 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium join:2002-03-03 USA kudos:4 | Megaupload crushed because they are/were pirates And they did not adhere to takedown requests as was readily apparent in seized emails. |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium join:2005-03-19 Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
| megaupload was a file sharing website. nothing about the site explicitly encouraged piracy. it was just a file sharing site. It wasn't their fault that the primary users of their service were pirates.
However, the people running megaupload were stupid and did commit piracy publicly. I don't see how the two are related. they should be separate of each other. |
|
 | reply to Romney2012 What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I'll bet you'd be singing a different tune if the shoe was on the other foot. |
|
 | reply to FBGuy "Cut off the head..." |
|
|
|
 openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:2 | reply to gballer You're right. Those arrested were allegedly infringing copyrights and laundering money. |
|
 | reply to Romney2012 It's not disputed that they responded to every request. The emails only indicate that they weren't zealous enough to satisfy the media companies. Laws usually do not require absolute spiritual devotion, however. |
|
 Oh_NoTrogglus normalus join:2011-05-21 Chicago, IL | reply to Romney2012 said by Romney2012:And they did not adhere to takedown requests as was readily apparent in seized emails. They had nothing to take down. Everything is user submitted and protected under 1st amendment free speech laws. |
|
 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium join:2002-03-03 USA kudos:4 | said by Oh_No:said by Romney2012:And they did not adhere to takedown requests as was readily apparent in seized emails. They had nothing to take down. Everything is user submitted and protected under 1st amendment free speech laws. They fall under DMCA takedown rules, which they didn't follow. And free speech has NOTHING to do with it. Free speech doesn't negate copyright laws. -- The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help. »www.politico.com/2012-election/
|
|
 slckusrPremium join:2003-03-17 Maumee, OH kudos:1 | reply to Romney2012 They might of been pirates but i didnt experience it. Ive downloaded many things off of MU but none were illegal. |
|
 MrShag join:2006-07-09 Hamilton, ON | reply to Romney2012 They did in fact do tons of take-downs.
I know this for a fact since I watch tv shows on line.
There has many times when a show has air'd last night when I get a DMCA notice, the next day.
What is the difference between Mega and Utube.
The whole reason the DMCA was created is to prevent this sort of thing. Since it has to with Scientology. They were trying to take down the companies for a User posting.
Since your internet providers refuse to enact the Common Carrier laws, this thing will continue forever. -- UBB - Universal Butt Banged. Thank-you Bell My I have another. |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium join:2004-12-10 Lorton, VA kudos:1 Reviews:
·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..
| reply to PapaMidnight and the Justice Dept remains. So do reams of bad law. -- Adopting other people's animosity is The New Stupid. |
|
 | reply to Romney2012 said by Romney2012:And they did not adhere to takedown requests as was readily apparent in seized emails. did you forget your meds again |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | reply to Romney2012 No, they weren't. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | reply to Romney2012 They did follow. |
|
 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium join:2002-03-03 USA kudos:4 | said by KrK:They did follow. No less than TorrentFreak, hardly an apologist for MPAA & RIAA, lists the facts about Megaupload NOT following DMCA rules. »torrentfreak.com/megaupload-what···-120120/
Megauploads Abuse Tool to which major copyright holders were given access, enabled the removal of links to infringing works hosted on MegaUploads 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 heres 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.
Furthermore, the indictment states that although MegaUpload staff (referred to as Members of the Conspiracy) discussed how they could automatically remove child pornography from their systems given a specific hash value, the same standards werent applied to complained-about copyright works.
In June 2010, it appears that MegaUpload was subjected to a something of a test by the authorities. The company was informed, pursuant to a criminal search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, that thirty-nine infringing movies were being stored on their servers at Carpathia Hosting in the Eastern District of Virginia.
A member of the Mega Conspiracy informed several of his co-conspirators at that time that he located the named files using internal searches of their systems. As of November 18, 2011, more than a year later, thirty-six of the thirty-nine infringing motion pictures were still being stored on the servers controlled by the Mega Conspiracy, the indictment reads.
A citation from an internal MegaUpload email from February 2007 entitled reward payments claims to show that at least two key staff members knew that cash payments were being paid to users who uploaded infringing material including full popular DVD rips and software with keygenerators (Warez). Its certainly possible that the authorities were monitoring MegaUploads correspondence but there are also at least two mentions in the indictment of an unnamed person described as an unindicted co-conspirator. While prosecutors sometimes use this term to describe people who have been excluded from an indictment on evidentiary concerns, they also use it to describe individuals who have been granted immunity from prosecution.
In any event, these emails are being heavily relied upon since many appear to indicate a knowledge among staff that copyright works were held on the companys servers. Heres a sample:
An email from 2006 claims to show how MegaUpload attempted to download large amounts of content from YouTube and appeared by April that year to have obtained 30% of the sites content. A follow up email in 2007 claimed that Kim [MegaUpload's founder] really wants to copy Youtube one to one.
An email from August 2006 titled lol contained a screenshot of a MegaUpload download page showing a cracked copy of CD burning software Alcohol 120%.
Other correspondence quoted in the indictment appears to show key staff members sending each other links to copyright works hosted on MegaUpload. They got caught like most of these scum get caught. The police got an insider to turn against them and provide evidence against them. -- The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help. »www.politico.com/2012-election/
|
|
 | Read it again, they specifically said "the indictment claims." You know, as in not in their own words. As in TF isn't saying they aren't following DMCA, but that they are being charged for not following it. You can't say these are "facts" when we have nothing to actually prove what was going on other than e-mails provided by the accuser. I hate to tell you this, but it's not hard to forge evidence. |
|
 axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC | reply to Romney2012 Mega-upload's best chance at a defense is to argue that these emails were improperly obtained. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Romney2012 I have a hard time taking at face value reports that use terms like "Mega Conspiracy" and calls employees as "co-conspirators."
Also, as for the reward payments, they work much like YouTube. I'm sure some popular downloads were things like cracks and key gens, and that those people did receive reward payments, just as someone may upload a popular video on break.com or YouTube etc that has infringing content.
Also, I'm pretty sure some employees would look through files and see obvious warez type materials. Thus the lol. However I'm not convinced it was their duty or policy to look through user's files to vette them. They obviously believed it wasn't.
The site had a massive amount of regular usage. IMHO it performs a legit service and function, irregardless of pirated files people upload. -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
 Reviews:
·Acanac
| reply to FBGuy said by FBGuy:megaupload was a file sharing website. nothing about the site explicitly encouraged piracy. it was just a file sharing site. It wasn't their fault that the primary users of their service were pirates.
However, the people running megaupload were stupid and did commit piracy publicly. I don't see how the two are related. they should be separate of each other. I think you missed the part where they paid users to upload copyright infringed files. If they want to pay people for generating traffic, it cant be for content they do not own, there are emails that prove they knew it was copyright infringed content. Also under DMCA they are supposed to ban repeat offenders, instead they were paying them money for repeat offences.... |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium join:2005-03-19 | websites are not in emails. Read what I wrote. I said nothing about the emails. |
|