Re: READ through just #12 of .pdf to see how the "Abuse" tool was phony.
> Megaupload generated many URLs to same file. When copyright > holders used its "Abuse" tool, only the specified URL was removed: > the file remained intact to still be served out from other URLs. -- > Shows knowledge of infringement and deliberate attempt to evade > DMCA.
Actually while it appears to show that, it actually shows nothing of the sort.
Suppose I have a security camera in my yard, and it records me having a Moment of Profound Klutziness. To the point people can't help laughing when they see it (happens more often than I care to admit, but seldom is caughton camera).
I upload that video to my website, but reserve all rights. Someone saves the video to their computer (unauthorized copy) and later uploads it to Megaupload. That copy is illegal. A bit later, I also upload a copy to Megaupload. My copy is 100% legal. To save on space, Megaupload only saves one copy of identical content and just gives out different URLs to it.
If I find out about that illegal copy and issue a takedown notice, it should not have any effect on my own fully-authorized uploaded copy. I would be very angry (and rightly so) if my copy disappeared off the server.
Both of those hypothetical copies would be identical, no server or even most human beings would be able to tell the difference from looking at them. And the only difference between them is something that isn't contained in the file at all: my permission. That permission could even be wholly oral, for someone else to upload a file, and would still make the permitted copy 100% legal...and 100% indistinguishable from an unauthorized copy.
Including the US government itself. Thanks to the NSA, the feds would have a very hard time proving they don't know about almost any criminal act committed within the United States telecommunications infrastructure. They certainly know that illegal acts take place.
If you are criminally liable for knowing a crime has been committed and not taking action against it, then quite a few public officials (Eric Holder, perhaps) are just as guilty of a crime as Kim Dotcom...assuming the DOJ case has any validity to it.
Photography is art and art is protected 'speech'. If photography were not art, then there would be no need for a professional wedding photographer, you could just hand cameras out to wedding guests and tell them to snap away.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is complicated...
The problem is you're not talking about someone refusing to flip burgers for a homosexual, you are talking about an artist being compelled to produce art.
The former is simply an assembly line service, no art at all. The latter, however, is government-compelled speech that the speaker does not agree with.
If the government can compel you to say nice things about someone or take pictures you despise, then they can compel any artist to 'speak' against their will. Paintings, sculptures, poetry, they all could be compelled.
Do the artists in favor of this pay resale royalties too?
Record music and you owe royalties to whoever you bought your blank CDs from? Paint a picture and you owe a royalty to the paint company when you sell that painting...and every time you collect a resale royalty on it?
Does the paint company owe royalties to the chemical wholesaler they bought their raw materials from?