Aerobatic maneuvers are useless. It's all about seeing first and shooting first. That means good radar, good missiles, datalinks, and stealth. I don't suppose India would be offered the best of those in any case, regardless of airframe.
I presume you are basing your opinions by looking at USAF fighting likes of Iraq and Afghanistan, right?
Tell me whether you'd prefer to be in Su-27 or F-16 when S-300 is coming your way...
http://takedownpiracy.com/2012/01/another-one-bites-the-dust/ The guy has made it his job to DOS sites with DMCA takedown notices till they shut down If more people like this start infiltrating private torrent sites, it could cause a major issue
Huh?
Unless he's the copyright owner, or has authorization from copyright owner, he can't submit DMCA notices.
In other words, unless he is authorized to do that, and unless notice is in specific format, site can ignore him completely. Such DMCA notice submissions can get him into the trouble.
And he will get sued, when he steps on someone with bit of cash.
For example, if its true that their takedown is by URL, but they duplicate based on hash (so one can have multiple URLs for the same file), thats clearly attempting to game the system, as any legitimate takedown system would take down all separate URLs which point to the same file. (Paragraph 23 on the indictment). Especially if this is related to the creation of a "dummy lifetime premium user" to "to prevent the loss of source files due to expiration or abuse reports" (from a Megaupload email).
The fact that you did a "paper" means nothing, considering you have no idea what you're talking about.
If I have an album I purchased online backed up on Mega (private links, never shared, protected with password) and someone decides to share his version of downloaded files with the world - you think it's ok that my files get deleted too, because they share the same hash?
Did you even think about the topic before writing about it?
The big problem here is that piracy probably _was_ a huge part of megaupload.
Not saying their wern't lots of legitimate users, but lets not ignore reality here.
What reality? The fact that you and your friends used Megaupload for piracy, doesn't mean majority of users did so.
I kept backups there. My wife had all our family photos/videos there. It was easy as hell to share with others, and our family members on the other side of the planet were able to easily get all our videos. I also kept backups of FLAC albums I purchased - password protected, obviously, and never shared links with anyone. I kept lots of stuff there.
Of course, we have those files 'locally', but we spent enormous amounts of time uploading all of that on crappy uplinks.
I don't think people understand how valuable Megaupload service was.
MegaUpload's problem is that they never implemented a DMCA Takedown system like YouTube has had for years now. If they do that, they can likely have their servers back quickly... if they don't and nobody steps in to pay the bills then the data is already lost.
Megaupload had one of the best and most efficient DMCA systems around.
I can't figure out what would make you spill such nonsense.
They ALSO uncovered letters where he stated he was prepared for jihad and was seeking guidance, plus he'd gone so far as to spec and price out his weaponry.
He wasn't just some curious chemist who happened to have an arabic-sounding name.
How do you know that?
Did he blow anyone up?
Meybe he would have become a terrorist, but then again - maybe he would have not.
You guys don't seem to get why Mega Upload was shut down in the first place. It wasn't that they were hosting pirated content, it was that the employees of the company knew about it and even encouraged it. The DMCA has a safe harbor provision for sites like drop box, etc.
Would you say that hosting providers' executives know that dedicated servers they provide are bring used to pirate copyrighted content?
Would you say that ISPs' executives know that service which they provide to millions of users is being used to illegally upload/download copyrighted content? And not only that - those same executives keep giving people more speed to do it, every few months/years (depending on where you live).
Why are those people not arrested for knowingly enabling users to pirate copyrighted content? Oh wait, service provider is not responsible for users' action.
All of those executives are aware of what their services are used for. Yet, none of them react to it.
Why is Mega so different? Because authorities are trying to paint a dirty picture, and concentrate more on 'personality' of the owner, rather on the actual business/service?
Think about this: how many people would pay $50 or so for high speed internet every month if they couldn't download whatever they wanted?
People that prefer to use streaming services from places like netflix.
