View Single Post
01-19-2012   #41 (permalink)
RoflKnife's Avatar
ggFTW Star
ElswordDungeon Fighter OnlineDragon Nest
Awards Retired Content StaffEvent WinnerPervert Award
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,987
iTrader: (0)
RoflKnife has disabled reputation

Yet the indictment seems odd in some ways. When Viacom made many of the same charges against YouTube, it didn't go to the government and try to get Eric Schmidt or Chad Hurley arrested.

It's also full of strange non-sequiturs, such as the charge that "on or about November 10, 2011, a member of the Mega Conspiracy made a transfer of $185,000 to further an advertising campaign for involved a musical recording and a video." So?

Law professor James Grimmelmann of New York Law School tells Ars, "If proven at trial, there's easily enough in the indictment to prove criminal copyright infringement many times over. But much of what the indictment details are legitimate business strategies many websites use to increase their traffic and revenues: offering premium subscriptions, running ads, rewarding active users
Why the feds smashed Megaupload

The guilty in the company that were promoting the piracy are being arrested and put in trial, which is fine. But nuking everything? Half or so of the ammo they're using as justification is pretty thin too, as noted, they are legitimate strategies. The legit users should AT LEAST be given a chance to grab their files and put it elsewhere.

Youtube is pretty easy to share, and pretty easy to get around their copyright safeguards. Youtube's been the target of some legal action too, but it was nowhere as severe and crazy as Megauploads. Some of the weak ammo used against Megaupload even applies to Youtube! If you still don't think Youtube is as easy to share copyrighted stuff...

Well, what about other filesharing sites? The only difference is the possibility some of their staff doesn't promote piracy, and some of them don't offer the same benefits to users. But they're all still used to distribute illegal content.