Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MediaFire CEO: We Don't Depend On Piracy

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the everyone's-entitled-to-an-opinion dept.

Piracy 185

New submitter libertyernie writes "Although FileSonic has disabled sharing and Uploaded.to has blocked access to the U.S., the CEO of Texas-based MediaFire is not concerned about government action against his company. 'We don't have a business built on copyright infringement,' says Derek Labian. 'Like many other cloud-based sharing services like Box.net and Dropbox, we're a legitimate business targeting professionals.'"

cancel ×

185 comments

First.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38795005)

to laugh at that guy!! Not based on piracy? Whatever...

Re:First.... (0, Offtopic)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795125)

Second to ROFL. Are these guys soooo naive???

Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795007)

"We try to steer clear of things that would attract scrutiny," Labian said. "If people are pirating on our service, we don’t want those people to use it."

So what you're openly admitting is that you just don't know the extent of piracy on your service? I probably would have said "no comment" rather than risk the Eye of Sauron ... er RIAA/MPAA's gaze. From what I gather, it could 0% it could be 100% of your service based on pirates sharing files with each other but since you don't know it's okay? Unless you have some sort of Youtube-like fingerprinting going on, I'd just keep your mouth shut.

Another reason Labian said he wasn’t worried about the government stepping in is because the company maintains a "good relationship" with various government bodies, including "Homeland Security, ICE, and the FBI."

Right but those are just the enforcers, your real problem is the MPAA and unless you're paying elected officials more than they are you could be next.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795135)

So what you're openly admitting is that you just don't know the extent of piracy on your service?

Yes, so they can claim common carrier status... seems pretty smart to me. If you have any idea at all, you are screwed.

Right but those are just the enforcers, your real problem is the MPAA

As long as they respond to take-down notices and do not ACTIVELY seek traffic based on piracy as MegaUpload did (judging by emails they had to turn over) they, and companies like DropBox, should be fine.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795893)

So what you're openly admitting is that you just don't know the extent of piracy on your service?

Yes, so they can claim common carrier status... seems pretty smart to me. If you have any idea at all, you are screwed.

Right but those are just the enforcers, your real problem is the MPAA

As long as they respond to take-down notices and do not ACTIVELY seek traffic based on piracy as MegaUpload did (judging by emails they had to turn over) they, and companies like DropBox, should be fine.

ISPs aren't common carriers.
In other news, the "24 hour evaluation period" WaReZ sites talked about in 1996 is also bullshit.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795955)

ISPs are or at least should be common carriers. And just like ISPs should be providing access to dumb pipes, filehosts should have dumb servers and be protected from liability.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796005)

ISPs are or at least should be common carriers. And just like ISPs should be providing access to dumb pipes, filehosts should have dumb servers and be protected from liability.

Well, they aren't.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

JWW (79176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796083)

Yes they should be.

Senator Al Franken has sponsored Net Neutrality legislation to allow them to be treated as such.

Of course, he's also sponsored PIPA which would force ISPs to filter every packet.....

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795919)

The problem is that it's like selling knives to people and the most common thing people do is stab each other with them. You can try keeping up appearances and say we're only selling a tool, but sooner or later someone on your staff is going to crack and say "Yes, our tool is used for stabbing. You know it, I know it, we all know it's the 800lb gorilla in the room we can't talk about." Even if you're legitimately trying to minimize the illegal potential, admitting that your awkward stabbing weapon still could be used for stabbing is an admission. And that you didn't sell an even duller knife even though it'd be useless as a knife too, you are still saying you didn't do everything you could to stop stabbers. In short, you can't talk about them. I guarantee that if you do, their lawyers will find more than enough rope to hang you with when things are taken out of context and interpreted in the most cynical way.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (2)

fish_in_the_c (577259) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796205)

Don't most people use knives to eat food with?

Gun's would make a better analogy. Their are some types of Guns that are illegal, ( automatic weapons) because it is almost impossible to use them for legal purposes ( other then perhaps target practice if you are someone who enjoys that kind of thing) . But just because something MIGHT be used in an illegal fashion is not justification for preventing it's reasonable legal use.

on the flip side of the argument there are lagitimate legal uses of all kinds of banned weapons.