And again, you are forgetting that there is a whole world out there, outside USA, who can not use Netflix.
I can understand that many americans don't realize there are other countries on this planet, which are not US states, but they really shouldn't publicly stress it.
But they weren't busted for their intentions, they were busted for breaking DMCA and other laws.
Megaupload did not 'break' DMCA. They were probably one of the most compliant sites out there (YouTube probably being the best one, since they did overdo everything in regards to takedowns, but they also have funds and contacts to do it).
I am still in shock after reading points 22 and 23 in indictment, I can't believe anyone could seriously put those things there. it is going to hurt prosecution, because that shows how desperately they are trying to paint a dirty picture.
It's not like anyone from prosecution will care, they have jobs reserved in MPAA/RIAA/etc. They don't lose anything.
I dont believe one can either. But in this case they were pretty much caught with their hand in the cookie jar. The emails and communication prove that they knew a particular file was pirated and was being shared (hell, they even shared some of those themselves), and took no action.
But what action can they possibly take? You don't understand the issue at all.
What action should ISP take when they know their users are downloading pirated material?
Should ISP also start disconnecting people on their own?
I believe even rapidshare pays you for popular downloads (I believe most websites do it). The difference is the intent and the wording. Emails between megaupload staff/executives state that they were paying for most popular movies at that time. It means they acknowledge and explicitly supporting piracy, and failed to remove content that they knew were pirated. If they had worded it as most popular files, they would have been safe.
You are missing the most important (and most complex) point.
How can anyone know that account which uploaded the video does not actually hold copyright on it? Yes, question sounds silly, but it is extremely complex. Unless someone else claims the copyright ownership, you can only assume that whoever uploaded it is the copyright owner. Keep in mind, labels never provided Megaupload with any kind of tools/database that would make it easier to automate 'illegal content detection', like what YouTube does (and YouTube is worth much much more than Megaupload, and has much much more resources).
I also don't own copyright on any song that I purchased on a CD, but I do have a right to have a backup of it. And if I then share that backup with the rest of the world, it was me who actually did the wrong thing, not the service where I store the song. Or you think it was service provider's fault?
Biggest question of all is - are service providers expected to look at every single file in order to determine whether it is pirated or not (answer is 'no', just in case you wondered)? Yes, of course they were aware about piracy on the site, but what can you realistically do about that except taking down files when they appear in DMCA notice?
I also saw people complaining how Megaupload didn't take down some files, even if someone reported them as pirated content. However, only copyright owner is able to fill a proper DMCA notice. You can not, as a random citizen, submit a DMCA notice and expect the file to be taken down. Let alone just reporting a 'pirated file' via email.
There are so many things that need to be properly tested in court, this will certainly be a massive one.
It's not a matter of expecting them to police content or users, it's a matter of MegaUpload's intentions. The site was clearly profiting from piracy. Likewise, not all hosting companies are going to be illegal just because police bust a hosting company that clearly is profiting from illegal content, for example by naming themselves "Child Porn Hosting" or "Warez ISP" or where it can be proofed that the company is actively acting as such. In this case MegaUpload's internal emails also showed they were fully aware of this.
Do you think police would find similar emails in mailboxes of most hosting providers' personnel, considering that they are very aware how the dedicated servers are being used for various illegal activities?
Why are they not held responsible, and yet they profit from those activities (and are fully aware of it)?
Megaupload was targeted because they did the absolute minimum they could to comply with the DMCA and other US legislation. It's probably true that they quietly encouraged uploading digital copies, even when they knew that material was illegal, and they were slow in taking it down. Things such as having de-duplication in place, but only removing the one specific link to a file, not removing all the copies, when a takedown notice was sent. It's those actions that will mean they might lose in court unfortunately.
Did you even think before writing that nonsense?
I recently purchased Ronald Jenkee's "Disorganized Fun" in FLAC format. I stored it on Megaupload and (protected with password), since I wanted to have a backup.
