How is The Pirate Bay still operating, yet Westboro Baptist Church still exists?!??!!!??1!1!?!

 

OMG WHAT A f***ED UP LAW!!! :fit

 

(I couldn't resist; you know you're my boy [blue].)

Knowingly hosting illegal content is a problem. As an analogy, it's a problem to buy a warehouse and then rent it out to mafia bosses or drug dealers. You aren't allowed to just stink your fingers in your ears at that point.

 

I don't know much about Megaupload, to be honest, but the conduct described here is not negligence; and, just because it's an omission of a sort does not at all remove the stain of liability and possibly criminality.

 

 

It's not as simple as 'turning a blind eye'. MegaUpload isn't something small like a warehouse. MegaUpload is a world. If you're leasing out your world to a world of people, can you keep up with every interaction that the world is doing?

You don't get a pass just because you are larger. Is it more okay for Pfizer to release an unsafe drug because it's a huge company? Can Walmart sell unsafe products just because they are a massive global entity?

No, my argument is that it is debatable as to whether or not MegaUpload is doing something wrong, meanwhile sites [such as!] Pirate Bay are clearly doing something wrong and the law as a whole is f***ed up because MegaUpload, who is questionably wrong, just took a total asswhooping meanwhile Pirate Bay remains clean as a whistle.

 

It's a point that the law is f***ed up. That's where Pirate Bay comes into the conversation. I never said 'because Pirate Bay is still up, MegaUpload should also still be up'. I merely used them as an example of who the FBI should be targeting because what they are doing is legitimately wrong. It is Pirate Bay's sole intention to distribute pirated/stolen material.

 

Instead, the FBI are making an example out of MegaUpload on this 'SOPA week' if you will.

 

 

I think it's clearly not debatable that Megaupload was doing something wrong. Illegally, copyrighted data was hosted on their servers. At the end of the day, they were hosting that data and they should be held responsible for what is on their servers.

 

Also, according to the indictment, the owners of the website "explicitly discussed evasion and infringement issues." Further, "Persons indicted have "instructed individual users how to locate links to infringing content on the Mega Sites ... [and] ... have also shared with each other comments from Mega Site users demonstrating that they have used or are attempting to use the Mega Sites to get infringing copies of copyrighted content."

 

Also according to the indictment, “MegaUpload.com and its associated website [are] heavily dependent on the popularity of copyright infringing content to attract website visits.�

 

Were they bad at taking down links or were the distributors bad at reporting them?

 

 

According to the indictment "A comprehensive takedown method is in use to identify child pornography, but not deployed to remove infringing content."

 

"Infringing users did not have their accounts terminated, and the defendants "made no significant effort to identify users who were using the Mega Sites or services to infringe copyrights, to prevent the uploading of infringing copies of copyrighted materials, or to identify infringing copies of copyrighted works.""

I don't know if that is publicly available. It's possible it is in the 72-page indictment, but I didn't read the whole thing and you can't search the document posted on the WSJ website, which is where I got it.

So many things I want to say but Calculus II is more important in my life right now.

So many things I want to say but Calculus II is more important in my life right now.

 

Even more than your fiance, bob^2?

13*(bob^2), also known as log(131/2*bob)(bobbob13) = 2.

13*(bob^2), also known as log(131/2*bob)(bobbob13) = 2.

 

Solve for bob.

Yeah, oversimplification, though. It's not just the website "megaupload.com." It's the whole family:

 

The company's services included a one-click hosting service known as MegaUpload, image hosting and video hostingservices known as Megavideo, Megalive, Megapix and Megabox as well as CUM.com (formerly Megaporn, Megarotic, and Sexuploader) which specialized in hosting pornographic contents. (Megaupload itself also allows such content). Other services included Megaclick, Megafund, Megakey and Megapay, all of which were advertisement and financial services. Two additional web sevices, Megabackup and Megamovie, were in development before its closure.[6]

 

So it wasn't just a place to store files.