Target practice is one of them, private security is another, so you have to ask why are they illegal, why not allow the sail of ak47 and anti-aircraft missiles to those could make a profit by having people pay them to do target practice is some empty dessert?

I think part of the answer is the level of possible harm vs good done.

A Handgun _might_ kill 1 person , but an anti-aircraft weapon _might_ kill hundreds i one shot not to mention destroy the perception of safety of flight in the whole country.

I'm not sure if that extends to copyright or not? Each individual infraction is small. And no one is killed, people just loose jobs and livelihood, jobs and livelihood they would not have if the government had not created a legal right for the purpose of supporting the arts.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796409)

Their are some types of Guns that are illegal, ( automatic weapons) because it is almost impossible to use them for legal purposes ( other then perhaps target practice if you are someone who enjoys that kind of thing)

Automatic weapons (and silenced weapons) are not illegal per se, at least not in the US. You still have to pass a background check and you have to pay the appropriate taxes, but other than that...

What happened to fun? (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796635)

Their are some types of Guns that are illegal, ( automatic weapons) because it is almost impossible to use them for legal purposes

(a) Automatic weapons are not illegal.

(b) Are you outlawing fun? Why is it not acceptable to own something simply because it is fun? I say we take away YOUR gaming consoles as they are impossible to use for anything practical.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (0)

jakrmaster (2559049) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795153)

It's funny that the service is named MediaFire. This means 99% in cases copyright infringing content, at least how people use it. The rest 1% is indie and amateur stuff that almost nobody wants.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795191)

Perfect name when so much of it will be burnt.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

project5117 (2550152) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795263)

I'd like to chime in here that I use MediaFire to distribute musical compositions which I hold the copyrights to collaborators and fans. I'll concede that I may be considered as "indie and amateur stuff."

Prior to supporting your quote, however, I'd like to see 99 people follow this post with replies advising that they use MediaFire only to distribute "copyright infringing content," a term which would not include anything falling under fair use provisions.

Any99 mind stepping up to support the parent's position?

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795397)

I have never uploaded to mediafire (I have my own webserver, and seldom need to send to more than a few people) but I have in the past used it to download both infringing and non-infringing content.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795681)

I have never uploaded to mediafire (I have my own webserver, and seldom need to send to more than a few people) but I have in the past used it to download both infringing and non-infringing content.

IT WAS A TRAP!

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (2)

project5117 (2550152) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795683)

Very cool. And thanks for chiming in.

Are you confident that in -every- case you considered infringing the content was not authorized by the copyright holder? Sometimes it is difficult to say from the downloading side of things; I recall that some of Trent Reznor's fans got approached by his previous record company for leaks which he personally authorized (to promote Year Zero? If you're interested I can look for some references for you).

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38795303)

Uh, they were originally (and still largely) used for photographs, which are type of media. Most of which are posted by the copyright holder (as in, some asshole with a cell phone camera), and were non infringing.

COM:DW (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795733)

Not all photos taken with a cell phone camera are original. Take a picture of a toy? Infringing. Take a picture of a poster? Infringing. Take a picture of a sculpture whose sculptor is alive or died after 1941? Infringing. Take a picture of an old sculpture at night? Infringing; the lighting is copyrighted.

Re:COM:DW (1)

project5117 (2550152) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795841)

I believe a lot of these cases are covered by fair use, though of course the particulars would be for the courts to decide.

I'd like to discuss this further with you, if you'd care to provide specific examples and your reasoning for why the cell phone pictures you have selected as examples are infringing.

A momentary visit to "Google," as suggested in your signature, provided me with the following discussion http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1158 [photoattorney.com] which discusses one example where an image taken with high quality equipment and turned into a postage stamp which was then sold to collect $17 million dollars was found to be infringing.

