Dotcom gains access to NZ spy records

[Valerion]

I am not arguing this point, but Megaupload/RapidShare are known to be primarily used for piracy. That cannot be argued.

So was VCR's. However, the US Courts ruled that since there ARE legitimate uses for VCR's, they cannot be banned because they enable piracy. This was before selling videos became the huge business it is today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.

In addition, the DMCA created safe harbor provisions for hosting companies. Did the copyright holders follow the correct procedure in contesting content distributed there? And did MU follow the law in how it handled that? That will be important to know as well.

 

[FreeStanler]

Interesting. So this makes it much more difficult to mass-distribute pirated software via DropBox.

Exactly.

But there is a use for sites like Rapidshare: you might want to share a big file with a lot of people, like the whole company, or as a way to distribute a ROM you created for Android.

 

[Kloofvreter]

Exactly.

But there is a use for sites like Rapidshare: you might want to share a big file with a lot of people, like the whole company, or as a way to distribute a ROM you created for Android.

Sure you may want to, you may also want to share that file as a torrent, but we all know what RapidShare/torrents is really used for.

 

[Adenoid Hynkel]

problem is that he was totally aware of the illegal activities within his product and did absolutely nothing about it.

You rent out a house, you are aware that it's being used as a drug den, you do nothing about it, you can be charged as an accessory because you continued to provide the means for the illegal activities to continue.

He offered most big boys access to their system, aka Warner Bros, MS etc allowing them to login at anytime and remove copyrighted material.
What more must he do? He certainly cannot control who shares what. It is impossible!

I am sure he knew about his system being used for piracy, but he is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Kloofvreter]

He offered most big boys access to their system, aka Warner Bros, MS etc allowing them to login at anytime and remove copyrighted material.
What more must he do?

That is merely a gesture of sorts. It would be impossible for these companies to trawl through everything and check what is illegal and remove it. Why should it be their job to do it anyway?

 

[Valerion]

That is merely a gesture of sorts. It would be impossible for these companies to trawl through everything and check what is illegal and remove it. Why should it be their job to do it anyway?

Copyright law says it's the job of the copyright owner to police usage of his work. That's why they should do it.

 

[Kloofvreter]

Copyright law says it's the job of the copyright owner to police usage of his work. That's why they should do it.

Is it now also unlawful to distribute copyrighted material?

 

[Valerion]

Is it now also unlawful to distribute copyrighted material?

Yes it is unlawful.

However, in the US the hosting company is not responsible, as long as they follow the safe-harbor provisions in the DMCA. If they receive a take-down request, they are obligated to take content down. If they receive a non-infringement notice from the other party, they are obligated to put it back up and let the copyright holder sue the other party. Both of these are affidavits and therefore can lead to a perjury charge if false (though it never did, to my knowledge).

If they fail to follow the above, they lose their protection and become liable for infringement themselves. If they actively scan for copyrighted materials in some fashion, it can easily be argued that they should have found the infringing materials (since they are no longer a neutral carrier) and therefore they can lose their safe-harbor status and become liable. Therefore the best for a hosting company is to NEVER look at what their users are uploading, because then they are not liable for the content.

 

[Kloofvreter]

Yes it is unlawful.

However, in the US the hosting company is not responsible, as long as they follow the safe-harbor provisions in the DMCA. If they receive a take-down request, they are obligated to take content down. If they receive a non-infringement notice from the other party, they are obligated to put it back up and let the copyright holder sue the other party. Both of these are affidavits and therefore can lead to a perjury charge if false (though it never did, to my knowledge).

If they fail to follow the above, they lose their protection and become liable for infringement themselves. If they actively scan for copyrighted materials in some fashion, it can easily be argued that they should have found the infringing materials (since they are no longer a neutral carrier) and therefore they can lose their safe-harbor status and become liable. Therefore the best for a hosting company is to NEVER look at what their users are uploading, because then they are not liable for the content.

Not even if a site or service is known to be used primarily by it's users/subsrcibers for piracy, ala RapidShare?