MegaUpload has been shut down

Glaucus · 15 Feb 2012 at 21:45

What ridiculous fees, this is uk not amareica.
Its also not a fee,its a fine and as I've all ready said, isnt for downloading copyrighted material, that's not even a criminal offence. It's for aiding fraud. Which they wouldn't stand a hope in hell of convicting you for just downloading.

Side note, in America it's not just a direct amount on precieved loss. They have punitive charges. See tobacco cases for how it works. Winning a case and getting 50k of a tobacco companies isn't going to stop a Tobacco company doing the same. That's why the women won over 100million iirc, not for the compensation, but to punish the company. In the uk, we don't have punitive charges.

Energize · 15 Feb 2012 at 21:46

Glaucus said:
Murder is life, so stop saying that.

Would you be happier if I used another serious crime like manslaughter or rape as an example? Not that it makes a difference.

Tough even ignoring the many murder cases wrongly tried as manslaughter, a great many people do not serve life.

Glaucus · 15 Feb 2012 at 21:51

Energize said:
Would you be happier if I used another serious crime like manslaughter or rape as an example? Not that it makes a difference.

Tough even ignoring the many murder cases wrongly tried as manslaughter, a great many people do not serve life.

Wouldn't help your cause, maximum sentence for rape is life imprisonment, far higher than 10 years, Same for manslaughter.

Minimum sentence for murder, which you have to confess to at earliest possible opportunity is 10 years.

Also you seem to be forgetting, this 10year and unlimited fine isn't for downloading copyrighted material. That isn't even a criminal offence.

And how many people who aid fraud, get the maximum sentence? Its an absurd argument.

Energize · 15 Feb 2012 at 21:56

Glaucus said:
Wouldn't help your cause, maximum sentence for rape is life imprisonment, far higher than 10 years, Same for manslaughter.

I said regardless of the maximum sentence many people get less than that. Fifteen years is the starting point for sentencing murder but this can be reduced by mitigating circumstances. Lower for rape and manslaugther. Both of which are more serious in any case than fraud.

Glaucus · 15 Feb 2012 at 21:58

Energize said:
I said regardless of the maximum sentence many people get less than that. Fifteen years is the starting point for sentencing murder but this can be reduced by mitigating circumstances. Lower for rape and manslaugther.

Not for murder they dont, seeing as absolute minimum is 10years,
Also it's still an absurd argument.
How many aiding fraud get maximum sentence? See its a stupid argument.

And you want them to falsely advertise and not state maximum sentence? The important comparison is between maximum sentences and so far rape, murder, manslaugher are all massively larger than years.

simon22 · 15 Feb 2012 at 22:11

The nature of the so called advertisement is rather rash in my opinion. Threatening normal web browsers with such an absurd message for me is not right.

KIA · 1 Mar 2012 at 18:32

Full interview with Kim.

steve-h · 1 Mar 2012 at 18:38

I saw it earlier, I hope he doesn't lose the case.

GarethSouthpete · 1 Mar 2012 at 18:46

No longer available.

Scon · 1 Mar 2012 at 18:49

KIA said:
Full interview with Kim.

Removed....

Glaucus · 1 Mar 2012 at 18:51

Only caught the first minute and he was talking rubbish.

The service provider protection only exists if you remove copyright material. You didn't, hence you aren't protected. Its pretty straight forward and if you spent millions on lawyers then you need to get your money back. As the protection only exists if you fullfill some basic requirements.

And here's the issue

and between them they had taken down in excess of 15 million links

Yeah links,
Not the content and not every link to that content. You have to remove the content, not a few links. You tried playing the game and you got caught.

mmj_uk · 1 Mar 2012 at 18:51

Summary of what he said?

steve-h · 1 Mar 2012 at 18:51

http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-...-outdated-monopolistic-business-model-120301/

http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/qcsh8/full_video_of_kim_dotcom_talking_on_new_zealand/

There'll be more links to uploads in that 2nd link.

Glaucus said:
Only caught the first minute and he was talking rubbish.

Strong argument, I see where you're coming from and you've made me rethink my whole position on this matter.

Martini1991 · 1 Mar 2012 at 18:54

Can't see the second video, copyright!