Another guy now purchases the same album in FLAC format(from the same place, obviously), and decides to upload the whole album onto Megaupload, and share the links with the world.
So, why exactly do you think my copy should be deleted?
You're correct, and there's big difference between RapidShare and the likes of Dropbox. MegaUpload, RapidShare etc is clearly profiting from copyrighted content. They pay users to upload popular files, and in 99% of cases it is pirated content. In turn they profit when users want to access those files. It's a huge "industry", and there will most likely be many more arrests when the list of affiliates that directly made money by uploading copyrighted content without permission goes public.
So, for the sake of the argument, let's assume that 'pay for downloads' program is still running on Mega.
And decides to upload a new song that (s)he just made.
And 50 million people download it.
And (s)he gets paid by Mega.
Would you have any objections to that?
Program in itself is not a problem. Problem is that most popular downloads were those that infringed copyright and were uploaded by random people.
Slashdot Mirror
When what you're doing is illegal, people are often tempted to cloak it in idealistic terms, i.e. "music wants to be free".
Yet, 99% of people will see murder as illegal.
And file sharing of copyrighted material (unlimited good, basically) as legal.
Do you think people will change their opinion on what is legal/illegal, just because some corrupted cronies pushed the law through?
What makes you think he was smart in hacking?
Aerobatic maneuvers are useless. It's all about seeing first and shooting first. That means good radar, good missiles, datalinks, and stealth. I don't suppose India would be offered the best of those in any case, regardless of airframe.
I presume you are basing your opinions by looking at USAF fighting likes of Iraq and Afghanistan, right?
Tell me whether you'd prefer to be in Su-27 or F-16 when S-300 is coming your way...
http://takedownpiracy.com/2012/01/another-one-bites-the-dust/
The guy has made it his job to DOS sites with DMCA takedown notices till they shut down
If more people like this start infiltrating private torrent sites, it could cause a major issue
Huh?
Unless he's the copyright owner, or has authorization from copyright owner, he can't submit DMCA notices.
In other words, unless he is authorized to do that, and unless notice is in specific format, site can ignore him completely. Such DMCA notice submissions can get him into the trouble.
And he will get sued, when he steps on someone with bit of cash.
There seem to be a few 'facts' in your post which are nothing more than wishful thinking.
First, you do not have the 'right' to make a backup copy of a movie. So that example is invalid.
You do, actually.
But don't let your lack of brain cells stop you from spewing nonsense.
For example, if its true that their takedown is by URL, but they duplicate based on hash (so one can have multiple URLs for the same file), thats clearly attempting to game the system, as any legitimate takedown system would take down all separate URLs which point to the same file. (Paragraph 23 on the indictment). Especially if this is related to the creation of a "dummy lifetime premium user" to "to prevent the loss of source files due to expiration or abuse reports" (from a Megaupload email).
The fact that you did a "paper" means nothing, considering you have no idea what you're talking about.
If I have an album I purchased online backed up on Mega (private links, never shared, protected with password) and someone decides to share his version of downloaded files with the world - you think it's ok that my files get deleted too, because they share the same hash?
Did you even think about the topic before writing about it?
Sigh.
The big problem here is that piracy probably _was_ a huge part of megaupload.
Not saying their wern't lots of legitimate users, but lets not ignore reality here.
What reality? The fact that you and your friends used Megaupload for piracy, doesn't mean majority of users did so.
I kept backups there. My wife had all our family photos/videos there. It was easy as hell to share with others, and our family members on the other side of the planet were able to easily get all our videos. I also kept backups of FLAC albums I purchased - password protected, obviously, and never shared links with anyone. I kept lots of stuff there.
Of course, we have those files 'locally', but we spent enormous amounts of time uploading all of that on crappy uplinks.
I don't think people understand how valuable Megaupload service was.
MegaUpload's problem is that they never implemented a DMCA Takedown system like YouTube has had for years now. If they do that, they can likely have their servers back quickly... if they don't and nobody steps in to pay the bills then the data is already lost.
