5 ms·
Furthermore he fully complied with DMCA which only required links removed. He followed the law to the letter, more he even gave tools that go above and beyond t
by dlikhten 15y ago
Furthermore he fully complied with DMCA which only required links removed. He followed the law to the letter, more he even gave tools that go above and beyond the law. It is not his fault the industry was not willing to properly police.
Now devil's advocate: the MPAA and affiliates CANNOT possibly go over every single website which hosts content and provides different ways of inspecting that information and filter. It is just impossible. They would spend all their money 10x over just policing. Which of course begs the question: are they evolving with changes in tech or just doing everything in their power not to.
- brazzy 15y agoHa actually did none of that.
- joejohnson 15y agoSo he's lying in the interview with TorrentFreak? Can you support this claim?
- tptacek 15y agoYes: the DoJ built a case for almost 2 years again MU, and subpoenaed and obtained huge amounts of intracompany email in which MU repeatedly admitted knowledge of and financial benefit from piracy. For instance, when an outsider complained that MegaVideo's hosting of the Showtime pay-tv series "Dexter" had desynchronized audio/video, instead of taking down "Dexter", Kim Schmitz fired off mail saying that fixing the AV problem was a priority. That's just one of many many instances; see up and downthread for others.
- angersock 15y agoCare to elaborate? Because, you know, he actually mentions in the article upping the delete quota for Warner Bros.
- tptacek 15y agoI see no mention anywhere in the DMCA of "reasonable limits" to the number of infringement notices a provider needs to deal with, only the statutory language demanding that providers act expeditiously to react to those notices. Why was there a "quota" at all?
- DanBC 15y agoThe quota was not for DMCA requests, but for direct access link deletion by the content owner. This feature is not required by law.
- tptacek 15y agoNo specific feature is required by law. What's required by law is that providers (C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity. There isn't any place in the DMCA that suggests any limit to the number of notices that can be provided. On a tactical level it seems like having limits was a mistake: they should have just queued them let the bottleneck express itself as a backlog and a delay. On a strategic level, it doesn't matter. The argument that MegaUpload wasn't aware of its status as a piracy hub is totally implausible. It thus flunks 2 of the 3 conditions for establishing immunity under the DMCA.
- Goronmon 15y agoThere isn't any place in the DMCA that suggests any limit to the number of notices that can be provided. There is no limit on notices. The limit is only on the direct-deletion of links, without review or notice, by parties like Time Warner. In other words, in addition to handling notices, Megaupload gave "Delete" buttons to certain parties that allowed them to directly control which links were available, but that button was limited in use.
- karamazov 15y agoThe article doesn't mention limits to DMCA requests - presumably, WB or anyone else could have sent as many requests as they wanted, all of which would be complied with. It's direct takedowns which were limited.