MediaFire CEO: We Don't Depend On Piracy

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MediaFire CEO: We Don't Depend On Piracy

Posted by Soulskill on Monday January 23, 2012 @06:41AM from the everyone's-entitled-to-an-opinion dept.

New submitter libertyernie writes "Although FileSonic has disabled sharing and Uploaded.to has blocked access to the U.S., the CEO of Texas-based MediaFire is not concerned about government action against his company. 'We don't have a business built on copyright infringement,' says Derek Labian. 'Like many other cloud-based sharing services like Box.net and Dropbox, we're a legitimate business targeting professionals.'"

185 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

First.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 06:42 · Score: 1

to laugh at that guy!! Not based on piracy? Whatever...
1. Re:First.... by stanlyb · 2012-01-23 06:48 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Second to ROFL. Are these guys soooo naive???
2. Re:First.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 12:00 · Score: 0
  
  So what are you doing? Do you have a public access tv show? Do you? Do you talk to the record labels via promotions? Did you notice they can't tell you what this all means. Where the lines are drawn, etc. Are you willing to have the government point the finger at you and raid your computers for a tv show you ran for 6+ years? How can you be so sure of yourself, when the record labels themselves can't tell us?
  You haven't noticed no banksters are in jail? No constitution?
  You haven't noticed the globalization at the local level? Agenda 21, Green Corporation Subsidies, Carbon Tax, Sustainable Growth? Endless wars? State Secrets to Hide Treason?
  I don't need to troll you back, everyone can see who you are.
  landdestroyer.blogspot.com
  activistpost.com
Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by eldavojohn · 2012-01-23 06:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

"We try to steer clear of things that would attract scrutiny," Labian said. "If people are pirating on our service, we don’t want those people to use it."
So what you're openly admitting is that you just don't know the extent of piracy on your service? I probably would have said "no comment" rather than risk the Eye of Sauron ... er RIAA/MPAA's gaze. From what I gather, it could 0% it could be 100% of your service based on pirates sharing files with each other but since you don't know it's okay? Unless you have some sort of Youtube-like fingerprinting going on, I'd just keep your mouth shut.

Another reason Labian said he wasn’t worried about the government stepping in is because the company maintains a "good relationship" with various government bodies, including "Homeland Security, ICE, and the FBI."

Right but those are just the enforcers, your real problem is the MPAA and unless you're paying elected officials more than they are you could be next.

--
My work here is dung.
1. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by SuperKendall · 2012-01-23 06:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So what you're openly admitting is that you just don't know the extent of piracy on your service?
  Yes, so they can claim common carrier status... seems pretty smart to me. If you have any idea at all, you are screwed.
  Right but those are just the enforcers, your real problem is the MPAA
  As long as they respond to take-down notices and do not ACTIVELY seek traffic based on piracy as MegaUpload did (judging by emails they had to turn over) they, and companies like DropBox, should be fine.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
2. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by jakrmaster · 2012-01-23 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  It's funny that the service is named MediaFire. This means 99% in cases copyright infringing content, at least how people use it. The rest 1% is indie and amateur stuff that almost nobody wants.
3. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by P-niiice · 2012-01-23 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Perfect name when so much of it will be burnt.
4. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 06:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  All we can say for certain is that every pirate starts with Google.
  Also I'm bored with all this MPAA/RIAA demonising. It's obvious that all this is just an excuse for top-down control of the Internet, one of many recent laws designed to control the people. Your "real problem" starts when you do things which increase freedom for others and your "real problem" ends when you do as you're told. This changes according as the pressure from people interested in preserving freedoms for the common man, whether that's libertarians or trade unionists - since the '80s the steady flow of neocon propaganda plus distraction technology has minimised this pressure. The UK is more thatcherite than Thatcher; the US more reaganite than Reagan - remember, individualism always leads to consolidation of power which leads to removal of assistance and restriction of freedom.
5. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by vlm · 2012-01-23 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  "We try to steer clear of things that would attract scrutiny," Labian said. "If people are pirating on our service, we don’t want those people to use it."
  So what you're openly admitting is that you just don't know the extent of piracy on your service?
  I read it as his service looks at the hosted files to verify they are not pirated material, which would imply his service is inappropriate for internal business use, which is too bad. I'd like a "business fileserver" provider for a little project I'm working on. Obviously I can roll my own with a virtual box provider like linode and sshfs but it would have been nice to just cut someone a check to handle backups and upgrades and general maintenance for us.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
6. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by project5117 · 2012-01-23 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to chime in here that I use MediaFire to distribute musical compositions which I hold the copyrights to collaborators and fans. I'll concede that I may be considered as "indie and amateur stuff."
  Prior to supporting your quote, however, I'd like to see 99 people follow this post with replies advising that they use MediaFire only to distribute "copyright infringing content," a term which would not include anything falling under fair use provisions.
  Any99 mind stepping up to support the parent's position?
7. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, they were originally (and still largely) used for photographs, which are type of media. Most of which are posted by the copyright holder (as in, some asshole with a cell phone camera), and were non infringing.
8. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by mvar · 2012-01-23 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  I dont know MediaFire's business, but could someone clarify this for me - is a company that sells storage obligated to keep an eye on its clients' files for copyright infringement?
9. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-23 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  I have never uploaded to mediafire (I have my own webserver, and seldom need to send to more than a few people) but I have in the past used it to download both infringing and non-infringing content.
10. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-23 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Never trust your cloud backup provider. Encrypt. If they can't read the file, you don't have to worry about them peeking.
11. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 07:09 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
12. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by brainzach · 2012-01-23 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  So what you're openly admitting is that you just don't know the extent of piracy on your service? I probably would have said "no comment" rather than risk the Eye of Sauron ... er RIAA/MPAA's gaze. From what I gather, it could 0% it could be 100% of your service based on pirates sharing files with each other but since you don't know it's okay? Unless you have some sort of Youtube-like fingerprinting going on, I'd just keep your mouth shut.
  Saying no comment implies that you are guilty in the eyes of public opinion. It would be stupid for any legitimate organization that is trying to attract business customers to do that.
  Businesses are going to be wary of dealing with file hosting websites after the megaupload take down. They will want to stay away from shady services that primary focus is dealing with copyrighted content because they risk losing their files. If Mediafire sells itself as a legitimate business, it will be good publicity and hopefully bring in more customers.
  Megaupload got in trouble because they did not follow through on DMCA request and their business model encouraged piracy. As long as the Mediafire follows through on the DMCA request and don't try to actively go around the laws, they don't have much to worry about.
13. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by ae1294 · 2012-01-23 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  I have never uploaded to mediafire (I have my own webserver, and seldom need to send to more than a few people) but I have in the past used it to download both infringing and non-infringing content.
  IT WAS A TRAP!
14. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by project5117 · 2012-01-23 07:22 · Score: 2
  
  Very cool. And thanks for chiming in.
  Are you confident that in -every- case you considered infringing the content was not authorized by the copyright holder? Sometimes it is difficult to say from the downloading side of things; I recall that some of Trent Reznor's fans got approached by his previous record company for leaks which he personally authorized (to promote Year Zero? If you're interested I can look for some references for you).
15. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by gorzek · 2012-01-23 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly right. Under the DMCA, no one is required to take down infringing material proactively--in fact, if it's found you do this, you can be in more trouble for what you don't catch. Instead, you take a reactive approach and take things down when you get DMCA notifications. Then, you can be in compliance with the law without having to devote vast resources to policing your site, as others are policing it for you.
  
