Beta
×

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!

150 Copyright Notices For Mega

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the well-that's-the-business-model dept.

The Internet 199

Master Moose writes "Kim Dotcom's Mega file sharing site has been stung with 150 copyright warnings, according to an international report. Dotcom launched the new fire-sharing website on January 20 in a blaze of fireworks and publicity.Less than two weeks later and Computerworld.com is reporting the company removed content after receiving 150 copyright infringement notices." Raise your hand if you're shocked, simply shocked.

cancel ×

199 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42749941)

Cause I can.

captcha: Travesty

Re:First (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750967)

Typed with one hand or werent shocked?

Hmm... (5, Insightful)

GiantMolecularCloud (2825541) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749961)

I wonder how difficult it would be to upload copyrighted content and then file a complaint about it...

Re:Hmm... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750183)

That question got me thinking. If Sony uploads copyrighted material (stripping out all the copyright notices and warnings), how am I as a user supposed to differentiate between the copyrighted material and the non-copyrighted material? That would be like Spalding stripping off the price tags on it's basketballs, throwing them in a donation bin, and then prosecuting anyone that took one for theft.

Re:Hmm... (2)

Zimluura (2543412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750491)

it's worse than that. nearly all material on the internet is copyrighted. even this post i am typing. how are you supposed to know if you have my permission to view it?

Re:Hmm... (5, Funny)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750571)

how are you supposed to know if you have my permission to view it?

I am quite capable of forming my opinions on your posts without reading them.

Re:Hmm... (2)

cdrguru (88047) | about a year and a half ago | (#42751249)

Copyright doesn't affect anyone's right to view something, only to distribute it.

So you can view anything, but you may not have the right to copy it and post it somewhere else. Especially if you claim to be the author of it.

Obviously the only control you have over preventing people from viewing something is to restrict access or not post it to begin with.

Re:Hmm... (2)

meerling (1487879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42751325)

Not according to MPAA.
Or in the case of RIAA, listening to it.

Just read some of their public statements, and legal claims.

Re:Hmm... (1)

Zimluura (2543412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42751493)

you must cache it on your computer and that, in a technical sense, is duplication.

still what you are saying is *probably* right (insofar as no wealthy copyright holder has yet forced the us courts to decide).

Re:Hmm... (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750825)

This would be fraud on their part. Thought experiments are one thing, official and deliberate criminal activity is another.

Re:Hmm... (4, Insightful)

alexo (9335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750845)

Exactly. You have no idea of knowing whether "distributing" something might lend you in jail or ruin you financially.
Better be safe and all of your cultural sharing only via approved channels.
After all, what's a small fee for the assurance that you won't be charged with supporting communist terrorist pedophiles?

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42751231)

Well, at least in Germany the act of downloading is completely legal. It's the making available/uploading that means trouble for you.

Re:Hmm... (4, Funny)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750255)

Much easier than it would be to upload fire: "Dotcom launched the new fire-sharing website "

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750545)

The best part is that he apparently launched it, "in a blaze of fireworks and publicity." How fitting!

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750631)

Ask any arson, it's not difficult at all to share fire!

(I am not an arson, and I do not start (or share) fires)

Re:Hmm... (1)

danomac (1032160) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750905)

...and got burned with 150 copyright notices!

Re:Hmm... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750269)

You really think there's a need for such subterfuge?

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750553)

Thanks, I have a new word of the day!

Re:Hmm...; Money better spent buying a politician. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750311)

I'm sure very easy. But very soon copyright owner will become tired of sending so many take-down notices and demand that laws be changed to prosecute if a file is stored for just a few days, because its a trivial process to remove all violating content from their site because their using a file system similar to ZFS. In ZFS there is only one actual file, yet there maybe a hundred-thousands links to it by each individual user. So Mega could easily remove over a 150 violations an hour system-wide, and this will bother the Media-Maffia, because they would have to file several thousand complaints a day for weeks just to overwhelm Mega for a little more then a few days.

Re:Hmm...; Money better spent buying a politician. (1)

meerling (1487879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42751349)

How will they become tired when so many of the copyright take-down notices are being sent by poorly automated software-bots?

Re:Hmm... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750431)

Given the encryption, how would they even know unless they did it themselves? Maybe this is setting the stage for big content lobbying to get pre-emptive complaints into law. "This is a notice that we own the content to these copyrights, if anyone puts them onto your site in the future, we get to sue you. What's that? This will destroy the internet if it's successful? Oh deary me, what a loss! You've been notified, we'll see you in court immediately after we upload our own stuff to your site."

Re:Hmm... (1, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750513)

Because encrypted data that can't be unencrypted is useless.

