potential remuneration greatly reduced. Those responsible for these sites claim that they are not doing anything illegal; if anything, they argue, it is those who host the files without the authors' authorization who are committing the illegality. The "excuse" is rather unconvincing: not being the pirate, but the one who provides the ship to the pirates, and with knowledge of it, is contributing to piracy.

Logically, the creators of the page earned a lot of money with the system, both for the advertising and because the users who wanted to be able to download contents without time limit paid fees to have this wide access. The arrest and closure of the pages was based not only on copyright infringement, but also on possible tax evasion or money laundering offenses.

This intervention revives the discussion about the legality of these systems for accessing files such as books, songs or movies. Some claim that authors have no incentive to realize their creations, as they do not receive the remuneration that allows them to continue creating. Others argue that culture should circulate freely and freely, and that charging for it only benefits intermediaries and the large audiovisual service industries. The following should be noted in this regard.

First. As the laws of all civilized countries stand today, uploading files and allowing free access to them without the author's permission is totally illegal. We may argue about the correctness of the laws, but both the "pirates" and those who give them the boat contribute to the illegality.

Second. The legal system may be exaggerated or misguided, but it seeks to reward the author for his creation, the justification for which is obvious. Many people see it as normal to be able to download music and videos without paying a cent, but I don't think they are willing to work for free. However, the current system of remuneration may have to change, and techniques such as the payment of minimum amounts for downloads, or free access to certain content with the author's permission, are becoming more and more popular.

Third. I do not think that "free access to culture" has much to do with the free downloading of songs or videos. Of course, the creators of these pages do not act, or at least not only, to provide such access to users, but also to enrich themselves personally (there are the assets owned by the main manager of Megaupload). This is a totally legitimate purpose, of course, but sample they are not philanthropists or patrons. On the other hand, "culture" is not just songs and videos, but a value that, among other elements, entails respecting others and giving back fairly to all those who enrich our training with books, songs or movies. The creator of these "cultural goods" has the right to decide whether or not to charge for access to them, and will also achieve more or less renown and profits depending on the form of remuneration he chooses and the abuse he makes of it.