4 ms·
Check out the Limitations beneath the "How to become a Hosting Partner" page. > Unfortunately, we can't work with hosting companies based in the United States.
by switz 14y ago
Check out the Limitations beneath the "How to become a Hosting Partner" page.
> Unfortunately, we can't work with hosting companies based in the United States. Safe harbour for service providers via the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has been undermined by the Department of Justice with its novel criminal prosecution of Megaupload. It is not safe for cloud storage sites or any business allowing user-generated content to be hosted on servers in the United States or on domains like .com / .net. The US government is frequently seizing domains without offering service providers a hearing or due process.
- kator 14y agoLOL I just posted the same thing.. In some ways you can argue that he knows better then most what is "really" happening on that front..
- jcr 14y agoThe more hilarious bit is only seen by viewing the source... http://static.kim.com/mega/release/css/index.css?v=8 http://static.kim.com/mega/release/css/index.css?v=8 http://static.kim.com/mega/release/js/main.js?v=8 http://static.kim.com/mega/release/js/main.js?v=8 I wonder how long the "kim.com" domain will last?
- tzs 14y agoThe DMCA Safe Harbor works fine for companies that aren't PURPOSEFULLY attempting to violate copyright. Just don't make the mistake of getting caught berating employees for taking down infringing material, don't get caught figuring out what users upload the best pirated material so you can reward them, don't get caught ordering employees to work on improving the quality of pirated files on your site, and you won't have the problems Mr. Dotcom (who did all the aforementioned things) had with staying under the Safe Harbor.
- koide 14y agoOn the other hand the lack of due process is significant, what good will it be for you when your domain/machines are seized for months before you can prove you are legit?
- ovi256 14y agoOr, alternatively, do all that, without getting caught, to drive traffic, until you are a household name and get acquired by everyone's favorite advertising multinational. Then everyone'll forget your humble beginnings.
- z92 14y agoYoutube?
- bo1024 14y ago> and you won't have the problems Mr. Dotcom (who did all the aforementioned things) had This is simply false. Legitimate non-infringing websites have been seized by the U.S. justice department without due process.[1] There is a reason to have due process and innocent until proven guilty; the reason is that otherwise power is abused by those with the power. [1] http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120505dajaz1 http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120505dajaz1
- tptacek 14y agoBureaucrat 'bo1024, you are technically correct --- the best kind of correct! Following the strict letter of the DMCA does not in fact guarantee that nobody will make a mistake or fail to stop someone abusing process. What this has to do with the meat of the comment you're responding to, I'm less sure of; that comment was useful in that it corrects an extremely common misconception about the DMCA (that if you simply have a process to honor takedown requests, you're a service provider immune to prosecution). Regardless of your opinion about copyright or the DMCA, it remains an under-appreciated fact that if you do the things Kim Schmitz was discovered to have done (it's spelled out explicitly in the Mega emails), you're violating the DMCA whether or not you honor takedowns; further, you're not simply committing individual infractions by doing so, but instead (potentially) forfeiting all your protections as a service provider under the DMCA.