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.
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.
So you want a law that says if you are white, you have the right to refuse a pat down, but if you are brown, you have to comply or be arrested?
If you want some citizens to have increase security at the airports, you have to accept that you can go through the same procedures. No one is above the law.
It is also naive to suggest that profiling doesn't go on. If you are looking suspicious, chances are you going to get targeted out in the "random" searches.
Even if you are driven out of business, you can sue for millions in damages from the big corporations. Look at all the patent trolls out there who are successful with questionable patents. If you have a strong patent, then it would be even easier to defend in court and it wouldn't be hard finding a lawyer.
Hollywood have been waging a war on copyright infringement, not technology.
Google's business isn't copyright infringement. Their business is search and advertising. Google's beef with SOPA is that they don't want to constantly police their own search results and be held responsible for user generated content.
If there was a way to magically get rid of copyright infringement violations without putting extra burden on Google or other Internet start ups, then both Hollywood and Google would support it. There is some common ground on the issue, and compromises can be made to make sure both industries can thrive.
Unless you have an alternative way to raise money to finance movies and TV shows, you can't compete with Hollywood. It's all about money.
If Google wants to get in the business, they will finance movies using advertising, which copies the 60 year old business model of broadcast television. It will just be more of the same.
If Apple or Microsoft buys Disney, they will milk money out of it the same way the current management does. Apple would make it worst by only allowing movies to be shown on Apple devices.
If Google buys Disney, they will fund movies by selling product placement spots.
Walt DIsney alone is worth 70 billions dollars. No one is going to buy it out unless they can make that money back.
Even if you do that, the old chaff will just start new companies and attract investors because they know how to make money in the entertainment industry.
What is needed is alternative business models to compete with the old industry. It can costs millions of dollars to make movies and there has to be ways to finance it. Follow the money.
The Internet is accessible all over the world and the US doesn't have much authority to do anything about it especially if other countries won't cooperate.
If a website is hosted in another country, then what can the US really do about it? They can pressure foreign governments to take down the website or they can block the website in the US.
The problem is the RIAA/MPAA want complete control over everything.
I think if the RIAA/MPAA want to increase enforcement of copyright protection, they need to give something up and expand the fair use of copyrighted works. There is a lot of middle ground that can be achieved with the issue.
It is fairly obvious that megaupload was operating under the grey area of the law. It is not that surprising that it would be shut down after a while.
You should always back up your data, but it is much less likely that dropbox will suffer the same fate as megaupload. If dropbox starts becoming a hub for piracy and dropbox turns a blind eye to it, then you should move your data.
Services like Azure and AWS rely on big corporate businesses and have an incentive to keep its reputation strong. Having it used for piracy will cheapen the image, so they have incentives to stamp it out and not do anything that will get it in trouble with the law.
“Government-Wide Accounting and Reporting Program” (GWA), a software system owned by the Department of the Treasury that is used mainly to manage central accounting and reporting functions and processes associated with budget execution, accountability, and asset management.
Just sounds like some average bloated corporate code that was stolen. Nothing noteworthy.
It is cynical because you think that it only must be a bad thing if I share my password on Facebook, like it is the most sacred thing in the world.
Sometimes my wife posts pictures on my account and will respond to messages that her annoying family members send to me. She always asked for permission first and it is no big deal. I don't intend on her doing anything bad because we trust each other.
And my friends who post things on their profile so their hundreds of friends can see, aren't serious about privacy either. It's Facebook, what do you expect.
In my opinion, it is so much riskier sharing my finances. If teens were getting joint bank accounts, then it would be far more outrageous than sharing Facebook passwords. They can ruin each others credit scores, which represents their financial identities.
Me and my wife have shared bank accounts for shared expenses and private ones for personal items.
Different people have different views about privacy. My sister and her husband share the same personal email address. I gave my wife my Facebook password, but keep my Gmail account to myself.
