51–60 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably they never look at such indicies so they'd only be liable after someone notified them of infringement.
Willful blindness isn't a particularly strong defense. Aimster tried it and failed.
Here's the part I don't get: IP addresses, file ownership and payment info are stored unencrypted ( http://bit.ly/VswkJi ). If someone or something is advertising they have a trove of copyrighted material, the standard procedure for law enforcement is to subpoena the cloud provider for the IP of the user, then the ISP for the subscriber's physical name/address. When they confiscate their computer they'll find the dat…
For a server in New Zealand I assume it would be covered by our three strikes law ( http://3strikes.net.nz ). Rights holders can send infringement notices via the users ISP for a $25 fee. After three notices (from the same copyright holder) they can then take you to our copyright tribunal for damages. From what I've heard some notices are being sent out, but RIAA have been complaining that the $25 fee is too high.
Putting the owner's megalomania to the side for a minute, I really admire how the guys behind this are putting it all together. First of all, (AFAIK) this is a high-volume/high-capacity site which was built in a record short time. Not only that, but they promised it would be coming Jan 2013, and they made it on time, such a rare outcome for an IT project. One also has to appreciate how they made sure everyone has hea…
The part that gets me is that, had they (RIAA, MPAA, FBI, whoever) acted legally, they probably could have had something on him, I mean they didn't need to find a lot, only a little something somewhere. But no; they wanted to do it fast and with shock, probably to scare others and make sure megaupload went down, something that fits with the way they fight against piracy for the past decade or so. It just went so horr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Willful blindness isn't a particularly strong defense. Aimster tried it and failed.
I'm not sure I follow - how are they legally being willfully blind? They can't offer private encrypted hosting AND know what they're hosting at the same time. Those two things are mutually exclusive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
because HN's markup is stupid
Hmmm, I'm afraid I' going to need a bit more detail than that... it's been fine for years and nothing's changed that I know of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I follow - how are they legally being willfully blind? They can't offer private encrypted hosting AND know what they're hosting at the same time. Those two things are mutually exclusive.
We're talking about blindness of the search engines. Arguably they know the search engines exist and thus have some kind of duty to notice the rampant copyright infringement taking place and stop it.
And it's full of spam, spyware, trojans and fake stuff already. Just like megaupload used to be.
Putting the owner's megalomania to the side for a minute, I really admire how the guys behind this are putting it all together. First of all, (AFAIK) this is a high-volume/high-capacity site which was built in a record short time. Not only that, but they promised it would be coming Jan 2013, and they made it on time, such a rare outcome for an IT project. One also has to appreciate how they made sure everyone has hea…
The part that gets me is that, had they (RIAA, MPAA, FBI, whoever) acted legally, they probably could have had something on him, I mean they didn't need to find a lot, only a little something somewhere. But no; they wanted to do it fast and with shock, probably to scare others and make sure megaupload went down, something that fits with the way they fight against piracy for the past decade or so. It just went so horr…
Here's the part I don't get: IP addresses, file ownership and payment info are stored unencrypted ( http://bit.ly/VswkJi ). If someone or something is advertising they have a trove of copyrighted material, the standard procedure for law enforcement is to subpoena the cloud provider for the IP of the user, then the ISP for the subscriber's physical name/address. When they confiscate their computer they'll find the dat…
It doesn't. Who said it was supposed to?
In theory it protects Mega from the argument that they know what the data is and aren't stopping it, because now they can't know, but YouTube isn't encrypted and nobody expects for them to be shut down, so I'm not sure to what extent that is really even necessary.