Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Shouldn't they be covered under the DMCA? As long as they respond to takedown demands, and they didn't "know" (e.g. Napster) that their site was otherwise being used for illegal activity, they should be clear, should they not?
Seems fishy, but as always, there's a lot that we don't know. I seriously doubt that there would have been this much activity (in multiple countries, even) if they weren't pretty darn sure that they had a slam dunk of a case. Should be interesting to watch unfold.
Megaupload was taken down because they didn't give the content mafia unlimited rights to remove content from their site like Youtube did to avoid being flooded with requests. Not long ago, Universal abused this very privilege to remove content owned by Megaupload hosted on Youtube that they didn't own, then had the gall to gloat about it.
And people want to give these thugs more power to abuse. Hah.
It's meaningless in the end anyway. Megaupload has about a dozen competitors willing to pick up the slack. It's like fighting the hydra.
All criminal enterprises such as Megaupload should be shut down. The owners should be prosecuted and the users of such sites should at least receive a warning from the FBI.
My feelings about Anonymous are ambiguous- on the one hand I think that a lot of the things they do are fairly childish or stupid, on the other, they've done some pretty brilliant things and I wouldn't put it past them to take this to another level. I neither support nor condemn them for this.
If anything like SOPA passes, expect to see more of this stuff.
Anonymous are just a bunch of 15 year-old teens that have no idea how the world works so instead of contributing to the world they just try to break it.
If the corporations think they will see increased sales of their product by stopping file sharing I think they are wrong. Not many are going to pay $30 for a blue ray. If the rich corporate CEO's haven't noticed, people more and more are stuggling to pay for food gas and medical bills and can't afford a blue ray disk. So many just won't ever know their product at all then....
You do not have to pay $30 for a blue-ray disc, but you should have to buy your entertainment from a legitimate source such as Amazon or iTunes.
That was 11 years ago. Do you know how many terrorists they've stopped since then? Hundreds, easily. Maybe thousands.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
