3 ms·

I'm just explaining the way it works and that there's nothing special about megaupload or new happening here: Break the law and the police are going to take yo

by Steko 15y ago

I'm just explaining the way it works and that there's nothing special about megaupload or new happening here: Break the law and the police are going to take your stuff. If you used that stuff for your business oh well sucks to be you. You may think that is a bad system and have some great ideas for liberating us from the bad police but those ideas are no more valid or invalid today then they were 5, 10, 20, 50 or 100 years ago.

droithomme 15y ago
By using the terminology "break the law", you seem to be intentionally disregarding the fact they have not been convicted of anything, and the assertions they even did anything illegal are questionable at best given they complied with DCMA takedown notices. That they may or may not have been aware of infringement is your next response, but irrelevant since DCMA deals with response to requests, not awareness. Sites are not required to be copyright police independently determining which user backups are legitimate fair use of rips of CDs they own and which are not. YouTube is certainly aware of misuse of their site, something they capitalize on by organizing and directing users to content they know perfectly well is unlicensed such as the Beatles catalog.
- Steko 15y ago
  Look no one is ever convicted of anything when the police initially take the evidence away. That's how the system works, that's the way it's worked for decades, there's nothing different here.
- anamax 15y ago
  > By using the terminology "break the law", you seem to be intentionally disregarding the fact they have not been convicted of anything, and the assertions they even did anything illegal are questionable at best given they complied with DCMA takedown notices. Substitute "be accused of breaking the law" for "break the law". Yes, the police and prosecutors have that kind of discretion. And no, grand juries are not a significant impediment. As the saying goes, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.

by Steko 15y ago

droithomme 15y ago

By using the terminology "break the law", you seem to be intentionally disregarding the fact they have not been convicted of anything, and the assertions they even did anything illegal are questionable at best given they complied with DCMA takedown notices. That they may or may not have been aware of infringement is your next response, but irrelevant since DCMA deals with response to requests, not awareness. Sites are not required to be copyright police independently determining which user backups are legitimate fair use of rips of CDs they own and which are not. YouTube is certainly aware of misuse of their site, something they capitalize on by organizing and directing users to content they know perfectly well is unlicensed such as the Beatles catalog.

Steko 15y ago
Look no one is ever convicted of anything when the police initially take the evidence away. That's how the system works, that's the way it's worked for decades, there's nothing different here.
anamax 15y ago
> By using the terminology "break the law", you seem to be intentionally disregarding the fact they have not been convicted of anything, and the assertions they even did anything illegal are questionable at best given they complied with DCMA takedown notices. Substitute "be accused of breaking the law" for "break the law". Yes, the police and prosecutors have that kind of discretion. And no, grand juries are not a significant impediment. As the saying goes, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.