Megaupload.com shutdown by feds and owners have been charged - Page 7 - GoFuckYourself.com

mikesinner · 01-21-2012, 04:44 PM

So how long until they get all the other fuckers?

NewNick · 01-21-2012, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Your talking about taking away their right to backup the content they paid for.

hey guys this must be some kind of road to Damascus moment for old Mr Gall Bladder.

The king Of the thieves, Gideon Fagin himself, is actually suggesting that having paid for something gives you some entitlement to decide what happens to the said item.

So it appears that we have a new champion, Gideon Gallbladder is going to defend your rights as owners of the content you have produced.

This is truly a remarkable day.

After all damianj said there was nothing you could do - pirates will never change their spots. One normally does not like to gloat, but.......this Monte Christo is particularly pleasant with the cognac tonight !!!!!!!

PiracyPitbull · 01-21-2012, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

mr pitbull, i dont understand, without piracy your business gets no clients. why are you so against it?

Because this is not my only source of income.

Id rather be making more money again from my exclusive content websites, than content removal.

nikki99 · 01-21-2012, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesinner

So how long until they get all the other fuckers?

I think we need to wait till february

gideongallery · 01-21-2012, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiracyPitbull

So in instances where 500 people upload a cinema recording of "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol ", clearly an infringing upload and not currently available for sale.

The Filehost should be able to bundle all 500 copies as one, issue links as normal - and should they receive 10 take-down requests, only pay attention to those, disable those 10 links but leave the remaining 490 links live ? - is that what you're saying ?

did you even read the complaint they were talking about TV SHOWS that shit that people have a right to backup if they want.

but even in your example

Some countries don't have anti-caming laws, so in those countries
If a person from that country simply recorded, and backed up (without sharing it with anyone) yes that would also not be infringement.

it not as absolute but yes, there are still SOME of those links that are not infringing. And those links should be left alone.
Waiting for you to do your fucking job and identify the real infringing
from legit uploads (don't like it change the laws in those countries)

SAS_Jack · 01-21-2012, 06:45 PM

You are a Douche. There's no reasoning with Douche's.

Dirty Dane · 01-21-2012, 07:09 PM

Gideon you should offer your expertise to Dotcom.They need you now. And don' t forget to tell the investigators in 10 countries they are wrong.

MANN · 01-21-2012, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

says a guy with "userporn" in his sig.

your also looking to make money of other people's hardwork.

why? i have my own videos.

Niktamer · 01-21-2012, 09:23 PM

http://gizmodo.com/5877987/the-best-...oad-kim-dotcom

On those pics he looked like a fat moron

PiracyPitbull · 01-22-2012, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

did you even read the complaint they were talking about TV SHOWS that shit that people have a right to backup if they want.

Shouldn't that be: That "some" people "might" have the right to back up and recover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

but even in your example

Some countries don't have anti-caming laws, so in those countries
If a person from that country simply recorded, and backed up (without sharing it with anyone) yes that would also not be infringement.

For the miniscule amount of users that might do that, in the tiny amount of countries that allow it (and yes I know they exist) it technically wouldn't.

But, part of the DMCA is that service providers "not be aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent".

Once they receive a DMCA regarding that movie, they have all the relevant links they need to identify "all" infringements regarding that move if identically linked....which in this example would be 10 dmca'd - leaving 490, minus any found to be non infringing from the few users in countries that don't have anti-camming.

So using my example of Ghost Protocol and being that filelockers connect identical files, they would still be in breach if they didn't remove every single infringing link.

Which is clearly not happening.

So, they still wouldn't qualify for safe harbor.

CurrentlySober · 01-22-2012, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fris

why the hell is he wearing a vest in a hot tub

He is of a similar height and build to myself - But he is a bit smaller...

We feel embarrassed around the 'Beautiful people' and like to cover up..

grumpy · 01-22-2012, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlutsBukkake

I dont see how they can shut down an entire site that is not solely hosted in the US.

So in theory could they shutdown YouTube?

What about all those people who were just using it for backup of thier personal or work files? Isn't the FBI accessing/deleting these doing something illegal?

While i dont agree with the copright offences, i think something smells fishy and that this is setting a very bad precedent for the government to be able to shut down any website/business and not give them a chance to defend themselves in court.

if you put your personal or work files on a site like megaload your a moron

gideongallery · 01-22-2012, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiracyPitbull

Shouldn't that be: That "some" people "might" have the right to back up and recover.

seriously your business is issuing take downs and your this oblivious of the law

The combination of double jeopardy rules and the wording of fair use in the copyright act has created a situation ,the illegality of the source doesn't invalidate the fair use right.

In other words if you backup an infringing copy your not guilty of two counts of copyright infringement your only guilty of 1 (the original ownership).

This condition has been validated by supreme court of canada, appeals court in US, and the EU (highest standing decision btw).

Quote:

For the miniscule amount of users that might do that, in the tiny amount of countries that allow it (and yes I know they exist) it technically wouldn't.

But, part of the DMCA is that service providers "not be aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent".

Once they receive a DMCA regarding that movie, they have all the relevant links they need to identify "all" infringements regarding that move if identically linked....which in this example would be 10 dmca'd - leaving 490, minus any found to be non infringing from the few users in countries that don't have anti-camming.

So using my example of Ghost Protocol and being that filelockers connect identical files, they would still be in breach if they didn't remove every single infringing link.

Which is clearly not happening.

So, they still wouldn't qualify for safe harbor.

due diligence to determine infringing vs non infringing state is not a requirement of safe harbor, congress when crafting the law believed that would be to much of a burden on hosts. You may not like it but that is the nature of the law

they may "have all the relevant links they need to identify "all" infringements" the law doesn't require them to do the research to determine which of those links are infringing or not.

and by your declaration

Quote:

For the miniscule amount of users that might do that, in the tiny amount of countries that allow it (and yes I know they exist) it technically wouldn't.

which me means that link list is actually only POTENTIAL infringing content until that due diligence is completed

the apparent issue, a hidden link by definition is not apparent, taking out only the public link takes out the circumstances that makes the infringing material apparent.

porno jew · 01-22-2012, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grumpy

if you put your personal or work files on a site like megaload your a moron

Before shutdown, Megaupload ate up more corporate bandwidth than Dropbox

http://arstechnica.com/business/news...an-dropbox.ars

01-21-2012, 04:44 PM	#301
mikesinner Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 5,646	So how long until they get all the other fuckers? __________________ My Best Sponsors MPl l Camsl CUMSHOTSl LESBIANSl FETISHl BJ RACESl TEEN BJl BSDMl VODl USE YOUR PC TO CURE CANCER

01-21-2012, 09:23 PM	#309
Niktamer Lord of the Leads Industry Role: Join Date: May 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 3,021	http://gizmodo.com/5877987/the-best-...oad-kim-dotcom On those pics he looked like a fat moron __________________

01-21-2012, 06:45 PM	#306
SAS_Jack Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 19	You are a Douche. There's no reasoning with Douche's.

01-21-2012, 07:09 PM	#307
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	Gideon you should offer your expertise to Dotcom.They need you now. And don' t forget to tell the investigators in 10 countries they are wrong.