4 ms·
Yeah, BUT, Mega did everything required under DMCA. When informed, he took down the offending data. A closer example is to compare it to youtube
by myrryr 12y ago
Yeah, BUT, Mega did everything required under DMCA. When informed, he took down the offending data.
A closer example is to compare it to youtube
- rtpg 12y agoI think the case relied more on the fact that people in Megaupload were uploading things, and Kim was encouraging people to upload copyrighted things. DMCA Safe Harbor doesn't apply if you're complicit, IIRC.
- icebraining 12y agoA closer example is to compare it to youtube Youtube, who spent millions developing a state-of-the-art image and sound recognition system (ContentID) so that copyrighted content could be detected and blocked by its holders?
- brazzy 12y agoIIRC, Mega took down the offending URLs, of which there could be thousands pointing at the same data.
- icebraining 12y agoThat's perfectly valid. Copyrighted data isn't illegal to distribute per se, only distributing it without a valid license. The same file can be illegally distributed by one Mega user and legally by another - it depends on who they are and what license they might have.
- BillFranklin 12y agoYoutube's copyrighted content recognition systems do not work that well - but now that these systems are a legal requirement they stop Youtube competitors from getting off the ground.
- krrrh 12y agoYou've probably never tried to watch YouTube videos from Germany. The most random incidental music in the background of a cat video can cause an upload that plays fine in the US to display something like, "This video is not available in your country because it contains music that the rights holder has not cleared through GEMA". Youtube goes to great lengths to follow all of the DMCA (not just notice and takedown), as well as the laws of other countries. Evidence indicates that MU did the opposite in many cases.