What's your opinion on the Internet Party?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › What's your opinion on the Internet Party?

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#1074220 25-Jun-2014 12:57

I see the IP as another single focus party. They are like an outdoor recreation party or similar. Yes, they have wider policies, but as a secondary focus and written to be bold and exciting. They know they will never have the chance to implement any of it, and that such disruption is precluded by cost of implementation.

As an example of the cost of change, in some schools the transition to school's being governed by boards of trustees isn't yet working - and that change was initiated in 1989!

Minor parties (I include the greens in this category) add colour to the electoral process. They raise points of view that otherwise wouldn't get an airing, but the thought of many of them in government terrifies me. The only minor parties I have been truly impressed with have been Jim Anderton (Post alliance) and the Maori Party. Anderton is retired and Maori party look like they are history. Only the extreme ideologist or discriminatory minor parties left really.

Personally I am predominantly a National voter, but I have had no significant objections to recent Labour governments.

I'd like to see few cycles of National or Labour governing alone. Starve the lunatic fringe of oxygen.

Mike

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

Grant777

63 posts

Master Geek

#1074243 25-Jun-2014 13:22

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!?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1074261 25-Jun-2014 13:55

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!?

If he considers more than one party then surely this indicates that his eyes and mind are open?

Yabanize

2350 posts

Uber Geek

#1074285 25-Jun-2014 14:21

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.

No, But im just saying, They have/are trying to shut down alot of other file storage/sharing sites. They shut down hotfile aswell which had lots of legitimate files. The MPAA don't seem to care about all the people who had their personal files and photos stored on them. And hotfile for example was where sammobile.com hosted all of the firmware for samsung phones, And then it got taken down, causing them to have to spend a week or two reuploading them to another site. They also shut down the torrent tracker, Isohunt.

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.

Ironically, the MPAA and RIAA used megaupload alot.

Okay, You don't like him fair enough, but the megaupload case is pathetic

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1074289 25-Jun-2014 14:26

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.

They may need a better business model, but none of what you're saying makes Dotcom a Robin Hood figure, or any less likely to be guilty.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1074291 25-Jun-2014 14:27

Far wiser to use cloud services like One Drive, I would never trust my files to a dodgy operation like Mega. As for the Megaupload case the courts will decide how pathetic it is or is not. Certainly should not be an issue for NZ politics, we have enough issues of our own.

loceff13

1055 posts

Uber Geek

#1074460 25-Jun-2014 17:58

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?

Yabanize

2350 posts

Uber Geek

#1074466 25-Jun-2014 18:10

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?

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.

After all, as I mentioned in the previous post, The MPAA and RIAA had over 500 megaupload accounts, and uploaded lots to it.
Also as you can see in the Mega Song, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0Wvn-9BXVc (which funnily enough, Universal music group tried to take it down from youtube but failed)

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.

loceff13

1055 posts

Uber Geek

#1074469 25-Jun-2014 18:22

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

16883 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1074484 25-Jun-2014 18:34

Oh my gosh Youtube does exactly the same thing. Did anyone else notice?

Yabanize

2350 posts

Uber Geek

#1074488 25-Jun-2014 18:46

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?

Im having trouble finding it, Ill keep looking, but for now heres something to look at, Google defended hotfile for basically the exact same thing

http://torrentfreak.com/google-defends-hotfile-and-megaupload-in-court-120319/

If Multiple people upload the same file with the same name and the same content. The file was hashed as it comes in and only one copy is kept to save hard drive space

Yabanize

2350 posts

Uber Geek

#1074490 25-Jun-2014 18:51

gzt: Oh my gosh Youtube does exactly the same thing. Did anyone else notice?

Exactly, And if you want to find a movie to watch illegally, you can just google it and you can find it. Google does remove alot of links but there is no point because more just appear.

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1074496 25-Jun-2014 19:01

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.

Yabanize

2350 posts

Uber Geek

#1074510 25-Jun-2014 19:35

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

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1074513 25-Jun-2014 19:44

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

This has not been decided in court so it cannot be said that compliance had been met.

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15