![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Mike
MikeAqua:....Personally I am predominantly a National voter, but I have had no significant objections to recent Labour governments..
Grant777:MikeAqua:....Personally I am predominantly a National voter, but I have had no significant objections to recent Labour governments..
Seems like you haven't opened your eyes or would put up with anything!?
Glassboy:Yabanize:
It has not been proven that it is 'tainted money', That is just allegations from the USA Record and Movie industry. If you take a look at http://torrentfreak.com you will see all the other rubbish they are trying to do. Its quite sad how they are trying to freeze all of his assets so he cant defend himself, and also not let him see the evidence they have against him so him and his legal team can build a defence. All cloud storage services have been used for piracy, They just decided to pick on him because he was the biggest despite them honouring the takedown requests required by the law and going above and beyond that to try and keep the MPAA happy. This is why I believe he will win the case.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Anything else the Record and Movie industry is trying to do has no bearing on whether Dotcom is guilty or not.
Okay, You don't like him fair enough, but the megaupload case is pathetic
Yabanize:
Alot of them dont have the guts or money to fight it like dotcom does so they just go with it.
Shutting down sites like these has not and will not stop piracy, they just need to get a better business model.
Yabanize:
It has not been proven that it is 'tainted money', That is just allegations from the USA Record and Movie industry. If you take a look at http://torrentfreak.com you will see all the other rubbish they are trying to do. Its quite sad how they are trying to freeze all of his assets so he cant defend himself, and also not let him see the evidence they have against him so him and his legal team can build a defence. All cloud storage services have been used for piracy, They just decided to pick on him because he was the biggest despite them honouring the takedown requests required by the law and going above and beyond that to try and keep the MPAA happy. This is why I believe he will win the case.
Innocent until proven guilty.
loceff13:Yabanize:
It has not been proven that it is 'tainted money', That is just allegations from the USA Record and Movie industry. If you take a look at http://torrentfreak.com you will see all the other rubbish they are trying to do. Its quite sad how they are trying to freeze all of his assets so he cant defend himself, and also not let him see the evidence they have against him so him and his legal team can build a defence. All cloud storage services have been used for piracy, They just decided to pick on him because he was the biggest despite them honouring the takedown requests required by the law and going above and beyond that to try and keep the MPAA happy. This is why I believe he will win the case.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Bull, MegaUpload never really honoured takedown notices, industry standard is to remove the infringing file(or access to it) whereas they just removed the link reported(while leaving tens of other links pointing to the same file). If they agreed that rights holders could identify infringing content and automatically report them with reasonable accuracy(to allow immediate removal of millions of links) then the same could be done for the actual files. In reality(including the case) they never took any significant action to remove the files requested.
Where did MU ever go above and beyond?
When I said going above and beyond, They gave all the members of the MPAA access to delete any link they wish without having to send a complaint and wait for it to be taken down, They didnt have to do this by the law but they did it anyway.
Yabanize: They didnt do this because other people could've legitimately brought the song or movie etc and stored it in their mega upload account, meaning innocent users lose their files.
loceff13: They didn't remove any instances of a file, just the specified url link to it.Yabanize: They didnt do this because other people could've legitimately brought the song or movie etc and stored it in their mega upload account, meaning innocent users lose their files.
Wheres an actual source stating that's their defence for it?
gzt: Oh my gosh Youtube does exactly the same thing. Did anyone else notice?
Yabanize:
Yes, That is correct, They removed the infringing links that were reported, But they did not remove other instances of the same file. They didnt do this because other people could've legitimately brought the song or movie etc and stored it in their mega upload account, meaning innocent users lose their files.
Glassboy:Yabanize:
Yes, That is correct, They removed the infringing links that were reported, But they did not remove other instances of the same file. They didnt do this because other people could've legitimately brought the song or movie etc and stored it in their mega upload account, meaning innocent users lose their files.
You need to look "instance" up in a dictionary. If there are instances of a file removing one does not remove other people's access to the file. Also I am pretty sure that there is evidence that not only did they just make a cosmetic attempt to appear to comply with the takedown, they also shared access to copyrighted material internally.
When a file was uploaded to megaupload.com, a system checked if the file the same as that already existed on megaupload, If it did, instead of saving it again, they simply linked to the existing one. This would've saved alot of hard drive space.
When a takedown request was submitted, They blocked or deleted that particular link, not the file
Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, the
Yabanize:Glassboy:Yabanize:
Yes, That is correct, They removed the infringing links that were reported, But they did not remove other instances of the same file. They didnt do this because other people could've legitimately brought the song or movie etc and stored it in their mega upload account, meaning innocent users lose their files.
You need to look "instance" up in a dictionary. If there are instances of a file removing one does not remove other people's access to the file. Also I am pretty sure that there is evidence that not only did they just make a cosmetic attempt to appear to comply with the takedown, they also shared access to copyrighted material internally.
Sorry to be confusing, Okay, there are two things going on here When a file was uploaded to megaupload.com, a system checked if the file the same as that already existed on megaupload, If it did, instead of saving it again, they simply linked to the existing one. This would've saved alot of hard drive space. When a takedown request was submitted, They blocked or deleted that particular link, not the file
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
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |