On 01/20/2012 12:12 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: > >>> So appropriate, too, that the clip above is >>> shared by the non-copyright owner. >>> > Bhairitu: >> They've always had a "don't upload copyrighted >> material you don't own" message there... >> > Apparently you didn't get the point - the entire > site could be brought down if anyone posts illegal > movies or products on it that are copyrighted.
So if a drug dealer some evening walks up on your lawn and does a drug deal, gets caught by the police, should the police be able to take your house as an accomplice? > Somebody just wants to avoid policing their own > site because that might cut into their bottom > line. A lot of companies don't want to be in the policing business including Google, Microsoft and others. It's also a liability. To hire people who would actually know if a copyright is violated is expensive if not almost impossible. The way it works now is fine and one of the few good points about the DMCA. You have to file a "takedown notice" and in fact I am in the process of writing one of those up for a friend who didn't renew his domain name but the person who bought it put up an old version of his web site using the WayBack Machine and also put links to businesses who we found were unaware of such links. Sometimes people actually get permission to use material in a video and fail to put an acknowledgement which is not always required. As a musician I know exactly how to make a tune sound like another tune without violating a copyright. I did that with "Republican Cry Babies" as obviously "Cry Baby Cry" by the Beatles would have made great background so I made something that sounds like it but isn't. And pity the company that takes down any of my stuff with my original music and videos which I take great effort to make sure is my own because I will find a good pro bono lawyer if they have deep pockets. In the Bay Area there are some damn good ones who would take the case. This is also why companies like YouTube are opposed to SOPA. > "Dotcom, a resident of both Hong Kong and New > Zealand, and a dual citizen of Finland and Germany, > made more than $42 million from the site in 2010 > alone, according to the indictment." > > 'Popular File-Sharing Website Megaupload Shut Down' > http://tinyurl.com/6px6kp2 You do know that MegaUpload had two kinds of services? One was ad based free where you have to wait up to a minute for the download to start and the fee based one which downloaded faster and there is no wait. Perfectly legitimate business and that's where they made their money. I would imagine they were smart enough to never put content there they didn't own themselves. Plus they probably responded promptly to any takedown notice. In fact I think I've seen links on forums to files there where a follow up post reported that the file had been removed. The bottom line is the US entertainment industry sucks and is run largely by untalented, uninnovative people who can't swing with the times. By the law of the "supposed" free market they should be out of business instead of asking for help from big government. Guess you're not into "free markets" though, eh?
