Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,708
Here it goes, next it will be rapidshare and then all the other sharing websites. Watch this space.
? That can be termed illegal?
Otherwise every single site which has a similar facility e.g. facebook, youtube etc can be taken down without a thought by a US court order merely on the estimation that it has the potentiality to break copyright.
If nothing else this thread proves how we are living in an "entitlement" society.
.
Of course it can be deemed illegal.
And no there's a massive difference between a site set up with its main purpose of facilitating the sharing of illegal content and things. Like Facebook, YouTube and search engines.
YouTube will also respond to requests to remove such material as I'm sure many others do. YouTube also has contracts with most of the big producers allowing them to use videos and music and for its members. To re-use such clips and make there own videos with such clips in them.
So how is this banning freedom of information? Have they shut down any forum that disagrees with the goverment, or things like Wikipedia. No, I didn't think so. Your argument isn't based on reality.
And no, currently us cant shut those sites down, like YouTube and the like as they aren't braking the law.
SOPA also isn't a bad idea, just purly implemented with not enough safeguards. Although with the amendmants it now has some of the safeguards, but still not far enough. But it's not likely to pass anyway. Even the original supporters are turning their back on it.
Of course it can be deemed illegal.
And no there's a massive difference between a site set up with its main purpose of facilitating the sharing of illegal content and things. Like Facebook, YouTube and search engines.
Have they shut down any forum that disagrees with the goverment, or things like Wikipedia. No, I didn't think so. Your argument isn't based on reality
From what I knew, Megaupload would remove reported files very quickly. Therefore, how is this their fault? They removed the files just as youtube does when reported.
But I'm not getting into a debate. This is wrong and I don't like it. As has been said, they got shut down without due process and are being arrested, and it isn't right.
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-what-made-it-a-rogue-site-worthy-of-destruction-120120/This is part of the 72 page charge sheet.
Let’s cover the last point first – the apparent non-removal of known copyright material from MegaUpload’s servers. First, a little background on how MegaUpload’s user uploading system worked because this is absolutely crucial to the case against the site.…they are willfully infringing copyrights themselves on these systems; have actual knowledge that the materials on their systems are infringing (or alternatively know facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent); receive a financial benefit directly attributable to copyright-infringing activity where the provider can control that activity; and have not removed, or disabled access to, known copyright infringing material from servers they control.
Mega had developed a system whereby files set to be uploaded by users were hashed in order to discover if a copy of the file already exists on the Mega servers. If a file existed, the user did not have to upload his copy and was simply given a unique URL in order to access the content in future. What this meant in practice is that there could be countless URLs ‘owned’ by various users but which all pointed to the same file.
Megaupload’s “Abuse Tool” to which major copyright holders were given access, enabled the removal of links to infringing works hosted on MegaUpload’s servers. However, the indictment claims that it “did not actually function as a DMCA compliance tool as the copyright owners were led to believe.” And here’s why.
The indictment claims that when a copyright holder issued a takedown notice for content referenced by its URL, only the URL was taken down, not the content to which it pointed. So although the URL in question would report that it had been removed and would no longer resolve to infringing material, URLs issued to others would remain operational.
So how is this banning freedom of information? Have they shut down any forum that disagrees with the goverment, or things like Wikipedia. No, I didn't think so. Your argument isn't based on reality.
SOPA also isn't a bad idea
But YouTube removes such content, megaupload didn't.
I've already covered SOPA. It's purly implemented with not enough safeguards. But this wasn't a SOPA take down, this is under existing laws. So how is it freedom of information.
But YouTube removes such content, megaupload didn't.
I've already covered SOPA. It's purly implemented with not enough safeguards. But this wasn't a SOPA take down, this is under existing laws. So how is it freedom of information.
In reality MegaUpload should have had an opportunity in court to represent themselves. During this time the domain should remain active as until prevent guilty they are innocent.
]
actually they did remove items, just not on the same scale Youtube does.
They can go to court and LoL.
Yeah becuase you allow other criminal activities to carry on, untill a court hearings been done. Which can be years. No, most criminal things are shut down at the point of arrest and then compensated if cleared.
Last time I checked copyright infringement was a civil matter. Also see YouTube: MegaUpload was used for plenty of legitimate uses yet is shut down. YouTube can be used for infringing copyright yet remains up.
The indictment claims that when a copyright holder issued a takedown notice for content referenced by its URL, only the URL was taken down, not the content to which it pointed. So although the URL in question would report that it had been removed and would no longer resolve to infringing material, URLs issued to others would remain operational
Actually there can be a perfectly fine version of SOPA with enough safeguards. What's on the table isn't this, but it's perfectly possible and hopfullytaht is what we will get
But this is not what i was talking about..... you said that a system that allows the sharing of information itself can be illegal. (so not the content but the mere facility...) Can you substantiate that claim please.
Adequate laws exist. There is no need for any law that threatens the infrastructure of the Internet nor one that allows for censorship.
This isn't infringement and is very much criminal.
Do none of you bother reading.
UNDER US LAW, SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE PROTECTED AS LONG AS THEY MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS. So no youtube and others are not like megaupload.
MegaUpload isn't a US company. MegaUpload was used for legitimate purposes. America do not have control of all the Internet yet they feel entitled to do so.