Those who insist on keeping everything private can be seen as just as paranoid as someone who demands everything to be open. If you really trust each other, it shouldn't matter one way or another.
More likely, you gave her your password because you thought it would get you laid. That's what I mean by emotional blackmail.
I gave it to my girl friend after dating for a year of a healthy relationship.
If you don't want to give your wife your password, then its fine with me. I just don't see passwords as the most sacred thing in the world, especially for things like Facebook. I use common sense and would never give her something like my work passwords or launch codes to a nuclear missile.
Sometimes I ask my wife to upload photos of me on facebook. Oh no! it must mean she can't trust me.
Stop being so cynical. I gave my GF my Facebook password because it felt good that I can trust her with it and vice versa.
When you get married, you share finances which requires a lot more trust than any Facebook account. I know some couples who share email accounts too just out of convenience.
If I am so worried about someone using Facebook to blackmail me, I would just change the password ahead of time. It's really no big deal.
I shared my Facebook password with my wife before we got married, and it was no big deal. I don't do anything private on Facebook and if my page ever gets vandalized, it will be fairly obvious. Just explained that your account was hacked and move on.
Once we got married, we shared finances which brings the level of trust to a whole new level. Facebook passwords are nothing in comparison.
If you want to publish your material using GPL, then you have every right to do so. The government can fund more money for public research and require that its work be GPL too without interfering with copyright laws.
Copyright laws prevent publishers from doing it now. It wouldn't be hard finding a lawyer because it would be easy case and there is lots of money to be made.
There is a reason why publishers first get permission from authors before selling their work instead of just stealing the material.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
So you want a law that says if you are white, you have the right to refuse a pat down, but if you are brown, you have to comply or be arrested?
If you want some citizens to have increase security at the airports, you have to accept that you can go through the same procedures. No one is above the law.
It is also naive to suggest that profiling doesn't go on. If you are looking suspicious, chances are you going to get targeted out in the "random" searches.
Even if you are driven out of business, you can sue for millions in damages from the big corporations. Look at all the patent trolls out there who are successful with questionable patents. If you have a strong patent, then it would be even easier to defend in court and it wouldn't be hard finding a lawyer.
But bringing down websites from companies and organizations you don't like isn't censorship.
Hollywood have been waging a war on copyright infringement, not technology.
Google's business isn't copyright infringement. Their business is search and advertising. Google's beef with SOPA is that they don't want to constantly police their own search results and be held responsible for user generated content.
If there was a way to magically get rid of copyright infringement violations without putting extra burden on Google or other Internet start ups, then both Hollywood and Google would support it. There is some common ground on the issue, and compromises can be made to make sure both industries can thrive.
But with Google, the products will be interchangeable based off keywords in your Gmail account.
Destroying Hollywood to save Google is just as stupid as destroying Google to save Hollywood.
Both industries can coexists together just like they do right now. There is no need to be so cynical.
Unless you have an alternative way to raise money to finance movies and TV shows, you can't compete with Hollywood. It's all about money.
If Google wants to get in the business, they will finance movies using advertising, which copies the 60 year old business model of broadcast television. It will just be more of the same.
If Apple or Microsoft buys Disney, they will milk money out of it the same way the current management does. Apple would make it worst by only allowing movies to be shown on Apple devices.
If Google buys Disney, they will fund movies by selling product placement spots.
Walt DIsney alone is worth 70 billions dollars. No one is going to buy it out unless they can make that money back.
Even if you do that, the old chaff will just start new companies and attract investors because they know how to make money in the entertainment industry.
What is needed is alternative business models to compete with the old industry. It can costs millions of dollars to make movies and there has to be ways to finance it. Follow the money.
The Internet is accessible all over the world and the US doesn't have much authority to do anything about it especially if other countries won't cooperate.
If a website is hosted in another country, then what can the US really do about it? They can pressure foreign governments to take down the website or they can block the website in the US.