 

Did you ever use Megavideo to watch movies or TV shows? Because millions of other people did. There were copyrighted television shows and movies being hosted on their servers.

 

Not CUM.com!

 

NOO!!!!!!!

I guess my question is to what extent Megaupload ignored requests from distributors to remove copyrighted materials.

 

It certainly sounds like Megaupload did not have a structure in place to monitor and remove files in violation on their servers. This might sound like they were turning a blind eye, but that's still a sh*t ton of data to police. However, if the distributors hunted for links, reported them, and Megaupload did nothing, then MU is definitely at fault in an obvious way.

 

But they created the situation in which they had a sh*t ton of data to police. I might be sympathetic to their plight in some way, but that's their [highly-profitable] bed, and they have to lay in it.

(131/2*bob)^2 = bobbob13

 

bob = (sqrt(bobbob13))*13-1/2

I think this is pretty damning in regards to their diligence on the matter, as previously posted: "Infringing users did not have their accounts terminated, and the defendants "made no significant effort to identify users who were using the Mega Sites or services to infringe copyrights, to prevent the uploading of infringing copies of copyrighted materials, or to identify infringing copies of copyrighted works.""

Yeah, oversimplification, though. It's not just the website "megaupload.com." It's the whole family:

 

The company's services included a one-click hosting service known as MegaUpload, image hosting and video hostingservices known as Megavideo, Megalive, Megapix and Megabox as well as CUM.com (formerly Megaporn, Megarotic, and Sexuploader) which specialized in hosting pornographic contents. (Megaupload itself also allows such content). Other services included Megaclick, Megafund, Megakey and Megapay, all of which were advertisement and financial services. Two additional web sevices, Megabackup and Megamovie, were in development before its closure.[6]

 

So it wasn't just a place to store files.

 

Did you ever use Megavideo to watch movies or TV shows? Because millions of other people did. There were copyrighted television shows and movies being hosted on their servers.

 

Not CUM.com!

 

NOO!!!!!!!

Does this mean that the domain name is up for grabs now?

 

I call dibs on it!

I guess my question is to what extent Megaupload ignored requests from distributors to remove copyrighted materials.

 

It certainly sounds like Megaupload did not have a structure in place to monitor and remove files in violation on their servers. This might sound like they were turning a blind eye, but that's still a sh*t ton of data to police. However, if the distributors hunted for links, reported them, and Megaupload did nothing, then MU is definitely at fault in an obvious way.

 

But they created the situation in which they had a sh*t ton of data to police. I might be sympathetic to their plight in some way, but that's their [highly-profitable] bed, and they have to lay in it.

 

this.

I'm hearing the megaupload owner is facing 45 years in prison.

I'm hearing the megaupload owner is facing 45 years in prison.

 

 

I'm sorry but its beyond damn crazy that you can end up getting more years for hosting a site than you can for rape, raping a kid, and things of that nature.

I'm hearing the megaupload owner is facing 45 years in prison.

 

 

I'm sorry but its beyond damn crazy that you can end up getting more years for hosting a site than you can for rape, raping a kid, and things of that nature.

If Rajaratnam got 11 years, there's no way the guy is getting 45 years. The sentencing guidelines can get a little extreme when the dollar values are really high, but it won't be anywhere near 45 years, unless there's a lot more to the story than we've heard.

I'm hearing the megaupload owner is facing 45 years in prison.

 

 

I'm sorry but its beyond damn crazy that you can end up getting more years for hosting a site than you can for rape, raping a kid, and things of that nature.

If Rajaratnam got 11 years, there's no way the guy is getting 45 years. The sentencing guidelines can get a little extreme when the dollar values are really high, but it won't be anywhere near 45 years, unless there's a lot more to the story than we've heard.

 

I didn't figure he would, more an overall complaint about the sentencing levels and guidelines . Normally when someone "faces" so much time, then end up for a 3rd of the total amount, for various reasons.