Glaucus · 1 Mar 2012 at 18:55

steve-h said:
Strong argument, I see where you're coming from and you've made me rethink my whole position on this matter.

As you ask, see edit.

Glaucus said:
Only caught the first minute and he was talking rubbish.

The service provider protection only exists if you remove copyright material. You didn't. Hence you aren't protected. Its pretty straight forward and if you spent millions on lawyers then you need to get your money back. As the protection only exists if you fullfill some basic requirements.

And here's the issue

and between them they had taken down in excess of 15 million links

Click to expand...

Yeah links,
Not the content and not every link to that content. You have to remove the content, not a few links. You tried playing the game and you got caught.

Martini1991 · 1 Mar 2012 at 18:55

Glaucus said:
Only caught the first minute and he was talking rubbish.

The service provider protection only exists if you remove cop upright material. You didn't. Hence you aren't protected. Its pretty straight forwards and if you spent millions on lawyers then you need to get your money back. As the protection only exists if you fullfill some basic requirements.

And here's the issue

Yeah links,
Not the content and not every link to that content. You have to remove the content, not a few links. You tried playing the game and you got caught.

Because every file sharing site has removed every instance of copyright material haven't they?

You didn't watch the video did you?

I always found MU to remove pirated material rather fast, you'd tend to get more dead MU links than you dead RS.

RomanNose · 1 Mar 2012 at 18:57

Glaucus said:
Only caught the first minute and he was talking rubbish.

The service provider protection only exists if you remove cop upright material. You didn't. Hence you aren't protected. Its pretty straight forwards and if you spent millions on lawyers then you need to get your money back. As the protection only exists if you fullfill some basic requirements.

And here's the issue

Yeah links,
Not the content and not every link to that content. You have to remove the content, not a few links. You tried playing the game and you got caught.

You understand that is actually physically impossible for the host to know if a duplicate file exists? Md5 works when they are the same files! When a copyrighted file is sent around the web, people compress them differently, repackage them, add NFOs. Hence it is impossible to police files, and most of the files are encrypted so they can't even open it.
If you don't believe, rapidshare actually have a md5 system and it never works! Because people modify the files.2

Martini1991 · 1 Mar 2012 at 18:59

Also, the volume of files being uploaded, and the fact they're not allowed to pro actively "sneak on people"

They're just being used as scape goats.

Glaucus · 1 Mar 2012 at 18:59

Martini1991 said:
Because every file sharing site has removed every instance of copyright material haven't they?

You didn't watch the video did you?

.

Of course I didn't, it was removed. As I said I only caught the first minute.

Ther sites take down the content when asked. Look how muh content is removed from YouTube, not just one of the hundread links. Removing a link is in no way removing the content.

RomanNose said:
You understand that is actually physically impossible for the host to know if a duplicate file exists? Md5 works when they are the same files! When a copyrighted file is sent around the web, people compress them differently, repackage them, add NFOs. Hence it is impossible to police files, and most of the files are encrypted so they can't even open it.
If you don't believe, rapidshare actually have a md5 system and it never works! Because people modify the files.2

Complete rubbish when talking about megaupload. The issue was not deleting multiple files, they weren't even deleting the file that had been requested.
It wasn't multiple files. It was singular files with multiple links. That's how megaupload worked. It would check the file you were trying to upload and if it already existed, it gave you a new unique link, without uploading anything.
When they got asked to remove content, they removed the link the company asked, not the content and not the hundread of other links, all for that one and same file.

So one of the take down bodies would ask for x content from one link to be removed. To be protected megaupload would need to remove the file. They didn't. They removed that one link. Left the file up and left the hundreads of other urls pointing to it up. That's why it's different to other sites and why it has been taken down, while others haven't.

orderoftheflame · 1 Mar 2012 at 19:00

RomanNose said:
You understand that is actually physically impossible for the host to know if a duplicate file exists? Md5 works when they are the same files! When a copyrighted file is sent around the web, people compress them differently, repackage them, add NFOs. Hence it is impossible to police files, and most of the files are encrypted so they can't even open it.
If you don't believe, rapidshare actually have a md5 system and it never works! Because people modify the files.2

MU weren't deleting any physical content though were they? Just the one reported link pointing to it. Any links pointing to the same actual file weren't removed at the same time.