Yabanize: The digital millenium copyright act of 1998 says: Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, the provider must expeditiously take down or block access to the material.

Which means mega upload has abided with the law, It does not say they must delete it or do the same with other links or instances of the same file

Dratsab:

Yabanize: The digital millenium copyright act of 1998 says: Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, the provider must expeditiously take down or block access to the material.

Which means mega upload has abided with the law, It does not say they must delete it or do the same with other links or instances of the same file

If this is what the act says (I haven't bothered looking) then by simply removing links megaupload didn't comply with the law as links are not 'the material'.

gzt: Imo it's all a bit silly. If the FBI or whatever had bugged Youtube instead they would have heard some similar conversations and some similar internal watching/listening of copyright material.

Glassboy:

gzt: Imo it's all a bit silly. If the FBI or whatever had bugged Youtube instead they would have heard some similar conversations and some similar internal watching/listening of copyright material.

The would have heard people negotiating licencing deals with content owners.  Youtube is another situation all together.  Not representing Russell Brown as a journalist but he wrote about the recent nonsence recently http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/friday-music-fkyoutube/

gzt: Even if that is/was the case, does this require anything more than civil litigation to sort it out and come to terms? Spying and helicopters seem a very bad way to resolve the issue.

gzt: Even if that is/was the case, does this require anything more than civil litigation to sort it out and come to terms? Spying and helicopters seem a very bad way to resolve the issue.

Glassboy:

gzt: Even if that is/was the case, does this require anything more than civil litigation to sort it out and come to terms? Spying and helicopters seem a very bad way to resolve the issue.

Why do you assume anyone wants to resolve anything?  I'd read it more that Dotcom's business models suit no one but himself and so he becomes a target for everyone.

gzt:

Glassboy:

gzt: Even if that is/was the case, does this require anything more than civil litigation to sort it out and come to terms? Spying and helicopters seem a very bad way to resolve the issue.

Why do you assume anyone wants to resolve anything?  I'd read it more that Dotcom's business models suit no one but himself and so he becomes a target for everyone.

I do not assume they wish to resolve anything. I'm just suggesting civil litigation is the appropriate route for the MPAA and RIAA to take.

Glassboy:

gzt:

Glassboy:

gzt: Even if that is/was the case, does this require anything more than civil litigation to sort it out and come to terms? Spying and helicopters seem a very bad way to resolve the issue.

Why do you assume anyone wants to resolve anything?  I'd read it more that Dotcom's business models suit no one but himself and so he becomes a target for everyone.

I do not assume they wish to resolve anything. I'm just suggesting civil litigation is the appropriate route for the MPAA and RIAA to take.

Not if you've broken criminal law which the FBI believe he has.