I'm not sure how many cell phone pictures gross $17 million dollars in profits from being posted on MediaFire, but if you know of one I'd be delighted to have you describe it and provide references.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38796405)

I'd find what I do an exception:

I use MediaFire for a number of things, all 100% legal, because it is IP I have made, or it is IP created by some private groups (AD&D campaign, acting troupe, etc.) The fact that a paid account can create links that just download the file without issue are nice. Of course, I can host a video about someone's act or lecture on speaking with/without accents on my Web server (taken with my own camera), but it is far cheaper to have it hosted on MediaFire for download to other people in the troupe.

Same with a band and uploading studio quality tracks. Yes, I can host them on my local Web server, but there is the fact that downloading out of a DSL or cable link is relatively slow. I can host them on a remote server, but then have to deal with someone in another region having extremely slow speeds, as well as possibly get raked over the coals for bandwidth use. Or use MediaFire, and have tracks fresh from the mixing board ready for other people to listen to.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38795193)

All we can say for certain is that every pirate starts with Google.

Also I'm bored with all this MPAA/RIAA demonising. It's obvious that all this is just an excuse for top-down control of the Internet, one of many recent laws designed to control the people. Your "real problem" starts when you do things which increase freedom for others and your "real problem" ends when you do as you're told. This changes according as the pressure from people interested in preserving freedoms for the common man, whether that's libertarians or trade unionists - since the '80s the steady flow of neocon propaganda plus distraction technology has minimised this pressure. The UK is more thatcherite than Thatcher; the US more reaganite than Reagan - remember, individualism always leads to consolidation of power which leads to removal of assistance and restriction of freedom.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38795495)

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38795827)

The points seemed clear enough to me.

(1) If piracy enablers are to blame, then why is no-one targetting Google?

(2) These laws and arrests aren't effected because the (relatively small) recording and movie industries control America but because they're one of a long list of recent laws which take away the freedom on the Internet, whence freedom of the people;

(3) If you want to halt the destruction of freedom then you need to put pressure on those who would destroy it;

(4) Propaganda plus the technological complexities of modern life make it harder to pin down the problem and convince others of it;

(5) Any philosophy of individualism inevitably leads to the consolidation of power structures - the government in bed with the corporations, or vice versa.

(5) is probably the most contentious of the points. (1) to (4) are pretty much obvious. About the only hard-to-understand thing in GP's post was "distraction technology" - it sounds conspiracy theory kooky until you realise it probably just meant "distraction of technology".

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796451)

The points seemed clear enough to me.

(1) If piracy enablers are to blame, then why is no-one targetting Google?

Because Google is willing to put forth the money required to do legal battle with the MPAA/RIAA. And Google has very deep pockets.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796629)

(1) If piracy enablers are to blame, then why is no-one targetting Google?

Because if someone told them they could no longer run a search engine, they would spend every dime they have proving otherwise. They have a lot of dimes by the way.
They have about half assets than the company that owns the biggest recording company in the world. If Vivendi were willing to sell, Google could probably buy Universal Music Group.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795195)

"We try to steer clear of things that would attract scrutiny," Labian said. "If people are pirating on our service, we don’t want those people to use it."

So what you're openly admitting is that you just don't know the extent of piracy on your service?

I read it as his service looks at the hosted files to verify they are not pirated material, which would imply his service is inappropriate for internal business use, which is too bad. I'd like a "business fileserver" provider for a little project I'm working on. Obviously I can roll my own with a virtual box provider like linode and sshfs but it would have been nice to just cut someone a check to handle backups and upgrades and general maintenance for us.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795425)

Never trust your cloud backup provider. Encrypt. If they can't read the file, you don't have to worry about them peeking.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (2)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795917)

MediaFire claim to delete encrypted files unless you're on one of their paid plans on the assumption that you're probably hiding pirated content in there. Expect other providers to follow suit.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

mvar (1386987) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795355)

I dont know MediaFire's business, but could someone clarify this for me - is a company that sells storage obligated to keep an eye on its clients' files for copyright infringement?

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795783)

Not unless it pays commissions for uploading files that become popular downloads.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38795825)

No - but they are obliged under the DMCA to take down infringing content when notified. MegaUpload wasn't doing this, which is one of the reasons they got busted..