Megaupload had servers in the US and New Zealand agreed to extradite them.
The US would love to shut down the Pirate Bay, but they have no way of doing it.
The problem is the RIAA/MPAA want complete control over everything.
I think if the RIAA/MPAA want to increase enforcement of copyright protection, they need to give something up and expand the fair use of copyrighted works. There is a lot of middle ground that can be achieved with the issue.
The current laws are easy to circumvent because the US can't go after foreign websites like the Pirate Bay.
It is fairly obvious that megaupload was operating under the grey area of the law. It is not that surprising that it would be shut down after a while.
You should always back up your data, but it is much less likely that dropbox will suffer the same fate as megaupload. If dropbox starts becoming a hub for piracy and dropbox turns a blind eye to it, then you should move your data.
Services like Azure and AWS rely on big corporate businesses and have an incentive to keep its reputation strong. Having it used for piracy will cheapen the image, so they have incentives to stamp it out and not do anything that will get it in trouble with the law.
“Government-Wide Accounting and Reporting Program” (GWA), a software system owned by the Department of the Treasury that is used mainly to manage central accounting and reporting functions and processes associated with budget execution, accountability, and asset management.
Just sounds like some average bloated corporate code that was stolen. Nothing noteworthy.
It is cynical because you think that it only must be a bad thing if I share my password on Facebook, like it is the most sacred thing in the world.
Sometimes my wife posts pictures on my account and will respond to messages that her annoying family members send to me. She always asked for permission first and it is no big deal. I don't intend on her doing anything bad because we trust each other.
And my friends who post things on their profile so their hundreds of friends can see, aren't serious about privacy either. It's Facebook, what do you expect.
In my opinion, it is so much riskier sharing my finances. If teens were getting joint bank accounts, then it would be far more outrageous than sharing Facebook passwords. They can ruin each others credit scores, which represents their financial identities.
\
Me and my wife have shared bank accounts for shared expenses and private ones for personal items.
Different people have different views about privacy. My sister and her husband share the same personal email address. I gave my wife my Facebook password, but keep my Gmail account to myself.
Those who insist on keeping everything private can be seen as just as paranoid as someone who demands everything to be open. If you really trust each other, it shouldn't matter one way or another.
More likely, you gave her your password because you thought it would get you laid. That's what I mean by emotional blackmail.
I gave it to my girl friend after dating for a year of a healthy relationship.
If you don't want to give your wife your password, then its fine with me. I just don't see passwords as the most sacred thing in the world, especially for things like Facebook. I use common sense and would never give her something like my work passwords or launch codes to a nuclear missile.
Sometimes I ask my wife to upload photos of me on facebook. Oh no! it must mean she can't trust me.
There's never a good reason to share passwords.
I tell my wife to update my Facebook status or order something off of Amazon.
I also share passwords with my coworkers sometimes because sometimes they get locked out of their account and have to use mine and vice versa.
Stop being so cynical. I gave my GF my Facebook password because it felt good that I can trust her with it and vice versa.
When you get married, you share finances which requires a lot more trust than any Facebook account. I know some couples who share email accounts too just out of convenience.
If I am so worried about someone using Facebook to blackmail me, I would just change the password ahead of time. It's really no big deal.
I shared my Facebook password with my wife before we got married, and it was no big deal. I don't do anything private on Facebook and if my page ever gets vandalized, it will be fairly obvious. Just explained that your account was hacked and move on.
Once we got married, we shared finances which brings the level of trust to a whole new level. Facebook passwords are nothing in comparison.
That can exists with current copyright laws.
If you want to publish your material using GPL, then you have every right to do so. The government can fund more money for public research and require that its work be GPL too without interfering with copyright laws.
Copyright laws prevent publishers from doing it now. It wouldn't be hard finding a lawyer because it would be easy case and there is lots of money to be made.
There is a reason why publishers first get permission from authors before selling their work instead of just stealing the material.