3 ms·
This will probably go the way of Aimster. IE: You can't play dumb to shield yourself while knowingly assisting copyright infringement. http://en.wikipedia.org/
by res0nat0r 14y ago
This will probably go the way of Aimster. IE: You can't play dumb to shield yourself while knowingly assisting copyright infringement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Aimster_Copyright_Litigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Aimster_Copyright_Litigat...
The court held that in this case the users of the systems were the direct infringers, these who are ignorant or more commonly disdainful of copyright and in any event discount the likelihood of being sued or prosecuted for copyright infringement, however companies such as Aimster that facilitate their infringement, even if they are not themselves direct infringers can be liable for copyright violations as contributory infringers.
- btown 14y ago(IANAL) The key question is whether Mega is practicing "Willful Blindness" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness) by providing this service. The players involved, especially Dotcom, seem to have already "tainted" themselves as being _knowledgeable_ of infringement through their involvement in MegaUpload. So in what way is their "design" of a client-side encrypted system different from "designing" a drug trafficking briefcase so that the courier doesn't have a key? If the courier/service has reason to believe that the service is being used for copyright infringement, it could be argued that they are being criminally negligent by offering such a service.
- msg 14y agoIf the postal service invented physical systems that didn't allow mail to be opened in transit, would you accuse the postmaster general of facilitating criminal conspiracies? All they are doing is keeping private communication really private. What is the difference between this and encrypted email? Hint, you can break a large file into many chunks of email too.