Megaupload had one of the best and most efficient DMCA systems around.
I can't figure out what would make you spill such nonsense.
They ALSO uncovered letters where he stated he was prepared for jihad and was seeking guidance, plus he'd gone so far as to spec and price out his weaponry.
He wasn't just some curious chemist who happened to have an arabic-sounding name.
How do you know that?
Did he blow anyone up?
Meybe he would have become a terrorist, but then again - maybe he would have not.
PreCrime division won't let us find out.
So, he resigned to 'send a message', and now they'll simply hire someone who will be 'compliant' and keep his mouth shut. :tinfoil:
Why would anyone ever have to "share" backup files with anyone else.
Because it was convenient for me to upload my family videos on Megaupload, so my family on the other side of the planet can download them easily?
Or would you suggest I send them an email with 10GB of attachments?
Incorrect.
From Politifact...
Yes, "Taylor, Bean & Whitaker" are the ones who orchestrated and executed the whole thing.
Are you dumb?
You guys don't seem to get why Mega Upload was shut down in the first place. It wasn't that they were hosting pirated content, it was that the employees of the company knew about it and even encouraged it. The DMCA has a safe harbor provision for sites like drop box, etc.
Would you say that hosting providers' executives know that dedicated servers they provide are bring used to pirate copyrighted content?
Would you say that ISPs' executives know that service which they provide to millions of users is being used to illegally upload/download copyrighted content? And not only that - those same executives keep giving people more speed to do it, every few months/years (depending on where you live).
Why are those people not arrested for knowingly enabling users to pirate copyrighted content? Oh wait, service provider is not responsible for users' action.
All of those executives are aware of what their services are used for. Yet, none of them react to it.
Why is Mega so different? Because authorities are trying to paint a dirty picture, and concentrate more on 'personality' of the owner, rather on the actual business/service?
Pathetic.
Think about this: how many people would pay $50 or so for high speed internet every month if they couldn't download whatever they wanted?
People that prefer to use streaming services from places like netflix.
And again, you are forgetting that there is a whole world out there, outside USA, who can not use Netflix.
I can understand that many americans don't realize there are other countries on this planet, which are not US states, but they really shouldn't publicly stress it.
This is true, but you seem to be forgetting about the existence of Netflix and Hulu(/Plus), and a bunch of other similar VOD sites.
You seem to be forgetting that there is a whole world out there, outside USA.
But they weren't busted for their intentions, they were busted for breaking DMCA and other laws.
Megaupload did not 'break' DMCA. They were probably one of the most compliant sites out there (YouTube probably being the best one, since they did overdo everything in regards to takedowns, but they also have funds and contacts to do it).
I am still in shock after reading points 22 and 23 in indictment, I can't believe anyone could seriously put those things there. it is going to hurt prosecution, because that shows how desperately they are trying to paint a dirty picture.
It's not like anyone from prosecution will care, they have jobs reserved in MPAA/RIAA/etc. They don't lose anything.
I dont believe one can either. But in this case they were pretty much caught with their hand in the cookie jar. The emails and communication prove that they knew a particular file was pirated and was being shared (hell, they even shared some of those themselves), and took no action.
But what action can they possibly take? You don't understand the issue at all.
What action should ISP take when they know their users are downloading pirated material?
Should ISP also start disconnecting people on their own?
I believe even rapidshare pays you for popular downloads (I believe most websites do it). The difference is the intent and the wording. Emails between megaupload staff/executives state that they were paying for most popular movies at that time. It means they acknowledge and explicitly supporting piracy, and failed to remove content that they knew were pirated. If they had worded it as most popular files, they would have been safe.
You are missing the most important (and most complex) point.
How can anyone know that account which uploaded the video does not actually hold copyright on it? Yes, question sounds silly, but it is extremely complex. Unless someone else claims the copyright ownership, you can only assume that whoever uploaded it is the copyright owner. Keep in mind, labels never provided Megaupload with any kind of tools/database that would make it easier to automate 'illegal content detection', like what YouTube does (and YouTube is worth much much more than Megaupload, and has much much more resources).
