> Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? The problem is that government doesn’t have a line, that line is defined by the resistance it faces. Today it might be people sharing MP3s, tomorrow they will come after you for hosting a parody of mickey mouse. 10 years from now they’ll be busting down doors for sharing illegal memes (Seems to already be the ca…
> (Seems to already be the case in the UK) [Citation needed]
It’s a pity you’re being downvoted because this is a very reasonable request.
I too would love to know the story behind that claim because, having lived in the UK for a good number of years, I’d guarantee there would be more going on than simply just what the GP suggested.
Didn't YouTube get popular on pirated content first? What was the main difference of the initial phase of YouTube and MegaUpload? They both went legal later.
DMCA safe harbor says you don’t have to actively police your content but you have to take it down if a copyright holder complains. YouTube had robust tooling to take down content when they received a complaint. They got sued anyway, they won because the evidence showed they always took the content down (and that Viacom the party who sued was active in putting the content up there in the first place)
Youtube became popular over similar sites (like Vimeo) by hosting pirated tv episodes. But one was started by ex-Paypal founders and the other bootstrapped (MegaUpload). Worse, while MegaUpload followed the letter of the law by doing removals of content that was reported as pirated they fell afoul of the law by stringently going after child pornographers and a court decided they can do that then they could do the sam…
>>> Youtube became popular over similar sites (like Vimeo) by hosting pirated tv episodes. +10x Twitch. I still remember JustinTV .. >>>> Worse, while MegaUpload followed the letter of the law by doing removals of content that was reported as pirated Could you please elaborate ? The implication is that other similar sites were not removing child pornography or similar ?
They (mega) may have started to do this, but for several years I used to come across saved text files with lists of of mega links on most pedophiles computers.
A different unit in the police sometimes checked the links and anecdotally they still (months after seizure) were valid and contained Child Exploitation Material (CEM). Often the same material stored on the device that I was wading thru. (insert cannot unsee meme)
I am not talking about fakes, I'm talking about photographic documentation of the worst abuse held by offenders either as memories or currency.
So when Mega came under fire I didn't really care that if came from the "copyright" end.
I understand that Mega faced a large task to address this. Not simple. But the fact that CEM was hard for them to sort from the large corpus of "pirated" material seemed like a feature, not a bug. A least from a site design perspective. Selfishly, my sympathy is low in this case. Motivated by my own secondary exposure to some horrible shit as a result of the legal process.
> Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? The problem is that government doesn’t have a line, that line is defined by the resistance it faces. Today it might be people sharing MP3s, tomorrow they will come after you for hosting a parody of mickey mouse. 10 years from now they’ll be busting down doors for sharing illegal memes (Seems to already be the ca…
To add: you know with the stable-diffusion function, there are ranges of vectors whereby technically just conjuring them is 15 years federal and possessing them is 5 each. That is 20-25% of a lifetime in one, 7.5% in the other! You know how nuts that sounds to me as a mathematician?!
Yeah writing down the 0s and 1s of a child pornopgraphic image is forbidden, like the 0s and 1s of copyrighted material. Nothing to do with stable diffusion. Some numbers are forbidden to use since the 90s. That's basically what it came to.
Minor nitpick, but he was not stealing, he was infringing copyrights. To "steal" is to take another's rivalrous property without permission, such that you now possess it, but they no longer have it. To "infringe a copyright" is to make and distribute a copy of another person's work without their permission. Both illegal, but very different things. What targets of copyright infringement are losing is not their propert…
If someone happily says "they stole my heart" do you go: a. Go and correct them about using language wrongly b. Find the heart and return it to its owner c. Understand the meaning correctly
Snowden quit working for the NSA and left the country, and Assange does not appear to be operating Wikileaks anymore. I would imagine that they would both agree that there comes a point where it makes sense to factor consequences into your choices and quit what you are doing.
Snowden fled for Russia whom he protected in his selective leaking. Now he spouts off their official propaganda.
Russia whom he protected in his selective leaking.
And you know this how?
Now he spouts off their official propaganda.
Only very sheepishly and obliquely. If he's supposed to be their mouthpiece, he's a pretty meek and ineffective one.
Much like Napster, his only real crime was success. If nobody or barely anyone used Megaupload, he wouldn’t have been in as much trouble. He paved the way for streaming and digital distribution of media. Megavideo in particular had the highest encoding rates possible at the time, even superior to YouTube.
> his only real crime was success. Success even when obtained with some illegality is fine so long as it plays well with the interests of elites. Kim didn't just break the law, he also painted himself a target by upsetting people with power. For all of his flaws, I think where I'd give someone like SBF a significant amount of credit is that he understood very well that if he wanted to do dodgy things he had to remain…
Dotcom did absolutely nothing to "upset people with power". He was always just an obnoxious hustler trying to make money by obviously illegal means.
Yes, that’s the point the poster is making. They are not the same despite being united by the fact that in both cases the government got involved and said “stop that, it’s wrong”. They explicitly stated their point that there’s a moral spectrum of positions which means it’s not always right to just roll over and find something else to do when the authorities get involved.
I don’t know if it’s just coincidence, but I’ve been seeing this so much lately. People reflexively responding that thing A is totally different than thing B, completely missing that the point is not to suggest similarity between A and B, but to challenge the reasoning being applied to A by noting that it would also apply to B (in most cases where applying it to B leads to a clearly wrong outcome).
It's not a coincidence, it's become extremely common lately in online discussions. Instead of addressing the argument and, perhaps, pointing out why the two differing things should be treated differently, they just act offended and shut down the argument as if making the comparison at all is so offensive and wrong that we can't even discuss it logically.