  --
  Check out my world simulator thingy.
16. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by tepples · 2012-01-23 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Not unless it pays commissions for uploading files that become popular downloads.
17. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  No - but they are obliged under the DMCA to take down infringing content when notified. MegaUpload wasn't doing this, which is one of the reasons they got busted..
18. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  The points seemed clear enough to me.
  (1) If piracy enablers are to blame, then why is no-one targetting Google?
  (2) These laws and arrests aren't effected because the (relatively small) recording and movie industries control America but because they're one of a long list of recent laws which take away the freedom on the Internet, whence freedom of the people;
  (3) If you want to halt the destruction of freedom then you need to put pressure on those who would destroy it;
  (4) Propaganda plus the technological complexities of modern life make it harder to pin down the problem and convince others of it;
  (5) Any philosophy of individualism inevitably leads to the consolidation of power structures - the government in bed with the corporations, or vice versa.
  (5) is probably the most contentious of the points. (1) to (4) are pretty much obvious. About the only hard-to-understand thing in GP's post was "distraction technology" - it sounds conspiracy theory kooky until you realise it probably just meant "distraction of technology".
19. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Shagg · 2012-01-23 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Businesses are going to be wary of dealing with file hosting websites after the megaupload take down.
  Which is exactly why it was taken down. File hosting sites provide competition to the RIAA/MPAA distribution cartel.
  
  --
  Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
20. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by sexconker · 2012-01-23 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  So what you're openly admitting is that you just don't know the extent of piracy on your service?
  Yes, so they can claim common carrier status... seems pretty smart to me. If you have any idea at all, you are screwed.
  Right but those are just the enforcers, your real problem is the MPAA
  As long as they respond to take-down notices and do not ACTIVELY seek traffic based on piracy as MegaUpload did (judging by emails they had to turn over) they, and companies like DropBox, should be fine.
  ISPs aren't common carriers.
  In other news, the "24 hour evaluation period" WaReZ sites talked about in 1996 is also bullshit.
21. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by makomk · 2012-01-23 07:37 · Score: 2
  
  MediaFire claim to delete encrypted files unless you're on one of their paid plans on the assumption that you're probably hiding pirated content in there. Expect other providers to follow suit.
22. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Kjella · 2012-01-23 07:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The problem is that it's like selling knives to people and the most common thing people do is stab each other with them. You can try keeping up appearances and say we're only selling a tool, but sooner or later someone on your staff is going to crack and say "Yes, our tool is used for stabbing. You know it, I know it, we all know it's the 800lb gorilla in the room we can't talk about." Even if you're legitimately trying to minimize the illegal potential, admitting that your awkward stabbing weapon still could be used for stabbing is an admission. And that you didn't sell an even duller knife even though it'd be useless as a knife too, you are still saying you didn't do everything you could to stop stabbers. In short, you can't talk about them. I guarantee that if you do, their lawyers will find more than enough rope to hang you with when things are taken out of context and interpreted in the most cynical way.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
23. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by king+neckbeard · 2012-01-23 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  ISPs are or at least should be common carriers. And just like ISPs should be providing access to dumb pipes, filehosts should have dumb servers and be protected from liability.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
24. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by sexconker · 2012-01-23 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  ISPs are or at least should be common carriers. And just like ISPs should be providing access to dumb pipes, filehosts should have dumb servers and be protected from liability.
  Well, they aren't.
25. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by JWW · 2012-01-23 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yes they should be.
  Senator Al Franken has sponsored Net Neutrality legislation to allow them to be treated as such.
  Of course, he's also sponsored PIPA which would force ISPs to filter every packet.....
26. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by fish_in_the_c · 2012-01-23 07:59 · Score: 2
  
  Don't most people use knives to eat food with?
  Gun's would make a better analogy. Their are some types of Guns that are illegal, ( automatic weapons) because it is almost impossible to use them for legal purposes ( other then perhaps target practice if you are someone who enjoys that kind of thing) . But just because something MIGHT be used in an illegal fashion is not justification for preventing it's reasonable legal use.
  on the flip side of the argument there are lagitimate legal uses of all kinds of banned weapons.
  Target practice is one of them, private security is another, so you have to ask why are they illegal, why not allow the sail of ak47 and anti-aircraft missiles to those could make a profit by having people pay them to do target practice is some empty dessert?
  I think part of the answer is the level of possible harm vs good done.
  A Handgun _might_ kill 1 person , but an anti-aircraft weapon _might_ kill hundreds i one shot not to mention destroy the perception of safety of flight in the whole country.
  I'm not sure if that extends to copyright or not? Each individual infraction is small. And no one is killed, people just loose jobs and livelihood, jobs and livelihood they would not have if the government had not created a legal right for the purpose of supporting the arts.
  
  --
  âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
27. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  I'd find what I do an exception:
  I use MediaFire for a number of things, all 100% legal, because it is IP I have made, or it is IP created by some private groups (AD&D campaign, acting troupe, etc.) The fact that a paid account can create links that just download the file without issue are nice. Of course, I can host a video about someone's act or lecture on speaking with/without accents on my Web server (taken with my own camera), but it is far cheaper to have it hosted on MediaFire for download to other people in the troupe.
  Same with a band and uploading studio quality tracks. Yes, I can host them on my local Web server, but there is the fact that downloading out of a DSL or cable link is relatively slow. I can host them on a remote server, but then have to deal with someone in another region having extremely slow speeds, as well as possibly get raked over the coals for bandwidth use. Or use MediaFire, and have tracks fresh from the mixing board ready for other people to listen to.
28. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Fnord666 · 2012-01-23 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Their are some types of Guns that are illegal, ( automatic weapons) because it is almost impossible to use them for legal purposes ( other then perhaps target practice if you are someone who enjoys that kind of thing)
  Automatic weapons (and silenced weapons) are not illegal per se, at least not in the US. You still have to pass a background check and you have to pay the appropriate taxes, but other than that...
  
  --
  'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
29. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Bucky24 · 2012-01-23 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  The points seemed clear enough to me.
  (1) If piracy enablers are to blame, then why is no-one targetting Google?
  Because Google is willing to put forth the money required to do legal battle with the MPAA/RIAA. And Google has very deep pockets.
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
30. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by viperidaenz · 2012-01-23 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  (1) If piracy enablers are to blame, then why is no-one targetting Google?
  Because if someone told them they could no longer run a search engine, they would spend every dime they have proving otherwise. They have a lot of dimes by the way.
  They have about half assets than the company that owns the biggest recording company in the world. If Vivendi were willing to sell, Google could probably buy Universal Music Group.
31. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Anon-Admin · 2012-01-23 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Their are some types of Guns that are illegal, ( automatic weapons) because it is almost impossible to use them for legal purposes ( other then perhaps target practice if you are someone who enjoys that kind of thing) . But just because something MIGHT be used in an illegal fashion is not justification for preventing it's reasonable legal use.
  Ummm, There are a lot of uses for Automatic weapons. Predator hunting comes to mind, and no not the movie, Hogs, Big cats, etc.
  It is kinda funny, the National Firearms act was passed to regulate what were considered "gangster weapons" however, farmers had been using automatic weapons for some 20 years to control varmints and predators on their ranches. Heck they banned silencers in the same law but in many countries silencers are mandatory for hunting because it reduces the decibels of the gun shot to below that which does damage to the human ear. So it is safer for the hunter in the long run if he uses a silencer.
  The whole point here is that for every "Illegal" intent, there are several "Legal" ones They tried to get VCR's banned because people could record TV shows and they (MPAA) insisted that it would lead to wide spread pirating. This is the same dance just a new tune.
  If they are used for pirating then the problem may not be the service, it may lie somewhere else.
32. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 08:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I think people are confusing "common carrier" for telecommunications and "safe harbor" for intellectual property. (a VERY rough summary follows) Common carriers have to treat all content using their telecommunications system the same and cannot have tiered access to different content but in exchange are not liable for serving illegal content they didn't create. Safe harbor refers to a lack of liability of your users posting or saving information to your services as long as you don't solicit such posts by the user. So a website gets safe harbor but not common carrier protection. My cell phone company (which does not provide hosting) does not get safe harbor protection, but does get common carrier protection.
33. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by nurb432 · 2012-01-23 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, so they can claim common carrier status... seems pretty smart to me. If you have any idea at all, you are screwed.
  No, that is no longer the case. If you exist at all you are screwed. The only question is when and how hard.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
34. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Alex+Zepeda · 2012-01-23 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well, some ISPs are. Just depends on how they structure things legally. Should it be easier for ISPs to stand up and refuse to censor and snoop on their customers? IMO, yes. However, AFAIK, AT&T still retains common carrier status despite their well documented spying efforts, so...
  
