Any idea how many? What percentage of traffic? With only 10% of the users uploading, it would seem to be a small count.
Does it really matter? Any collateral damage to the innocent users is too much in my book. Even more so considering this about the US Government and items that are considered speech.
And you really need to lay off on that "only 10% of the users uploading" crap. That is pretty close to the Pareto principle and only shows that Mega was pretty much normal in regards to uploader/downloader ratio.
Shoplifting a CD is *barely* stealing these days. The penalties are not in the same ballpark (or even in the same city) as copyright infringement.
In Michigan shoplifting a item worth less than $200 is a misdemeanor charge with penalties of up to 93 days in jail and fines of up to $500 or 3 times the value of the stolen property (whichever is more).
The author of the video in question should be revealed not because he said something someone didn't like, but because it is a deliberate and malicious fraud upon the public.
It's great that you think that Bob, but, the correct procedure in such a situation is to prove in a court of law that something illegal happened before unmasking the anonymous defendant. The Supreme Court recognizes anonymity as a part of our First Amendment rights and shouldn't be revoked just because *you think* it's fraud.
I think if someone falsely trashes your reputation, you have a right to unveil them.
And I am thankful you are not a Supreme Court Justice.
The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The Illinois Supreme Court Rule 224 requires that the verified petition for discovery must set forth "the reason the proposed discovery is necessary." Basically it means that there needs to proof sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, even though the anonymous defendant isn't required file a motion to dismiss.
So, just because "you think" someone falsely trashed your reputation, you need to prove illegality before unmasking them, which is as it should be.
I never would have read some of my favourite books if I didn't see them on the shelf of a book store.
I too long for nostalgic elements of my past. Anyone remember being able to watch two movies from the privacy and security of your own car while bringing your own soda and snacks that cost 1/8 of the concession stand price? Anyone remember ordering a burger and root beer and having some cute girl on roller skates bring it to your car?
But, alas, those things are no more (or extremely rare), even though both the movie and fast food industries are thriving today.
Adapt or be left behind is the only advice I have for you Endtimer.
But, I was inquiring about the practical. I'd be shocked if infringing content didn't make up more than 95% of all video files more than 60 minutes on this website.
If you are really inquiring about the practical and you really believe that 95% figure is anywhere near the truth, why are you not then arguing for making filesharing for personal use legal? That would seem practical to me since such a large swath of the population is ignoring the law anyways.
And before you go off about content won't get created without the incentives copyright provides, I'll just say I don't buy that argument whatsoever. I quick look at history prior to the Statute of Anne shows that plenty of art was created without copyright.
I have more than once thought that "fuckyou" would be a good password for that reason.
Heh. Back in the day I was co-admin for a Novell 3.12 corporate network and we did a password security check. "fuckyou" was the forth most used password, after "password", "123456" and "letmein". We quickly instituted monthly password changes with no repeats, but that really didn't make the network much more secure since 90% of the users wrote their passwords on Post-Its on their cubicle walls or top desk drawer.
The letter to Wyden from the DOS backs up Mr. Kirk's public statements that Congress is not bound in any way to enact whatever laws it may choose to do. Mr. Kirk is accurate.
Really? Does that mean Congress can pass a law that abolishes copyrights entirely?
If it's true that ACTA does not bind Congress in any way, than ACTA is not a binding agreement where the US is concerned at all, is it? I'm sure the other signatories would be interested in how they have been duped.
Re: Re: That's how search engines already work - unless you want child porn or how to kill Danny
If the user is looking for something illegal, like child porn (produced by child abuse by definition) or information on how to murder DannyB, I would hope you and Google see the need for NOT giving "WHAT THE USER IS LOOKING FOR."
If you want to go back to being spoon fed all your information by a nanny state, just turn on your television.
As for me, I prefer to have all the possible information available, so I can make informed and intelligent decisions. It's why I run a YaCy node from my personal computer.
If every person on TechDirt actively fought AGAINST piracy you could make some progress toward moving piracy off of the web. Fighting against those who are fighting against piracy isn't accomplishing ANYTHING.
Why would I want to spend my time, energy and money fighting against something I don't really care about? Piracy is not MY problem. If the rights holders want to waste their resources fighting against piracy, I say have at it.
I have issues with the rights holders trying to use tax payer money in this fight. I have issues when this fight intrudes on my privacy. I have issues when this fight results in censorship. I have issues when this fight threatens the open internet and the free exchange of information. And I have issues when this fight results in collateral damage of innocent parties.