What they are confused about is why you think IsoHunt is dominated by Piracy, but YouTube isn't. Just because you can't download something directly from Youtube without violating their user agreement doesn't mean the stuff on YouTube is automatically piracy free. Even though YouTube is full of infringing material, it is still legal, and a lot of content that is legitimate is censored through bogus takedown notices in the name of censoring the actually infringing material.
The funny thing is that I agree with you that Youtube is not dominated by piracy... I'm just pointing out that by your own admission YouTube can be used to pirate, so can IsoHunt, but apparently IsoHunt is so bad because you can directly download a file in a non-roundabout manner.
which is pretty much how the automated takedown system that companies have in place works for youtube and various other sites. If your content contains certain keywords or tags the system will send a notice.
Bogus takedowns is a problem, youtube receives a million takedowns per year, not like "OMG half of youtube is censored by bogus takedowns!" but enough to be a big concern.
webhosting might work, but it's hard when you have a small or non-existent fan base.
And, I don't see how YouTube, Vimeo, or any other video sharing site is any better than a file sharing site. In case you've never been on YouTube bogus take down notices abound aplenty...
wow, I've never even noticed a filter on IsoHunt. I don't think it works very well, it's still pretty easy to find "infringing" material there, and anything I don't find on IsoHunt I can just go grab from TPB, sooo what does that filter even accomplish?
yes, we recognize that the author gets to benefit "first" as you say, but that's just arguing semantics...
What we are saying is that the scales have tipped to far into favoring the author (or more likely the copyright "holders") rather than benefiting the public, irregardless of who "benefits first"
So, assuming we all agree that technically the authors benefit first, What is your argument? And do you think that the monopoly that is granted by copyright as it stands today, at 70+ years, is not outweighing the benefit to the public?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
Because what we are saying is that Mega's data is valuable evidence. And yes an entire hotel could be cordoned off in order to gather the nessasary evidence to ensure a fair trial. So, yes we think the data is important, is that so hard to understand?
And, yes, the hosting server should not be the one to suffer, that is the prosecutors job, the government, since this is a criminal trial. The problem is that the government isn't doing their job. By "not doing their job" I mean they are destroying valuable evidence and causing massive fiscal damage to an innocent hosting service, and no, telling them to delete all the data doesn't work either.
Yes, that case is sooo solid, especially since the government is, you know, denying the defense the right to gather evidence to support itself... sooooo solid...
As much as Mega flaunted in the face of the law or if they are in fact guilty, for now they are accused, but innocent, until the prosecutors (the government) prove them otherwise. So for now lets assume they are innocent. Would you set up an innocent man in a trial where only the prosecutors are allowed to use evidence involved in the case, while the innocent man is allowed to use nothing other than his word, not even his own money? As much as I know you "know" Mega is guilty, they must still be given a fair trial.
Also, I really am curious about what you meant in the older posts: Mega's backups, should they or shouldn't have they used a data center to back up their servers? Though that's kinda what they were paying Carpathia for anyway.
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bogus takedowns is a problem, youtube receives a million takedowns per year, not like "OMG half of youtube is censored by bogus takedowns!" but enough to be a big concern.
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re:
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re:
And, I don't see how YouTube, Vimeo, or any other video sharing site is any better than a file sharing site. In case you've never been on YouTube bogus take down notices abound aplenty...
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
There was a filter?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
What we are saying is that the scales have tipped to far into favoring the author (or more likely the copyright "holders") rather than benefiting the public, irregardless of who "benefits first"
So, assuming we all agree that technically the authors benefit first, What is your argument? And do you think that the monopoly that is granted by copyright as it stands today, at 70+ years, is not outweighing the benefit to the public?
On the post: Megaupload Points Out That The Feds Want To Destroy Relevant Evidence In Its Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Megaupload Points Out That The Feds Want To Destroy Relevant Evidence In Its Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
And, yes, the hosting server should not be the one to suffer, that is the prosecutors job, the government, since this is a criminal trial. The problem is that the government isn't doing their job. By "not doing their job" I mean they are destroying valuable evidence and causing massive fiscal damage to an innocent hosting service, and no, telling them to delete all the data doesn't work either.
On the post: Megaupload Points Out That The Feds Want To Destroy Relevant Evidence In Its Case
Re: Re: Civil Court Case VS Criminal Court Case
On the post: Megaupload Points Out That The Feds Want To Destroy Relevant Evidence In Its Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Megaupload Points Out That The Feds Want To Destroy Relevant Evidence In Its Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, I really am curious about what you meant in the older posts: Mega's backups, should they or shouldn't have they used a data center to back up their servers? Though that's kinda what they were paying Carpathia for anyway.
On the post: Megaupload Points Out That The Feds Want To Destroy Relevant Evidence In Its Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>