  --
  The revolution will be mocked
35. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by lgw · 2012-01-23 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  The enitre concept of "common carrier" is a telephone thing. What you want is "safe harbor" instead. These are legal terms, and so mean whatever they want to mean.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
36. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Desler · 2012-01-23 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  How are they relatively small? These media companies are owned by huge, multinational conglomerates. Google doesn't pull in more revenue than even the smallest of these conglomerates.
37. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Desler · 2012-01-23 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  And Disney, Vivendi, Time Warner, Sony, NewsCorp and Comcast/GE (co-owners of NBC Universal) and even Viacom, at about half Google's revenue, combined eclipse Google both in political clout and far, far deeper pockets.
38. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Desler · 2012-01-23 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Ok Viacom has half Google's revenue but throw them in with the other conglomerates and Google is peanuts in comparison.
39. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  Imagine a bunch of protesters standing in front of a known crack house marching back and forth with signs protesting the crack house. "This is a crack house, avoid coming here", "This place sells drugs, keep your children away". They would be considered by the media and the general passerby to be be helping the community and letting others know of the illegal activity in the area by raising awareness.
  Now picture some people standing outside marching back and forth with signs "This is a crack house, come on in and buy", "We sell high quality drugs". They would be considered by the media and the general passerby to be advertising for the drug house and would be arrested because they were raising awareness.
  What is the difference between the two groups of protesters as far as the general public is concerned? Both groups are raising the awareness of where to buy drugs if you wanted them. Why is one message so much worse or different than the other? A drug user and antidrug user is NOT going to be swayed by the last sentence of a protesters sign that says do or don't use drugs. Every person believes they are not swayed by signs, posters, and advertisements and that every other person is.
  Who cares if dotcom or whatever his name is stated that there is a lot of "illegal" activity on his site in a personal email, he already knows that from the amount of takedown notices he gets. Him knowing or stating as such should not change a thing. In his legal opinion, he was complying with the laws. I KNOW for a fact I can find copyrighted material on Youtube, you know that as well as does everyone in the music business, the casual browser of youtube and every single person that works at youtube and Goolge. Some youtube employee sending an email to another within youtube stating that shouldn't mean anything to anybody and should not become a legal issue. There HAS to be a better gauge of legality and responsibility above and beyond someone somewhere within the company stating "I know some people are uploading copyrighted material to our site. Is that all it takes to make you guilty and your company shutdown? One person sending an email? I bet 95% of all employees kind of know about something like that happening where they work, is that all it takes to shut that company down is an archived email with that information?
40. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by project5117 · 2012-01-23 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks very much for your comment, Anon. (It's always nice to hear from someone who knows how to write coherent sentences that are on topic.)
  I noted that your response fits into my little grassroots poll, started above in a different branch of this subtree.
  Including your post, we've had four people who have stated they use MediaFire, one who states a belief they may have downloaded infringing content (though they have not confirmed that this is the case), and three (including myself, and you, and the poster who claimed to download infringing content) who have stated that they use Mediafire for non-infringing purposes.
  Further, another anon above noted that he, she, or it observed a lot of non-infringing use (though this is under debate in that subthread).
  This seems to be somewhat far from the 99% infringing to 1% non-infringing use that the grandparent suggested, and closer to 25% (believed infringing) vs 75% non-infringing. The more submissions, the merrier, of course.
  Thank you again for participating!
  5117
41. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by jakrmaster · 2012-01-23 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  You obviously fail to see that people who are downloading illegally from the site are not going to be responding to this kind of questions publicly, nor do they have as much incentive to do so as non-infringing users.
42. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by hairyfeet · 2012-01-23 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  And the knife could ALSO be used to cut a rope thus saving you from a kidnapper and thanks to the Betamax case one doesn't have to prove something is ONLY used for one purpose, just that it does have legitimate uses. I've personally used Soundcloud, MegaUpload, and MediaFire for delivering files to customers as well as for delivering audio tracks to musicians I was collaborating with. These files were made by me and these services worked just fine for the purpose and were free so there you go. what is gonna screw megaUpload is the fact they never deleted when the *.A.A sent a C&D and they bragged about the money they were making on piracy. But if I were to create a link here to mediaFire for say the registry file i use for "Windows no sound device" error fixing would that not show it can trivially be used for non piracy?
  BTW if anybody runs into that problem, where you have the driver installed yet Windows shows no audio device just shoot me an email and I'll slap it on mediafire or something since the one I had on MegaUpload is gone. Works on anything from Win2K-Win 7 X64 and is simple as "clicky clicky reboot", great to keep on a thumbstick with your other tools.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
43. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  Think you mean "elephant in the room". You can talk about the 800lb gorilla. You SHOULD talk about the 800lb gorilla.
44. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by hairyfeet · 2012-01-23 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  I'll tell ya why we don't sell AAA and RPGs...morons, dipshits, dumbasses,people that shouldn't be in the kiddie end of the genepool much less breeding. if some methhead could buy these things (and before you say they wouldn't I've actually known a few methheads and while they may not have food they ALWAYS have weapons, paranoid bunch they are) the next thing you know the whole block would be blown up because George got a little tweaky and thought there was a fed in the tree or some such shit. hell a buddy of mine is an ex cop and i'll never forget a couple of the "You won't believe this shit' stories he told me, one a methhead ended up using nearly 400 rounds on a tree, why? Because he was tweaky and thought there was a camera in the tree which of course had all the cops making jokes about "that tree will go no further!" and "yeah it should have put its limbs up!", and the gangbangers he and his partner pulled over that had an RPG in the backseat. When asked "WTH you gonna do with an RPG in the middle of downtown boy?" they said, swear to God, they were looking to do a driveby with an RPG. So while I'm a big supporter of the second amendment and many members of my family have large gun collections i know there is a limit to what we can sell to keep the retards from getting a hold of them.
  As for TFA the big difference is as far as i know mediafire isn't sending the *.A.A a Goatse in response to C&Ds whereas MegaUpload was pretty damned blatant about not giving a shit. Anybody that used that service could have found out VERY easily by simply trying to upload pirated content and watched as they didn't even bother uploading it but simply using one of the bazillion copies they already had and giving you a new URL would let you know what they thought of pirated content. Add to that the paying pirates for uploading popular stuff (which was ALWAYS pirated material) and the 'fuck 'em" emails the feds got a hold of means megaUpload was just begging for it whereas i haven't seen anything from Mediafire that would make them any different from any other storage host. as long as they play by the safe harbor provisions I don't see how they could be shut down anymore than YouTube.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
45. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Solandri · 2012-01-23 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that it's like selling knives to people and the most common thing people do is stab each other with them. You can try keeping up appearances and say we're only selling a tool, but sooner or later someone on your staff is going to crack and say "Yes, our tool is used for stabbing.
  Depends on how the people store their files. If they're stored as plain files, unecrypted, then yes your knife analogy is somewhat apt. (From what I've been reading, this appears to have been the case at Megaupload).
  
  But if people are predominantly storing encrypted files, then the file storage service is acting more like a public locker. Any member of the public can pay to rent space from them, store anything they want inside, and give anyone else the key. The locker company is only selling them the space, they themselves don't have access to the contents. Going after the locker company because someone stored illegal drugs inside a locker doesn't make sense.
  