I also don't own copyright on any song that I purchased on a CD, but I do have a right to have a backup of it. And if I then share that backup with the rest of the world, it was me who actually did the wrong thing, not the service where I store the song. Or you think it was service provider's fault?
Biggest question of all is - are service providers expected to look at every single file in order to determine whether it is pirated or not (answer is 'no', just in case you wondered)? Yes, of course they were aware about piracy on the site, but what can you realistically do about that except taking down files when they appear in DMCA notice?
I also saw people complaining how Megaupload didn't take down some files, even if someone reported them as pirated content. However, only copyright owner is able to fill a proper DMCA notice. You can not, as a random citizen, submit a DMCA notice and expect the file to be taken down. Let alone just reporting a 'pirated file' via email.
There are so many things that need to be properly tested in court, this will certainly be a massive one.
It's not a matter of expecting them to police content or users, it's a matter of MegaUpload's intentions. The site was clearly profiting from piracy. Likewise, not all hosting companies are going to be illegal just because police bust a hosting company that clearly is profiting from illegal content, for example by naming themselves "Child Porn Hosting" or "Warez ISP" or where it can be proofed that the company is actively acting as such. In this case MegaUpload's internal emails also showed they were fully aware of this.
Do you think police would find similar emails in mailboxes of most hosting providers' personnel, considering that they are very aware how the dedicated servers are being used for various illegal activities?
Why are they not held responsible, and yet they profit from those activities (and are fully aware of it)?
Megaupload was targeted because they did the absolute minimum they could to comply with the DMCA and other US legislation. It's probably true that they quietly encouraged uploading digital copies, even when they knew that material was illegal, and they were slow in taking it down. Things such as having de-duplication in place, but only removing the one specific link to a file, not removing all the copies, when a takedown notice was sent. It's those actions that will mean they might lose in court unfortunately.
Did you even think before writing that nonsense?
I recently purchased Ronald Jenkee's "Disorganized Fun" in FLAC format. I stored it on Megaupload and (protected with password), since I wanted to have a backup.
Another guy now purchases the same album in FLAC format(from the same place, obviously), and decides to upload the whole album onto Megaupload, and share the links with the world.
So, why exactly do you think my copy should be deleted?
But Dropbox doesn't try to profit from allowing users to download copyrighted material.
You do realize that your and my comments are copyrighted too?
As would be a random document which I would type and store on Dropbox.
So yeah, Dropbox is profiting from allowing users to store and download copyrighted material.
You're correct, and there's big difference between RapidShare and the likes of Dropbox. MegaUpload, RapidShare etc is clearly profiting from copyrighted content. They pay users to upload popular files, and in 99% of cases it is pirated content. In turn they profit when users want to access those files. It's a huge "industry", and there will most likely be many more arrests when the list of affiliates that directly made money by uploading copyrighted content without permission goes public.
So, for the sake of the argument, let's assume that 'pay for downloads' program is still running on Mega.
And decides to upload a new song that (s)he just made.
And 50 million people download it.
And (s)he gets paid by Mega.
Would you have any objections to that?
Program in itself is not a problem. Problem is that most popular downloads were those that infringed copyright and were uploaded by random people.
Because breaking the law will show the law enforcers that they are wrong for taking down a site that was breaking the law. Yeah! You go!
And you concluded that they were breaking the law because ... ?
The alleged goal is to hurt lots of random people without any personal gain. And what is the goal of terrorism?
I don't know. Like, stealing random peoples' land, killing thousands of them and putting them in ghetos?
Sounds ok to me.
Was too lazy to transfer domains, but now I moved my 3 domains away from GoDaddy, to Gandi.net.
Now I don't understand how I managed to ever use that horrible GoDaddy interface, aargh.