Yeah, he wants money... but for what?albino boo said:Hmm convicted fraudster and has a nice new scheme which he wants investors money.
It's not the legal obligation of any file hoster - or rather any website - to actively prevent copyright infringement, they only have to remove files if a copyright holder requests it. Youtube, each and every webhost, heck, even this site would also deserve to be kicked down if we follow your logic. I also highly doubt he'll put a single server in a country where the US can touch him next time.Awexsome said:Hooray for pirates continuing their valiant fight to keep sharing all their stuff for free then? Unless this site takes more measures to discourage and prevent itself from being one of the biggest pirate storehouses in the world itll deserve to be kicked down again.
What property did they steal, exactly?nikki191 said:like others i dont like the guys but good on him and i hope it goes well. im still pissed the us government stole my property
[citation needed]albino boo said:Hmm convicted fraudster and has a nice new scheme which he wants investors money.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/kim-dotcom/Zachary Amaranth said:What property did they steal, exactly?nikki191 said:like others i dont like the guys but good on him and i hope it goes well. im still pissed the us government stole my property
[citation needed]albino boo said:Hmm convicted fraudster and has a nice new scheme which he wants investors money.
Now you made me paranoic. What if the FBI made a deal with Dotcom to secretly deliver information of the pirates...Harbinger_ said:Can you say it's a trap?
Which they purposefully failed miserably at to make profit. Hence the whole scandal in the first place why they got taken down instead of some other site.Staskala said:Fuck off Schmitz, your entire empire is based on scamming. Which you are so proud of that you even changed your name to reflect it. Don't pretend to be a hero of the people, there's only one person you really care about.
It's not the legal obligation of any file hoster - or rather any website - to actively prevent copyright infringement, they only have to remove files if a copyright holder requests it.Awexsome said:Hooray for pirates continuing their valiant fight to keep sharing all their stuff for free then? Unless this site takes more measures to discourage and prevent itself from being one of the biggest pirate storehouses in the world itll deserve to be kicked down again.
I'm assuming it's a similar situation to this guy I knew. He made songs, and uploaded them to MU to share them publicly. He considered it RIAA censorship when they took down MU, because they were in fact killing him as a competitor to their own works. A little overblown as a reaction IMO, but it did drive home that MU had legitimate uses, and the use he was using it for did conflict with their agenda while breaking no laws.Zachary Amaranth said:What property did they steal, exactly?nikki191 said:like others i dont like the guys but good on him and i hope it goes well. im still pissed the us government stole my property
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You don't demand to go into your neighbor's house to raise their kids. It's the same thing on a global scale. Their house, their rules. If their kids are really bothering you, then you ask the parents to manage their kids better. If they say no, then there is nothing more you can do. You deal with it.Awexsome said:but the fuck is the U.S. supposed to do when people start exploiting every loophole and jurisdiction issue in other countries to directly break U.S. laws?
You know, I have shared music I've made on multiple services, but shutting them down still isn't "stealing." It's a hoard of other nasty things, but I was specifically addressing the histrionics.Signa said:I'm assuming it's a similar situation to this guy I knew. He made songs, and uploaded them to MU to share them publicly. He considered it RIAA censorship when they took down MU, because they were in fact killing him as a competitor to their own works. A little overblown as a reaction IMO, but it did drive home that MU had legitimate uses, and the use he was using it for did conflict with their agenda while breaking no laws.
Tru dat. I can assume it felt like they were being stolen from, but I'll let them answer that themselves.Zachary Amaranth said:You know, I have shared music I've made on multiple services, but shutting them down still isn't "stealing." It's a hoard of other nasty things, but I was specifically addressing the histrionics.Signa said:I'm assuming it's a similar situation to this guy I knew. He made songs, and uploaded them to MU to share them publicly. He considered it RIAA censorship when they took down MU, because they were in fact killing him as a competitor to their own works. A little overblown as a reaction IMO, but it did drive home that MU had legitimate uses, and the use he was using it for did conflict with their agenda while breaking no laws.
Is it censorship? Yeah, no doubt. Is it ethically and legally wrong? Also yes. Is it teh steelingz? No way.