  I've long argued that a proper cloud storage solution is one in which the storage company has no idea what your files are. Encryption should be automatic. Firefox's sync service does this - encrypts everything before uploading it to the sync server, so even Mozilla has no idea what your bookmarks are. Many storage companies (e.g. Dropbox) have been resisting this - I assume they're either being lazy or they think they can sell information gleaned from what types of files are being stored. But from a privacy standpoint, a security standpoint (company servers being breached does not mean stored data is compromised), and now a legal liability standpoint, all signs point towards encrypting everything customers store so that the storage companies themselves do not know what's being stored.
46. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Bucky24 · 2012-01-23 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  While you make a good point, I imagine that the MPAA/RIAA don't really want to take on Google just yet (even if they would win, it would be a hard battle), especially when there are so many easier targets.
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
47. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Luckyo · 2012-01-23 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Downloaders do not matter to the issue at hands. UPLOADERS do.
48. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 11:57 · Score: 0
  
  That's the problem, mediafire doesn't have any way to flag a file, so they are playing the plausable deniability card through simply making it it slow (emailing abuse@ ) to remove files.
  There's truckloads of pirated material on their site, and I could post links to it in minutes if I wanted to.
49. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by project5117 · 2012-01-23 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  If you'd like to run a more extensive, scientifically controlled poll, please do. I'd love to see the results.
  To respond to your allegation that there would be a reporting bias, I agree that, at first, that sounds like a good argument. However, this particular site is more technically minded users, and even the least paranoid is likely (on this cultured site) quite aware of proxies and Tor and can sufficiently obscure their identity to their own satisfaction if they wished to step up and take part. I therefore believe anyone who supports the statement above, that 99% of uploaders do not, to wit "have their papers in order," would be quite able to comment as Anonymous participants while doing so. I'm checking all the posts down to -1 in this thread to make sure I haven't overlooked any in this category.
  Another commentor above noted that the poll really should only consider -uploading- users, which I've integrated into the below comment. The same is true enough considering downloading as well, if you'd prefer to stay in your different, new topic, with the stats quoted in your parent comment.
  So far (taking into account everyone who has mentioned uploading) those who have commented individually number two: myself and one of Anonymous, and we both uploaded media to which we owned the copyrights and/or were licensed. I would be delighted to hear from (anonymously would be fine) another 198 people who opine that they have uploaded improperly licensed materials, and then be quite glad to agree with the great-great grandparent's statement.
  (I'm participating myself for purely selfish reasons, you see. I'd like to know what's really going on, rather than repeating this or that slogan without swelling my own personal level of understanding.)
  -5117
50. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by project5117 · 2012-01-23 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  Downloaders do not matter to the issue at hands. UPLOADERS do.
  Thanks very much for pointing that out. I believe the distinction had gotten lost in the shuffle! I'll try to call attention to your comment in my future replies, and provide you with proper credit for "raising your hand first."
  -5117
51. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by dgatwood · 2012-01-23 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to chime in here that I use MediaFire to distribute musical compositions which I hold the copyrights to collaborators and fans. I'll concede that I may be considered as "indie and amateur stuff."
  You see right here? This is the downside to tight copyright controls. If the copyright police have their way, we're eventually going to get to the point where most independent creators (the ones who don't know how to run their own servers) can't publish their own works, as all of the avenues for doing so will have been systematically eliminated by lawsuit, jail time, or threat thereof.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
52. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by dgatwood · 2012-01-23 12:52 · Score: 2
  
  Give it ten or fifteen years, and you'll probably see this happening. The entire entertainment industry is so small compared with the technology industry that such consolidation is almost inevitable if the entertainment industry continues to act the way that they have been lately. The tech companies will eat the entertainment "giants" one by one, and in so doing, become them. Then the cycle will repeat itself as some new disruptive technology changes the game again ten or twenty years hence.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
53. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 13:28 · Score: 0
  
  Ummm, There are a lot of uses for Automatic weapons. Predator hunting comes to mind, and no not the movie, Hogs, Big cats, etc.
  Under which circumstances would a hunter require a 600 rpm cyclic rate for hunting hogs?
  Semi-automatic rifles I can understand, but not automatic weapons. Not even a three-round burst would be needed.
54. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by cheekyjohnson · 2012-01-23 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  Every person believes they are not swayed by signs, posters, and advertisements and that every other person is.
  Actually, I just don't believe that advertisements/signs/posters send out magical brainwashing waves at all. Well, if they do, they must have erased my memory of buying any of their products (and erased my memory of the products). Because I sure didn't buy anything from them.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
55. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by leifb · 2012-01-23 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  sooner or later someone on your staff is going to crack and say "Yes, our tool is used for stabbing. You know it, I know it, we all know it's the 800lb gorilla in the room we can't talk about."
  At which point you go on record as being shocked, fire that person for not pointing this out sooner, slap a cheap band-aid partial fix on the problem, make a show of making an example of a couple of problem customers, bribe the right people and return to business-as-usual...
56. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 16:27 · Score: 0
  
  I think you underestimate hogs. Some may not be as easy to take down quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_boar#Physical_characteristics
  While I'm sure normal hunters would prefer to show-off their skill with a one bullet kill, if you screw up and you end up having to drop a big one charging at you before it hits you, I think you'd prefer the extra firepower.
  But if you fill it with so much lead it might not be safe to eat: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wild-game-deer-venison-condors-meat-lead-ammunition-ban :)
57. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by Xest · 2012-01-23 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  "The problem is that it's like selling knives to people and the most common thing people do is stab each other with them."
  I don't know what neighbourhood you live in, but in our neighbourhood the most common thing people do with knives is cut inanimate objects up, like food for example.
58. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-23 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  Or possibly just to push more people towards their paid plans.
59. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by makomk · 2012-01-24 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  I expect a lot of people really were uploading pirated stuff as encrypted files, though.
60. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by metacell · 2012-01-24 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  As long as they respond to take-down notices and do not ACTIVELY seek traffic based on piracy as MegaUpload did (judging by emails they had to turn over) they, and companies like DropBox, should be fine.
  Slightly off-topic, but I have to mention this:
  If you look at the indictment closely, it only says that staff at MegaUpload sent links to infringing material to each other. Then it juxtaposes that fact with e-mail where MegaUpload discusses how to increase traffic. Then it juxtaposes that with e-mail where MegaUpload says they can afford to give Universal more take-downs, considering the high volume they have. Nowhere does it actually say they were trying to promote pirated uploads. The indictment just creates that impression by taking quotes from different contexts and putting them together in a new context.
61. Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" by metacell · 2012-01-24 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  SpiderOak has what you're asking for. It's similar to DropBox, but encrypts the files before they're synced to the server, and the server doesn't store the encryption keys in cleartext.
  The flipside is that if you lose your password, SpiderOak can't decrypt your files for you. But that's the only way to make sure they can't read your files without your consent.
  If a file hosting service provides a way to recover your password, and at the same time claims they can't read your files, they're lying.
Professionals? by JorDan+Clock · 2012-01-23 06:43 · Score: 4, Funny

Like... Professional pirates?
1. Re:Professionals? by vlm · 2012-01-23 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Like... Professional pirates?
  Somalians?
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
2. Re:Professionals? by jgagnon · 2012-01-23 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  There is nothing more terrifying than a Somali pirate hacker.
  
  --
  Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
3. Re:Professionals? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Wasn't there a Slashdot article about more business professionals using the iPhone?
4. Re:Professionals? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 13:31 · Score: 0
  
  Except for a Somali pirate hacker from outer space
5. Re:Professionals? by IonOtter · 2012-01-23 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  Ninja Somali Pirate Hackers.
  
  --
  [End Of Line]
Hmmmm by arcite · 2012-01-23 06:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

He might want to find a non-extradition country to relocate too....
1. Re:Hmmmm by stanlyb · 2012-01-23 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Better idea: Buy an island, and establish a non-extradition country, i mean island.
2. Re:Hmmmm by jgagnon · 2012-01-23 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  You still have to get your Internet connection from somewhere. Good luck with that if all you do is cause headaches for your ISP.
  
  --
  Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
3. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  Is liberty island for sale...?
4. Re:Hmmmm by game+kid · 2012-01-23 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  "A'yo, SECNAV? Obie here. Those SEAL niggas need to do some target practice. Some guys on a private island offered themselves as live ones and they'll leave some computers as a gift. Ship'em out RayRay, Dodd'll hook ya up later."
  