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795525)

So what you're openly admitting is that you just don't know the extent of piracy on your service? I probably would have said "no comment" rather than risk the Eye of Sauron ... er RIAA/MPAA's gaze. From what I gather, it could 0% it could be 100% of your service based on pirates sharing files with each other but since you don't know it's okay? Unless you have some sort of Youtube-like fingerprinting going on, I'd just keep your mouth shut.

Saying no comment implies that you are guilty in the eyes of public opinion. It would be stupid for any legitimate organization that is trying to attract business customers to do that.

Businesses are going to be wary of dealing with file hosting websites after the megaupload take down. They will want to stay away from shady services that primary focus is dealing with copyrighted content because they risk losing their files. If Mediafire sells itself as a legitimate business, it will be good publicity and hopefully bring in more customers.

Megaupload got in trouble because they did not follow through on DMCA request and their business model encouraged piracy. As long as the Mediafire follows through on the DMCA request and don't try to actively go around the laws, they don't have much to worry about.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795723)

Exactly right. Under the DMCA, no one is required to take down infringing material proactively--in fact, if it's found you do this, you can be in more trouble for what you don't catch. Instead, you take a reactive approach and take things down when you get DMCA notifications. Then, you can be in compliance with the law without having to devote vast resources to policing your site, as others are policing it for you.

Re:Maybe Should Have Went with "No Statement" (1)

Shagg (99693) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795885)

Businesses are going to be wary of dealing with file hosting websites after the megaupload take down.

Which is exactly why it was taken down. File hosting sites provide competition to the RIAA/MPAA distribution cartel.

Professionals? (4, Funny)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795033)

Like... Professional pirates?

Re:Professionals? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795217)

Like... Professional pirates?

Somalians?

Re:Professionals? (2)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795343)

There is nothing more terrifying than a Somali pirate hacker.

Hmmmm (4, Interesting)

arcite (661011) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795085)

He might want to find a non-extradition country to relocate too....

Re:Hmmmm (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795157)

Better idea: Buy an island, and establish a non-extradition country, i mean island.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795369)

You still have to get your Internet connection from somewhere. Good luck with that if all you do is cause headaches for your ISP.

Re:Hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38795837)

Is liberty island for sale...?

Re:Hmmmm (0)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795971)

"A'yo, SECNAV [wikipedia.org] ? Obie here. Those SEAL niggas need to do some target practice. Some guys on a private island offered themselves as live ones and they'll leave some computers as a gift. Ship'em out RayRay, Dodd [wikipedia.org] 'll hook ya up later."

You may pirate when ready... (5, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795131)

"MediaFire CEO: We Don't Depend On Piracy"

- But it sure helps the bottom line!

Re:You may pirate when ready... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38796495)

RE: "But it sure helps the bottom line!"

- It doesn't, actually, because the pirates use bots to come download with and bypass the advertising. Your only hope is to get a membership out of them, which usually doesn't happen unless you are pro-bot like MegaUpload was.

Gotta love it when.... (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795151)

... they claim they aren't doing anything wrong, but completely change their services anyways.

Re:Gotta love it when.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38796411)

That's what happens when poorly drafted, overly-broad, draconian laws are written.

"We don't do X, but we didn't think our competitor, Y, did either, and they completely disappeared from existance before so much as a single hearing had taken place, so we'd better scale back anything that we think might even *possibly*, in the worst light, be construed as anything kinda sorta like X!"

Blocked Access to the US (4, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795181)

I wonder how many more companies will decide it necessary to block access to the US as ever more draconian actions are taken by our government?

Re:Blocked Access to the US (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38795261)

ever more draconian actions are taken by our government? [Citation Needed]
 
Please do your research on the mega* case. If you actually read the indictment (even if you don't believe parts of it), you'll find it hard to believe that they lasted as long as they did.

