Also this:Spearhead wrote:
Right, because government websites are known for being popular and slick. They don't even care that their website still looks like its in the 90's..-Sh1fty- wrote:
I can't believe they get away with stuff like shutting down the FBI website though.
Aren't their sites important though? The FBI's maybe not so much but what about all those other music sites and movie sites?Ty wrote:
Also this:Spearhead wrote:
Right, because government websites are known for being popular and slick. They don't even care that their website still looks like its in the 90's..-Sh1fty- wrote:
I can't believe they get away with stuff like shutting down the FBI website though.
what if they take down the mahweens website. youd be so mad.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Aren't their sites important though? The FBI's maybe not so much but what about all those other music sites and movie sites?Ty wrote:
Also this:Spearhead wrote:
Right, because government websites are known for being popular and slick. They don't even care that their website still looks like its in the 90's..
I'd enjoy seeing them take down facebook.
lol, he would too.Cybargs wrote:
what if they take down the mahweens website. youd be so mad.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Aren't their sites important though? The FBI's maybe not so much but what about all those other music sites and movie sites?Ty wrote:
Also this:
I'd enjoy seeing them take down facebook.
He should be innocent until proven guilty. Mega upload should have remained up until the same.Ty wrote:
Of course this is up to the courts to decide and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. My point is that Megaupload has done more than enough to earn the wrath of the law and Dotcom isn't an innocent multi-millionaire victim.
If you did any research at all into this, you'd know that the employees explicitly said they knew exactly what they were doing and even uploaded illegal content themselves. You can not sentence a website to death. Why are you defending these assholes?AussieReaper wrote:
He should be innocent until proven guilty. Mega upload should have remained up until the same.Ty wrote:
Of course this is up to the courts to decide and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. My point is that Megaupload has done more than enough to earn the wrath of the law and Dotcom isn't an innocent multi-millionaire victim.
They wiped access to legally hosted files too you know.
Last edited by Spearhead (2012-01-20 08:47:51)
But I thought government was always right.AussieReaper wrote:
He should be innocent until proven guilty. Mega upload should have remained up until the same.Ty wrote:
Of course this is up to the courts to decide and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. My point is that Megaupload has done more than enough to earn the wrath of the law and Dotcom isn't an innocent multi-millionaire victim.
They wiped access to legally hosted files too you know.
Good post... Ron Wyden has created a piece of legislation that is much better at dealing with piracy while still not being overbearing.Ty wrote:
Reading the Internet commentary about this has made me feel a little sick. All this talk about waging war on behalf of fallen Megaupload, all the Anonymous shit and the fear that Megaupload is the first "victim" of SOPA...
Get your shit straight people.
The raid on Megaupload and Kim Dotcom was the result of an operation that has been going on for a considerable amount of time. It's not like taking down Youtube because a kid posted a video of them singing Lady Gaga into a hairbrush. Megaupload is a site that allows the free sharing of files, sure, but it has also enabled piracy on a huge scale and the operators have done little to nothing to curb it. Why?
This is why.
Money. Dotcom is a huge racketeer, he has made millions and millions from essentially selling material that isn't his. He is a criminal even so far that he has a massive lair situated on a volcano in Auckland. Megaupload isn't a victim of SOPA, it's not a victim at all. Of course this is up to the courts to decide and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. My point is that Megaupload has done more than enough to earn the wrath of the law and Dotcom isn't an innocent multi-millionaire victim.
This isn't about SOPA though, and all these Internet vigilantes have the completely wrong idea. I've seen so many posts about how people will have to "download everything they can before SOPA is passed". That is the completely wrong end of the stick and is awful for all those who oppose SOPA on rational grounds. People aren't opposed to SOPA because it takes away peoples' "right" to download shit for free over the Internet. It is about granting overbearing powers to copyright holders, copyright laws themselves, fair use, corporate censorship, freedom of information, free speech, unjust penalties to name a few - and on a global scale with the US creating a law that is going to impact countries around the world. I'd like it if SOPA dealt with piracy, the fact that it doesn't is another reason to oppose it.
People are so willing to showcase their ignorance on the Internet, I'd appreciate if those assuming they're on my side/that I'm on their side would actually learn a thing or two about the situation first.
Also a tip, (not that I think anyone here is dumb enough to fall for it,) but with Megaupload down a lot of opportunists have created sites and advertised them around saying that they are back doors into Megaupload or Megaupload recovery sites. I'd say most of them just spread viruses and try to steal your personal information. Interestingly it showcases another weakness in granting powers to take down websites.
err, yes there was. they removed them when there was a DCMA takedown request, which is exactly what they're required to do by law. apparently one of their biggest flaws was they wouldnt delete the accounts of repeat infringersSpearhead wrote:
If you did any research at all into this, you'd know that the employees explicitly said they knew exactly what they were doing and even uploaded illegal content themselves. You can not sentence a website to death. Why are you defending these assholes?AussieReaper wrote:
He should be innocent until proven guilty. Mega upload should have remained up until the same.Ty wrote:
Of course this is up to the courts to decide and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. My point is that Megaupload has done more than enough to earn the wrath of the law and Dotcom isn't an innocent multi-millionaire victim.
They wiped access to legally hosted files too you know.
"Wiping access to legally hosted files". Well, seeing as how there was absolutely no system in place to remove illegally hosted files (beyond giving laughably inadequate lipservice to the law), that sucks for them.
He is innocent until proven guilty. That's why he's not sitting in jail with a 20 year sentence right now.AussieReaper wrote:
He should be innocent until proven guilty. Mega upload should have remained up until the same.Ty wrote:
Of course this is up to the courts to decide and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. My point is that Megaupload has done more than enough to earn the wrath of the law and Dotcom isn't an innocent multi-millionaire victim.
They wiped access to legally hosted files too you know.
If you arrest someone for illegally peddling copyrighted material behind a front what sense does it make to allow them to keep up their front while investigations and their trial is ongoing? That's not how the legal system works. Innocent until proven guilty is not really relevant here, there are certain things that go along with being charged with a crime that are separate from this.AussieReaper wrote:
He should be innocent until proven guilty. Mega upload should have remained up until the same.Ty wrote:
Of course this is up to the courts to decide and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. My point is that Megaupload has done more than enough to earn the wrath of the law and Dotcom isn't an innocent multi-millionaire victim.
They wiped access to legally hosted files too you know.
What?Ty wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty is not really relevant here.
I'm not saying it doesn't apply, I'm saying it doesn't apply in terms of the procedures that are followed upon being charged with a crime.AussieReaper wrote:
What?Ty wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty is not really relevant here.
If YouTube hosts copyright infringement files, they pay the uploader for the number of views too. It's only taken down when they are requested. Nothing happens to the uploader. YouTube owners aren't arrested.
How are YouTube not an illegal racketeering company also?
Megaupload also took down files upon request.
To say innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply is ludicrously dangerous precedent to set.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_SchmitzSpark wrote:
Wait - his name is actually Kim Dotcom? Seriously?
eleven bravo wrote:
hate the game not the playa