  --
  You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
5. Re:Hmmmm by VJmes · 2012-01-23 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  I hear Greece is looking to offload a couple of Islands to pay for their debt problems.
  
  Now all we need is a name...
You may pirate when ready... by ae1294 · 2012-01-23 06:48 · Score: 5, Funny

"MediaFire CEO: We Don't Depend On Piracy"
- But it sure helps the bottom line!
1. Re:You may pirate when ready... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  RE: "But it sure helps the bottom line!"
  - It doesn't, actually, because the pirates use bots to come download with and bypass the advertising. Your only hope is to get a membership out of them, which usually doesn't happen unless you are pro-bot like MegaUpload was.
2. Re:You may pirate when ready... by nazsco · 2012-01-23 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Bot or not, it still counts as one pageview, hence one ad impression. ka-ching
3. Re:You may pirate when ready... by mattventura · 2012-01-23 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Not if the ad is never loaded.
4. Re:You may pirate when ready... by gl4ss · 2012-01-23 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  if the ad is never loaded, don't serve the file.
  that's the aim they got anyhow.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
5. Re:You may pirate when ready... by TubeSteak · 2012-01-23 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  When asked about the Googling issue, Labian said that MediaFire is a âoeprivate serviceâ and the only reason Google indexes a MediaFire page is when it has been shared by a user on a third-party site. He said MediaFire isnâ(TM)t at fault for this and said Google should look into the issue.
  Helping the bottom line indeed.
  Robots.txt would make their service much more private
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
Gotta love it when.... by Nyder · 2012-01-23 06:49 · Score: 1

... they claim they aren't doing anything wrong, but completely change their services anyways.

--
Be seeing you...
1. Re:Gotta love it when.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 08:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That's what happens when poorly drafted, overly-broad, draconian laws are written.
  "We don't do X, but we didn't think our competitor, Y, did either, and they completely disappeared from existance before so much as a single hearing had taken place, so we'd better scale back anything that we think might even *possibly*, in the worst light, be construed as anything kinda sorta like X!"
Blocked Access to the US by ohnocitizen · 2012-01-23 06:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

I wonder how many more companies will decide it necessary to block access to the US as ever more draconian actions are taken by our government?
1. Re:Blocked Access to the US by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  ever more draconian actions are taken by our government? [Citation Needed]
  
  Please do your research on the mega* case. If you actually read the indictment (even if you don't believe parts of it), you'll find it hard to believe that they lasted as long as they did.
2. Re:Blocked Access to the US by Tasha26 · 2012-01-23 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Do all dot COMs fall under US jurisdiction or am I missing something here? Would Megaupload.ru have suffered the same fate?
3. Re:Blocked Access to the US by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  You really need a citation?
  The threat of PIPA and SOPA wasnt enough? These bills werent an anomaly, they are part of a continuing trend.
4. Re:Blocked Access to the US by revoldub · 2012-01-23 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  If this trend continues, we won't need to pass SOPA/PIPA.
5. Re:Blocked Access to the US by ohnocitizen · 2012-01-23 12:34 · Score: 2
  
  +1 AC. There is a reason other file sharing companies are worried about being attacked. Just because the government went after one which appears to have made missteps does not mean they will continue exercising the same restraint. It is baffling anyone would think so when PIPA and SOPA are an express declaration they wish to do away with as much restrain on the matter as they can get away with. But here is a citation anyway of a draconian action with regards to copyright infringement.
6. Re:Blocked Access to the US by peterindistantland · 2012-01-23 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  Many Chinese websites have blocked access to the US. It's been that way for many years. These websites include e.g. music file search engines and youtube-like video sites (where there are actually full movies).
7. Re:Blocked Access to the US by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 19:24 · Score: 0
  
  Say hello to mediafire.me then. A lot of other "pirate" websites moved to .me domains. Demonoid is the most notable that comes to mind.
8. Re:Blocked Access to the US by ArsenneLupin · 2012-01-24 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how many more companies will decide it necessary to block access to the US as ever more draconian actions are taken by our government?
  Could anybody post a brief note explaining how to easily block a country in Apache?
9. Re:Blocked Access to the US by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 15:46 · Score: 0
  
  MediaFire is riding off of MegaUpload out of fear that it might be next. It has no right to bitch honestly, seeing that it itself is a file-sharing service with thousands of uploaded materials .
  What happened to innocent before guilty?
  File-Sharing businesses are CLOSING their doors to American Soil because of this seizure with megaupload that happened oh so 'conveniently' 1 day after the black-outs. If MediaFire isn't concerned about piracy then why did they disable their services? Because they are, LOL!
  Anyone with a brain knows good and well it was the MPAA/RIAA who used their influence to take down MegaUpload. Remember the song 'MegaUpload'? They were pissed at that and issued a FALSE dmca take-down on youtube just to get rid of the video.
  Competition. The RIAA/MPAA do not like file-sharing websites at all. So what was their goal? Take-down MegaUpload. And MegaUpload was investing in a music-website in which they were going to, yes, they were going to P-A-Y- artist to upload their songs to.
  http://gadgetzz.com/2012/01/24/meagupload-was-planning-a-way-artists-could-get-better-paid-online-thats-why-they-where-seized/
  Now it's unlikely for this to come to pass because the idea has been shot down and killed before it got started. Unless another company tunes in and picks it up.
  The RIAA/MPAA probably popping the champagne bottles right now in celebration of almost tearing down the internet in the process and taking a DUMP on future File-Sharing services as well. That's the way to teach em!
we're a legitimate business targeting professional by girlintraining · 2012-01-23 06:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Legitimate business is kindof an oxymoron when dealing with copyright issues. There's no such thing as a "legitimate" business... only "Has many lawyers" and "has no lawyers".

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:we're a legitimate business targeting professio by P-niiice · 2012-01-23 06:54 · Score: 2

Or, has contributed 250000 to my campaign and taken me on a trip to hawaii vs. has not contributed 250000 to my campaign and taken me on a trip to hawaii.
I use Mediafire professionally by pinkj · 2012-01-23 07:00 · Score: 1

I certainly hope they don't plan on taking down Mediafire as I have over 2 years of work related files uploaded there. I paid for that storage. If they are going to go after every file storage site, what alternatives do we have?
1. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by CastrTroy · 2012-01-23 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  If your files are completely legitimate, there's no reason why you shouldn't just get a shared hosting account.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
2. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  How about using one that doesn't have terms of service allowing the company to cancel your account for no reason?
  Recall that what the government is doing is seizing the website. That means they become the owner. It's kind of like the government seizing a house full of tenants because the landlord bought it with drug money -- they don't get to evict you (the innocent third party) unless the lease says they can, right? Apparently the government is now arguing that Megaupload's terms of service allow them to do just that, but maybe somebody else's don't.
  Of course, I'm not a lawyer and I may not know what I'm talking about (so don't take this as legal advice), but I'd be curious to hear the thoughts of someone who is.
3. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  Or pay a file hosting service, wait... he did.
4. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by Goaway · 2012-01-23 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you put work-related files on a hoster full of full-screen popups and blinking animgif ads?
  That's gotta look pretty bad to your clients.
5. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by gorzek · 2012-01-23 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Shared hosting services often stipulate that you can't use them as file storage services--you have to actually be serving websites with them.
  But really, if you are paying Mediafire to host your files, what's wrong with that? I just wouldn't use them as my only copy--only a fool would trust a cloud service with their one and only copy of anything.
  