Re:Blocked Access to the US (1)

Tasha26 (1613349) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795583)

Do all dot COMs fall under US jurisdiction or am I missing something here? Would Megaupload.ru have suffered the same fate?

we're a legitimate business targeting professional (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795211)

Legitimate business is kindof an oxymoron when dealing with copyright issues. There's no such thing as a "legitimate" business... only "Has many lawyers" and "has no lawyers".

Re:we're a legitimate business targeting professio (2)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795251)

Or, has contributed 250000 to my campaign and taken me on a trip to hawaii vs. has not contributed 250000 to my campaign and taken me on a trip to hawaii.

Re:we're a legitimate business targeting professio (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795549)

I just read his quote with a mafioso accent and it all sounded right.

I use Mediafire professionally (1)

pinkj (521155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795351)

I certainly hope they don't plan on taking down Mediafire as I have over 2 years of work related files uploaded there. I paid for that storage. If they are going to go after every file storage site, what alternatives do we have?

Re:I use Mediafire professionally (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795475)

If your files are completely legitimate, there's no reason why you shouldn't just get a shared hosting account.

Re:I use Mediafire professionally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38795651)

Or pay a file hosting service, wait... he did.

Re:I use Mediafire professionally (1)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795803)

Shared hosting services often stipulate that you can't use them as file storage services--you have to actually be serving websites with them.

But really, if you are paying Mediafire to host your files, what's wrong with that? I just wouldn't use them as my only copy--only a fool would trust a cloud service with their one and only copy of anything.

Re:I use Mediafire professionally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38795533)

How about using one that doesn't have terms of service allowing the company to cancel your account for no reason?

Recall that what the government is doing is seizing the website. That means they become the owner. It's kind of like the government seizing a house full of tenants because the landlord bought it with drug money -- they don't get to evict you (the innocent third party) unless the lease says they can, right? Apparently the government is now arguing that Megaupload's terms of service allow them to do just that, but maybe somebody else's don't.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and I may not know what I'm talking about (so don't take this as legal advice), but I'd be curious to hear the thoughts of someone who is.

Re:I use Mediafire professionally (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795767)

Why would you put work-related files on a hoster full of full-screen popups and blinking animgif ads?

That's gotta look pretty bad to your clients.

Re:I use Mediafire professionally (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796023)

Who said anything about clients? They could very well be for internal usage.

Re:I use Mediafire professionally (2)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796553)

What would you even use it for internally?

Re:I use Mediafire professionally (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796625)

Hosting work related files. Those that download the files would most likely be other employees.

Re:I use Mediafire professionally (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795873)

Obviously you have something to hide, citizen. Please place your hands in the yellow circles and await a police action.

Re:I use Mediafire professionally (1)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796475)

Things like this make me so very glad I run my own server with some friends of mine for less than the combined cost of our personal web-hosting, file hosting and voice comm bills per month. Don't have to deal with this crap and can run my server my way. Granted, I get that it isn't an option for everyone. That all said, Megaupload was really asking for it when you look at the indictment, so I'm not too worried about them all going away, but it is frustrating to not know which ones might be following similar practices.

Re:I use Mediafire professionally (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796587)

but it is frustrating to not know which ones might be following similar practices.

I think it's pretty easy to judge what kind of business they are just by looking at their ads.

In the case of MediaFire, blinking animgifs all over their pages, and full-screen YOU HAVE WON AN IPHONE 4 popups.

Time to move? (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795353)

Its becoming increasingly evident that the US government doesn't want US citizens to compete globally. While it is most evident in the financial sector (try opening an ordinary bank account in a foreign country) that US citizens are unwanted due to our tyrannical state. It is soon going to be that US citizens are not wanted on most of the internet because they are too big of a liability.

So the question is raised. How much longer till it makes more sense to move outside of the US? Between a lack of freedom of movement, even within the country, to increasingly less freedom of speech and increasingly less economic freedoms it is becoming obvious that US citizenship is no longer really desirable but is slowly becoming a liability.

Re:Time to move? (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795479)

Its becoming increasingly evident that the US government doesn't want US citizens to compete globally. While it is most evident in the financial sector (try opening an ordinary bank account in a foreign country) that US citizens are unwanted due to our tyrannical state. It is soon going to be that US citizens are not wanted on most of the internet because they are too big of a liability.