  --
  Check out my world simulator thingy.
6. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by elrous0 · 2012-01-23 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously you have something to hide, citizen. Please place your hands in the yellow circles and await a police action.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
7. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by king+neckbeard · 2012-01-23 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Who said anything about clients? They could very well be for internal usage.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
8. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by AJH16 · 2012-01-23 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Things like this make me so very glad I run my own server with some friends of mine for less than the combined cost of our personal web-hosting, file hosting and voice comm bills per month. Don't have to deal with this crap and can run my server my way. Granted, I get that it isn't an option for everyone. That all said, Megaupload was really asking for it when you look at the indictment, so I'm not too worried about them all going away, but it is frustrating to not know which ones might be following similar practices.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
9. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by Goaway · 2012-01-23 08:21 · Score: 2
  
  What would you even use it for internally?
10. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by Goaway · 2012-01-23 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  but it is frustrating to not know which ones might be following similar practices.
  I think it's pretty easy to judge what kind of business they are just by looking at their ads.
  In the case of MediaFire, blinking animgifs all over their pages, and full-screen YOU HAVE WON AN IPHONE 4 popups.
11. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by king+neckbeard · 2012-01-23 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Hosting work related files. Those that download the files would most likely be other employees.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
12. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by AJH16 · 2012-01-23 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  By that criteria, my ISP's e-mail service must be serving up kiddie porn.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
13. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by Goaway · 2012-01-23 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you host them on a slow, remote, ad-filled site, rather than on your own network?
14. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by king+neckbeard · 2012-01-23 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps your small business can't afford its own network, or because accessing your network requires a VPN or such, and users may for some reason not be able to access them everywhere they go.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
15. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by Issarlk · 2012-01-23 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes other employees work in another city, state, or even continent.
16. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by pinkj · 2012-01-23 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you host them on a slow, remote, ad-filled site, rather than on your own network?
  I never noticed it being ad-filled as I've always used Ad-Block Plus. But even then, if I'm sharing files to other employees or clients, I simply send them the mediafire link and their browser automatically starts downloading the file. They have no reason to visit the Mediafire site at all.
17. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by Goaway · 2012-01-23 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  That's... Not how MediaFire works, at all?
18. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by pinkj · 2012-01-24 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  I've been using it for over 2 years. Have you used it or are you trolling?
19. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by Goaway · 2012-01-24 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  If you send someone a MediaFire link, they get an annoying landing page full of ads and popups to download the file from.
  Maybe you don't see that if you paid for it. But your clients who didn't are sure getting blasted with the most annoying kinds of ads on the web.
20. Re:I use Mediafire professionally by pinkj · 2012-01-24 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  I copied the Mediafire share URL, opened IE which I've almost never used, pasted in the URL in the URL bar, pressed Enter, and it started downloading the file without any pop ups or directing to any other site.
Time to move? by Darkness404 · 2012-01-23 07:00 · Score: 0

Its becoming increasingly evident that the US government doesn't want US citizens to compete globally. While it is most evident in the financial sector (try opening an ordinary bank account in a foreign country) that US citizens are unwanted due to our tyrannical state. It is soon going to be that US citizens are not wanted on most of the internet because they are too big of a liability.

So the question is raised. How much longer till it makes more sense to move outside of the US? Between a lack of freedom of movement, even within the country, to increasingly less freedom of speech and increasingly less economic freedoms it is becoming obvious that US citizenship is no longer really desirable but is slowly becoming a liability.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
1. Re:Time to move? by DesScorp · 2012-01-23 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Its becoming increasingly evident that the US government doesn't want US citizens to compete globally. While it is most evident in the financial sector (try opening an ordinary bank account in a foreign country) that US citizens are unwanted due to our tyrannical state. It is soon going to be that US citizens are not wanted on most of the internet because they are too big of a liability.
  So the question is raised. How much longer till it makes more sense to move outside of the US? Between a lack of freedom of movement, even within the country, to increasingly less freedom of speech and increasingly less economic freedoms it is becoming obvious that US citizenship is no longer really desirable but is slowly becoming a liability.
  Bye. Delta is ready when you are. BTW, good luck with "economic freedoms" in Europe.. as if anyone in Britain or the EU has fewer regulations than the US. Maybe Asia is more your speed. They've got the tiger economies, but then again, they're almost completely export-dependent on the US and Europe.
  
  --
  Life is hard, and the world is cruel
2. Re:Time to move? by brainzach · 2012-01-23 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  The US has some of the best laws in the world for technology companies. There is a reason why the majority of tech start ups were founded in the US and not somewhere else.
3. Re:Time to move? by nhat11 · 2012-01-23 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Move to China, I'm sure your original ideas or technology will not be copied within a day, lol.
4. Re:Time to move? by elrous0 · 2012-01-23 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty much every country in the first world is a U.S. lapdog when it comes to IP laws. So moving to Europe isn't going to help.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
5. Re:Time to move? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  So not letting people pirate is a sign of not competing globally? Huh?
6. Re:Time to move? by Mashiki · 2012-01-23 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Singapore is a pretty good option, I'm a Canuck and I've been considering it for the last couple of years. And since Iceland is considering moving to the loonie(canadian currency), I may move there if they do that too. Both are viable in my book. Considering the hassle of even traveling to the place I have in the US anymore, I've already sold my US property I was going to retire to. And here I was planning 20 years ahead, well at least I cleared an extra 100k to the bank.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
7. Re:Time to move? by repapetilto · 2012-01-23 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  As part of a crackdown on tax evasion, cash transactions of more than 1,000 euros will be banned...
  http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/04/italy-idUSL5E7N40CB20111204
  Scary stuff going on in europe.
8. Re:Time to move? by Darkness404 · 2012-01-23 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I've considered it too and I'm not really ready to move quite yet but its 2012, why should I be a slave to geography and the country I was simply born into? The world is a large place and quite frankly it seems like there are places that are more stable and more economically free than the US. Of course it will take much more research to determine when and where to leave if I do choose to live outside of the US but being ignorant to global events isn't an option anymore. Its becoming more evident daily that the west is heading for disaster. The dollar is being printed into oblivion, its becoming clear the EU and a united Europe behind a single currency was a mistake, the recession shows no sign of ending anytime soon and so, why stay? While I don't see major unrest in the west happening like is happening in the middle east, both the Tea party and Occupy Wall-Street movements have proved that there is a major difference between a good chunk of the American people and their politicians. And despite both group's best efforts, there has not been a major political change in either group's favor. This worries me because when the elections held this year roll around, chances are neither group will get a candidate they want. Obama isn't OWS's friend and Romney (or Gingrich) are no friends to the tea party movement. So we have a lose-lose situation for both of them.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Professionals? by Goaway · 2012-01-23 07:01 · Score: 1

A legitimate business targeting professionals.
Targeting them with animated GIF ads and "YOU HAVE WON AN IPHONE 4" popups?
Likely story, there.
How to fix file sharing piracy. by StoutFiles · 2012-01-23 07:02 · Score: 1

1. User uploads file all_nintendo_roms.zip
2. User is allowed to make NO COMMENTS about file.
3. File sharing site changes file name to XjyrtGSdfrtd_fgre.zip
4. File sharing site tell user the file is now been changed to XjyrtGSdfrtd_fgre.zip and gives link to file.
5. When people use file sharing search engines and search for nintendo roms, THEY DON"T FIND all_nintendo_roms.zip nor do they get assistance by comments about the file.

Of course, file sharing sites would be hurt if files weren't named after what people are trying to get for free. This is an obvious change though that would solve 90% of the problem.
1. Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-23 07:06 · Score: 2
  
  6. Someone sets up a members-only site called TheGameBay.net and uses it to post links to roms hosted on your hypothetical site.
2. Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  "6. Someone sets up a members-only site called TheGameBay.net and uses it to post links to roms hosted on your hypothetical site."
  Which seems to be a common way people find things on just about every file hosting/sharing site like mediafire/megaupload/etc. Both illegal and legal might I add.
3. Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. by StoutFiles · 2012-01-23 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, that would be the 10% of the problem that can't easily be fixed. With my solution though, the file sharing companies can easily claim ignorance and search engines aren't linking to the files.
4. Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. by KingAlanI · 2012-01-23 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  I know of no filesharing site that does this automatically, but some users themselves give cryptic names to their files for this reason.
  yeah, generally a cryptically named archive with clearly named files inside it. (so people aren't confused by what they have once they download it.)
  then again, maybe some uploaders are too lazy to organize their stuff. tempted to do it for them...
  http://support.mediafire.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/15/1/can-i-search-files-from-other-mediafire-users
  MediaFire doesn't allow searching, but Google often seems to have results for filenames of something on MediaFire.
  
  --
  I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
5. Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. by JDG1980 · 2012-01-23 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Changing file names to gibberish would also annoy and inconvenience legitimate users. Why should people have to rename after each download?
6. Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. by discord5 · 2012-01-23 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  6. User then posts the link to a forum, and happily describes them as "All nintendo roms evarrrrr"
  7. Google indexes said forum
  8. Joe Average gets his free roms
  9. Lawyer time
  So much for that plan
7. Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. by Hatta · 2012-01-23 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you have to rename after each download? Let the client take care of that.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
8. Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. by StoutFiles · 2012-01-23 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Forum gets takedown notice. It's much easier to reupload a file than it is to buy an extra domain name and move all your files to that server and convince users to come over as well. Most forum moderators actively delete content for this reason.
  
  I never said this took care of 100% of the problem. However, it would make files harder to find for Joe Average if he had to search through shady forums and click links that don't describe the file he's about to download. It would also help absolve any liability for the file hosts as the file isn't clearly marked as illegal.
9. Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  10. Said lawyers require hosting website to automatically flag any original file with the word Nintendo in it. Oh, and like 82287502 words or phrases.
  11. Fair use of the English language becomes the next issue for mega-lobbyist.
  12. W3 @|| |-|@\/3 70 |_|$3 1337$p3@k.
10. Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  filestube.com
11. Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. by Lehk228 · 2012-01-23 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Don't list files at all, retrieve by a hash key, additional advantage in database performance and scalability (trivial to divide files among servers by hash since there won't be alphabetical naming biases with file keys)
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
my mediafire account by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 07:07 · Score: 0

my mediafire account is full of legitimate files. myself and many others in the community of spare time music makers share all our albums and songs on mediafire. tis great.
Everybody knows... by Tasha26 · 2012-01-23 07:12 · Score: 1

that the sure way to draw attention on your business, is by uploading a song on youtube and to make sure it praises the services offered by your business. What a coup de grâce or fireworks finale before exiting the scene!
Re:we're a legitimate business targeting professio by TheSpoom · 2012-01-23 07:13 · Score: 1

I just read his quote with a mafioso accent and it all sounded right.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
"I'm a legitimate businessman." by Sez+Zero · 2012-01-23 07:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Alarms always go off when someone tells me that.
Similarly, different kinds of alarms that go off when some one says, "I'm not a slut."
1. Re:"I'm a legitimate businessman." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  "I am just a businessman, giving the people what they want,"
  "All I do is satisfy a public demand."
  Both are quotes from Al Capone
2. Re:"I'm a legitimate businessman." by sexconker · 2012-01-23 07:39 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Alarms always go off when someone tells me that.
  Similarly, different kinds of alarms that go off when some one says, "I'm not a slut."
  
  "I am just a businessman, giving the people what they want,"
  "All I do is satisfy a public demand."
  Both are quotes from Al Capone
  Sluts also satisfy a public demand, but without a Venn diagram I do not know if Al Capone was a slut or not.
3. Re:"I'm a legitimate businessman." by sharkey · 2012-01-23 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  So is this guy.
  
  --
  
  --
  "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
4. Re:"I'm a legitimate businessman." by king+neckbeard · 2012-01-23 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Well, people did want alcohol. If our politicians wouldn't have idiotically implemented prohibition, people probably could have gotten what they wanted without so many skulls being cracked.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
5. Re:"I'm a legitimate businessman." by ClosedEyesSeeing · 2012-01-23 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Similarly, different kinds of alarms that go off when some one says, "I'm not a slut."
  Usually means you have to break out the wallet.
6. Re:"I'm a legitimate businessman." by AJH16 · 2012-01-23 08:20 · Score: 2
  
  What if they say "I'm not a slut, I'm a legitimate business woman"?
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
7. Re:"I'm a legitimate businessman." by JDG1980 · 2012-01-23 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  "I am just a businessman, giving the people what they want,"
  "All I do is satisfy a public demand."
  Both are quotes from Al Capone
  Was he wrong? After all, we repealed Prohibition in 1933 precisely because the public demand in question created people like Al Capone.
8. Re:"I'm a legitimate businessman." by AverageWindowsUser · 2012-01-23 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  "Similarly, different kinds of alarms that go off when some one says, "I'm not a slut."
  Yeah, that would be bad for business if you were her pimp. I totally understand.
9. Re:"I'm a legitimate businessman." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 18:11 · Score: 0
  
  what has slut shaming to do with this discussion?
10. Re:"I'm a legitimate businessman." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 21:45 · Score: 0
  
  I am not a crook
File Security by KhabaLox · 2012-01-23 07:25 · Score: 1

It seems to me that one of the paramount services these types of companies offer is file security. If I put up a file to be shared among a group, I probably want to restrict access to that file to a specific group. Most often this is handled by requiring either a direct link or a password. If I am sharing confidential business information with a vendor or client, (say, graphics for an ad campaign that include pre-release pictures of the product), I don't want just anyone to download it. Implicit in this need for security is the need for the owner of the service (e.g. MediaFire) to not be able to access the content. The market for hosted file sharing is going to be killed if it becomes a requirement that the host be able to read/view the content being hosted.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
COM:DW by tepples · 2012-01-23 07:25 · Score: 1

Not all photos taken with a cell phone camera are original. Take a picture of a toy? Infringing. Take a picture of a poster? Infringing. Take a picture of a sculpture whose sculptor is alive or died after 1941? Infringing. Take a picture of an old sculpture at night? Infringing; the lighting is copyrighted.
1. Re:COM:DW by project5117 · 2012-01-23 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  I believe a lot of these cases are covered by fair use, though of course the particulars would be for the courts to decide.
  I'd like to discuss this further with you, if you'd care to provide specific examples and your reasoning for why the cell phone pictures you have selected as examples are infringing.
  A momentary visit to "Google," as suggested in your signature, provided me with the following discussion http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1158 which discusses one example where an image taken with high quality equipment and turned into a postage stamp which was then sold to collect $17 million dollars was found to be infringing.
  I'm not sure how many cell phone pictures gross $17 million dollars in profits from being posted on MediaFire, but if you know of one I'd be delighted to have you describe it and provide references.
2. Re:COM:DW by Pieroxy · 2012-01-23 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  The point is not whether you make enough profits for anyone to care. The point is that if you infringe doing such mundane things, you're pretty sure that anyone with a camera infringed at least once in his lifetime. Hence, you have the way paved for an authoritarian regime where anyone in power can bring you down at will, because of such stupid laws making sure that virtually anyone alive infringe on some stupid thing.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
3. Re:COM:DW by project5117 · 2012-01-23 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with your analysis, presuming infringement is occuring in the case of this type of photography, and feel frustration myself in this conglomeration of laws which appear to be setting up a nonproductive situation with citizens are being placed in an untenable position.
  I do have one concern, though, which I would like you to address, if you would. When discussing these admittedly mundane activities, I am having trouble seeing that any infringement has occurred at all under the law, given the way that the pictures and data are being used. I can find plenty of examples of the contrary: For example, there are many photographs of sculptures and artwork on Wikipedia which are of a small resolution (similar to cell phones), and have been vetted to be non-infringing fair use for educational purposes.
  Therefore, if it's not too much trouble for you, could you please present to me an description of one of our topics of discussion (cell phone pictures of sculptures) which is, in fact, an infringing use that does not fall under a fair use exception? Or, if not those, something related which we could include from COM:DW's list of examples? I would very much like to know of one, because I was unable to find one myself. Whether this is because of my limited imagination, or the lack of an example, I sadly cannot say.
  Looking forwards to hearing your thoughts, and about that example! (Of course, if anyone else would like to chime in, I'd love to hear from you as well.)
  -5117
4. Re:COM:DW by tepples · 2012-01-23 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to discuss this further with you, if you'd care to provide specific examples
  Wikimedia Commons' guideline about derivative works mentions the toy example (search the page for "Pooh") among others. For the sculpture example, see Wikipedia's article about the Eiffel Tower.
5. Re:COM:DW by project5117 · 2012-01-23 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Aha!
  Thank you very much for these examples.
  I will peruse, and then probably be able to reply above (my apologies for overlooking your comment down here while up there).
  -5117
With apologies to Casablanca... by KingAlanI · 2012-01-23 07:25 · Score: 2

"I am shocked, absolutely shocked, to learn that there is copyright infringement going on with this filesharing website."
though seriously, this seems to be the standard argument that the overall service is OK because it has legitimate uses.