So the question is raised. How much longer till it makes more sense to move outside of the US? Between a lack of freedom of movement, even within the country, to increasingly less freedom of speech and increasingly less economic freedoms it is becoming obvious that US citizenship is no longer really desirable but is slowly becoming a liability.

Bye. Delta is ready when you are. BTW, good luck with "economic freedoms" in Europe.. as if anyone in Britain or the EU has fewer regulations than the US. Maybe Asia is more your speed. They've got the tiger economies, but then again, they're almost completely export-dependent on the US and Europe.

Re:Time to move? (1)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795711)

The US has some of the best laws in the world for technology companies. There is a reason why the majority of tech start ups were founded in the US and not somewhere else.

Re:Time to move? (1)

nhat11 (1608159) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795883)

Move to China, I'm sure your original ideas or technology will not be copied within a day, lol.

Re:Time to move? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795903)

Pretty much every country in the first world is a U.S. lapdog when it comes to IP laws. So moving to Europe isn't going to help.

Re:Time to move? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38796369)

So not letting people pirate is a sign of not competing globally? Huh?

Re:Time to move? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796453)

Singapore is a pretty good option, I'm a Canuck and I've been considering it for the last couple of years. And since Iceland is considering moving to the loonie(canadian currency), I may move there if they do that too. Both are viable in my book. Considering the hassle of even traveling to the place I have in the US anymore, I've already sold my US property I was going to retire to. And here I was planning 20 years ahead, well at least I cleared an extra 100k to the bank.

Professionals? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795359)

A legitimate business targeting professionals.

Targeting them with animated GIF ads and "YOU HAVE WON AN IPHONE 4" popups?

Likely story, there.

Re:Professionals? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38795553)

Wasn't there a Slashdot article about more business professionals using the iPhone?

How to fix file sharing piracy. (1)

StoutFiles (2471680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795371)

1. User uploads file all_nintendo_roms.zip
2. User is allowed to make NO COMMENTS about file.
3. File sharing site changes file name to XjyrtGSdfrtd_fgre.zip
4. File sharing site tell user the file is now been changed to XjyrtGSdfrtd_fgre.zip and gives link to file.
5. When people use file sharing search engines and search for nintendo roms, THEY DON"T FIND all_nintendo_roms.zip nor do they get assistance by comments about the file.

Of course, file sharing sites would be hurt if files weren't named after what people are trying to get for free. This is an obvious change though that would solve 90% of the problem.

Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795441)

6. Someone sets up a members-only site called TheGameBay.net and uses it to post links to roms hosted on your hypothetical site.

Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38795635)

"6. Someone sets up a members-only site called TheGameBay.net and uses it to post links to roms hosted on your hypothetical site."

Which seems to be a common way people find things on just about every file hosting/sharing site like mediafire/megaupload/etc. Both illegal and legal might I add.

Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. (1)

StoutFiles (2471680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795741)

Yes, that would be the 10% of the problem that can't easily be fixed. With my solution though, the file sharing companies can easily claim ignorance and search engines aren't linking to the files.

Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795845)

I know of no filesharing site that does this automatically, but some users themselves give cryptic names to their files for this reason.
yeah, generally a cryptically named archive with clearly named files inside it. (so people aren't confused by what they have once they download it.)

then again, maybe some uploaders are too lazy to organize their stuff. tempted to do it for them...

http://support.mediafire.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/15/1/can-i-search-files-from-other-mediafire-users [mediafire.com]
MediaFire doesn't allow searching, but Google often seems to have results for filenames of something on MediaFire.

Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795865)

Changing file names to gibberish would also annoy and inconvenience legitimate users. Why should people have to rename after each download?

Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795999)

Why would you have to rename after each download? Let the client take care of that.

Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. (1)

discord5 (798235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795989)

6. User then posts the link to a forum, and happily describes them as "All nintendo roms evarrrrr"
7. Google indexes said forum
8. Joe Average gets his free roms
9. Lawyer time

So much for that plan

Re:How to fix file sharing piracy. (1)

StoutFiles (2471680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796329)

Forum gets takedown notice. It's much easier to reupload a file than it is to buy an extra domain name and move all your files to that server and convince users to come over as well. Most forum moderators actively delete content for this reason.

I never said this took care of 100% of the problem. However, it would make files harder to find for Joe Average if he had to search through shady forums and click links that don't describe the file he's about to download. It would also help absolve any liability for the file hosts as the file isn't clearly marked as illegal.

my mediafire account (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38795451)

my mediafire account is full of legitimate files. myself and many others in the community of spare time music makers share all our albums and songs on mediafire. tis great.

Everybody knows... (1)

Tasha26 (1613349) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795527)

that the sure way to draw attention on your business, is by uploading a song on youtube and to make sure it praises the services offered by your business. What a coup de grâce or fireworks finale before exiting the scene!

"I'm a legitimate businessman." (4, Insightful)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795677)

Alarms always go off when someone tells me that.

Similarly, different kinds of alarms that go off when some one says, "I'm not a slut."

Re:"I'm a legitimate businessman." (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38795755)

"I am just a businessman, giving the people what they want,"
"All I do is satisfy a public demand."

Both are quotes from Al Capone

Re:"I'm a legitimate businessman." (5, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795945)

Alarms always go off when someone tells me that.

Similarly, different kinds of alarms that go off when some one says, "I'm not a slut."

"I am just a businessman, giving the people what they want,"
"All I do is satisfy a public demand."

Both are quotes from Al Capone

Sluts also satisfy a public demand, but without a Venn diagram I do not know if Al Capone was a slut or not.

Re:"I'm a legitimate businessman." (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796109)

Well, people did want alcohol. If our politicians wouldn't have idiotically implemented prohibition, people probably could have gotten what they wanted without so many skulls being cracked.

Re:"I'm a legitimate businessman." (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795981)

So is this guy. [wikipedia.org]

Re:"I'm a legitimate businessman." (1)

ClosedEyesSeeing (1278938) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796431)

Similarly, different kinds of alarms that go off when some one says, "I'm not a slut."

Usually means you have to break out the wallet.

Re:"I'm a legitimate businessman." (2)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796551)

What if they say "I'm not a slut, I'm a legitimate business woman"?

File Security (1)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795717)

It seems to me that one of the paramount services these types of companies offer is file security. If I put up a file to be shared among a group, I probably want to restrict access to that file to a specific group. Most often this is handled by requiring either a direct link or a password. If I am sharing confidential business information with a vendor or client, (say, graphics for an ad campaign that include pre-release pictures of the product), I don't want just anyone to download it. Implicit in this need for security is the need for the owner of the service (e.g. MediaFire) to not be able to access the content. The market for hosted file sharing is going to be killed if it becomes a requirement that the host be able to read/view the content being hosted.

With apologies to Casablanca... (2)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38795735)

"I am shocked, absolutely shocked, to learn that there is copyright infringement going on with this filesharing website."

though seriously, this seems to be the standard argument that the overall service is OK because it has legitimate uses.

Yep (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796001)

Yep. MediaFire is my file host of choice for lots of nonproblematic stuff
I am glad to hear from them about this.

Less annoying to free users, which ironically made me more willing to get premium. (With MediaFire, me having premium does benefit nonpremium users downloading my stuff)

what's the difference with legitimate sites?? (1)

aktiveradio (851043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796157)

so what is the difference between "legitimate" sites like Dropbox, Skyfile, Box and sites like Megaupload and Filesonic; they all work the same way upload a file and share it with people. Mediafire is no different than Filesonic really is it?

No piracy here (1)

imuffin (196159) | more than 2 years ago | (#38796321)

Mediafire surely doesn't host any pirated software [mediafire.com] , movies [mediafire.com] , or music. [mediafire.com]

Oh, and these were just the first ones I came across, by googling terms like "MS Office site:mediafire.com"

Re:No piracy here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38796589)

Piracy or no ... friends don't let friends download Coldplay.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...