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
1. Re:With apologies to Casablanca... by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-23 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  though seriously, this seems to be the standard argument that the overall service is OK because it has legitimate uses.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
2. Re:With apologies to Casablanca... by KingAlanI · 2012-01-23 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  yes, that's where the phrase/concept comes from...probably should have cited that myself
  
  --
  I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Yep by KingAlanI · 2012-01-23 07:42 · Score: 1

Yep. MediaFire is my file host of choice for lots of nonproblematic stuff
I am glad to hear from them about this.
Less annoying to free users, which ironically made me more willing to get premium. (With MediaFire, me having premium does benefit nonpremium users downloading my stuff)

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
what's the difference with legitimate sites?? by aktiveradio · 2012-01-23 07:55 · Score: 1

so what is the difference between "legitimate" sites like Dropbox, Skyfile, Box and sites like Megaupload and Filesonic; they all work the same way upload a file and share it with people. Mediafire is no different than Filesonic really is it?
No piracy here by imuffin · 2012-01-23 08:08 · Score: 1

Mediafire surely doesn't host any pirated software, movies, or music.

Oh, and these were just the first ones I came across, by googling terms like "MS Office site:mediafire.com"
1. Re:No piracy here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  Piracy or no ... friends don't let friends download Coldplay.
2. Re:No piracy here by Jeng · 2012-01-23 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, wonder if those links will still be active tomorrow?
  If they are, I will not be surprised at all when they get prosecuted.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
3. Re:No piracy here by oldmac31310 · 2012-01-23 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, but you see it is OK for them to host those particular files as no sane person would actually want them polluting their hard drive!
  
  --
  http://www.acetonestudio.com
4. Re:No piracy here by Zorque · 2012-01-23 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  I think what their CEO is trying to say is that they aim to be legitimate, and will actually... you know, respond to DMCA requests, unlike MegaUpload who had sort of a "wink, nod" approach to pirated materials.
What happened to fun? by SuperKendall · 2012-01-23 08:27 · Score: 0

Their are some types of Guns that are illegal, ( automatic weapons) because it is almost impossible to use them for legal purposes
(a) Automatic weapons are not illegal.
(b) Are you outlawing fun? Why is it not acceptable to own something simply because it is fun? I say we take away YOUR gaming consoles as they are impossible to use for anything practical.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:What happened to fun? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 17:55 · Score: 0
  
  It would definitely be fun to own a patriot missile battery. I'm not sure what I'd do with it beyond extorting money out of people under threat of violence but it's fun so that's good enough.
  Owning deadly plagues would also be fun for similar reasons.
2. Re:What happened to fun? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 22:45 · Score: 0
  
  Because it's somewhat more difficult to kill someone with an Xbox than with an AK-47?
Youtube by Subratik · 2012-01-23 08:31 · Score: 1

I know this is a little off-topic but doesn't anyone feel the same way as I do when I proclaim that one of the biggest pushers for youtube's adoption was its uncanny amount of pirated movies / songs? I know, I know, the interface and streaming quality also made it a big selling point but I think the only reason I went to youtube around 2006 was for streaming, pirated material.
This might be a business model for a lot of companies out there, start illegal, make enough money, higher competent lawyers and pay some people off.
Sounds good to me.
1. Re:Youtube by Subratik · 2012-01-23 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  I know this is a little off-topic but doesn't anyone feel the same way as I do when I proclaim that one of the biggest pushers for youtube's adoption was its uncanny amount of pirated movies / songs? I know, I know, the interface and streaming quality also made it a big selling point but I think the only reason I went to youtube around 2006 was for streaming, pirated material.
  This might be a business model for a lot of companies out there, start illegal, make enough money, higher competent lawyers and pay some people off.
  Sounds good to me.
  omg, *hire*.
  My apologies, I'm going to go sit in a corner and cry over that typo.
Doesnt matter by nurb432 · 2012-01-23 09:16 · Score: 1

In this new brave world it doesn't matter if you are legit or not. All they have to do is point a finger at you and you are gone.
Due process is no longer in effect.
It was fun while it lasted. This is just the beginning.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 09:30 · Score: 0

Mediafire is the biggest and worst offender for piracy and now I find out they're actually US based? How are they not arrested while the guys from Megaupload are? This makes no sense. Something fishy...
HOW DID IT GO ?? OH, YEAH !! LIAR !! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 09:32 · Score: 0

I won't ever leave, you want me to stay
Nothing you can do, that could turn me away
Hanging on anyway
Believing the things you say, being a fool
You've taken my life, so take my soul
That's what you said, and I believe it all
I want to be with you
As long as you want me to
But don't move away
Ain't that what you said?
Ain't that what you said?
Ain't that what you say?
LIAR !! LIAR !! LIAR !!
May I see no night
May I see no day
If I ever leave, but you want me to stay
You can believe in me
I won't believe it, I won't let you go
Ain't that what you said?
Ain't that what you said?
Ain't that what you say?
LIAR !! LIAR !! LIAR !!
You've taken my files, so take my soul
That's what you said but who are we to know
I want to be with you
Long as you want me to
But don't take away my files
Ain't that what you said?
Ain't that what you said?
Ain't that what you say?
LIAR !! LIAR !! LIAR !!
Domino effect by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:07 · Score: 0

Fileserve has the same policy as Filesonic as of now too. No publicly shared data any more.
Not every situation-jurisdiction pair has fair use by tepples · 2012-01-23 10:21 · Score: 1

For example, there are many photographs of sculptures and artwork on Wikipedia which are of a small resolution (similar to cell phones), and have been vetted to be non-infringing fair use for educational purposes.

That doesn't help much once someone steps past educational purposes. Nor does it help much once one leaves the United States; several other jurisdictions construe fair (use|dealing) much more narrowly because their free press guarantees aren't as broad as that of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Re:Not every situation-jurisdiction pair has fair by project5117 · 2012-01-23 12:17 · Score: 1

I'm afraid I do not understand you deeply enough to reply to your comment in an insightful way.
If it's not too much trouble, and you'd like to continue our discussion, would you please provide an specific example or two of uses which you're referring to in a general way so I could better follow what you mean?
I feel I'm on the cusp of grasping what you're saying, but falling slightly short due to the omission. Thank you (quite a bit!) in advance.
Re:Not every situation-jurisdiction pair has fair by tepples · 2012-01-23 14:16 · Score: 1

Uses outside educational purposes include use of a photo in a freeware video game or use of a photo for commercial purposes. Use outside the United States includes use in Great Britain, use in Germany, etc. Many of the Wikipedias in other languages ban all non-free images in part because they serve countries without strong protections for fair use.
Real reason Megaupload got ki-boshed? by __aavqan3009 · 2012-01-24 01:10 · Score: 1

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2011/111221airvinyl
doesn't matter by SpinningCone · 2012-01-24 02:14 · Score: 1

mostly moot. true they have have a legitimate model and people using the site for legitimate purposes if they come under suspicion or attack like megaupload the site gets shut down first. at which point if I'm a user or a business i must find another place to host and even if they come back as innocent and the page brought back up my trust in them is gone.
the irony of the situation being if they come out of the legal system as legit their reputation and up-time is tarnished thus ruining their legitimate business and probably need to rely on piracy ad leeching. if they weren't legit but lawyered up and won their case then it's still business as usual since pirates don't care about that stuff.