I don't think you understand the idea of sharing if you think handing someone a blob of randomness and saying 'its encrypted!' is what sharing is.

Dotcom uses websites to profit from people sharing files that they shouldn't be sharing. If you still don't understand that, stop reading now, theres no way anything on this post or entire thread will make sense to you.

In order for people to give a flying fuck about his website ... where he makes money off ads ... they have to be able to decrypt whatever is on the site. That information is more or less made public, in which case, its trivial for anyone to figure out whats on the site.

Why is it so difficult to understand that other people kind find warez on the Internet just like you can?

People that need to legitimately share things do it in a far less complicated way.

Re:Hmm... (4, Interesting)

Scoth (879800) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750633)

Very much This. Keep in mind as well that the encryption was for *his* protection, not the users'. He wanted to be able to claim that he had no way of knowing what was uploaded or what its content was. That he's still getting copyright takedown notices should come as no surprise at all to anyone. The difference is he can at least try to claim that he had no idea it was copyrighted material. It'll be interesting arguments if it ever ends up in court or similar.

Re:Hmm... (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750855)

Yep - just setup a bittorrent client and add to one of the Linux distro clouds. Or all of them.

Re:Hmm... (1)

Terrasque (796014) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750767)

Alternatively, they just scraped this [mega-search.me] ..

No need to overthink it.

Re:Hmm...Go forth and multiply (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750773)

Dont read this [mega.co.nz]

Re:Hmm...Go forth and multiply (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750853)

You forgot your key, sir. aa5XhgKQ4EsZYsTQz2x27ycAWp8PrhU5c4eVmPFc7AM

Re:Hmm... (4, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750819)

Encryption isn't magic. If someone uses the site to share a file with the general public, they have to somehow enable the public to decrypt the data, right? The copyright owner can simply use the same method.

Oddly, the DMCA actually protects against exactly the scheme you came up with. It places the operator of the website in the position where they simply need to take down offending material to protect themselves from liability. So Sony can't upload a video to the site and then sue them. They can upload a video to the site and give them a takedown notice, but if the material is taken down, then they have no ability to sue. (Despite its faults, one of the useful purposes of the DMCA was to make a clearly-defined legal framework in which the operator of a website can have immunity from liability for any copyrighted material uploaded to their website. Prior to that, it was ill-defined, which is a serious risk.)

Re:Hmm... (2)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42751373)

Exactly this. The article basically outlines how the takedown notices are being used as intended. This isn't anything to fault Mega or the copyright holders over, and it certainly isn't big news.

The headline and summary essentially comes out to "Mega got some copyright notices and took some stuff down". It's a non-issue, and clearly someone trying to be the first one to paint the new Mega service as a bad-willed haven for pirates and thieves. As long as they take stuff down when reported, there's no issue.

Also, please note that Mega is in New Zealand, and thus is not subject to US copyright laws.

Re:Hmm... (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42751059)

Ok, lets infringe a bit of copyrights from around the world... think in the number pi. There, you have it, inside it probably are encrypted all the past, present and future movies, books, songs, images, genes, or whatever could be ever copyrighted in the most stupid copyright system of the history. Also you have the text of all national security documents, the passwords of all the servers and personal computers of the world, all the pins from all credit cards and detailed instructions on how to build any weapon, to name just a few things.

So, as you have all that information (no matter if you can actually access to it or not), you get sued.

Re:Hmm... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750701)

150 times?

incredibly easy, actually. Especially if you're the US government's copyright stasi.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750831)

That's just silly hyperbole. It's private enterprises running copyright notice bots these days. The government just does what it is told to do (by the copyright MAFIAA). If there is a problem with the government, it is with the ease with which you can buy yourself some legislation or enforcement services, as long as you're big&rich enough. (And people tell me democracy is dangerous because of the risk of mob rule. huh.) But yeah, the number is completely insignificant compared to, say, what youtube gets each day.

Re:Hmm... (2)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750777)

I wonder how difficult it would be to upload copyrighted content and then file a complaint about it...

Should have seen that coming and had a statement on the upload area to the effect that "any content uploaded to this site found to be from copyright holders, organizations or employees of those, relinquish any copyrights on said material in perpetuity."

Re:Hmm... (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | about a year and a half ago | (#42751009)

So if I wrote code licensed under the GPL and posted it with a notice clearly indicating the license, you are suggested that I should have to relinquish copyrights and lose my right to enforce the GPL?

Re:Hmm... (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year and a half ago | (#42751329)

If you upload it to a website with such notice and that you are the copyright holder, then yes.

Re:Hmm... (1)

eth1 (94901) | about a year and a half ago | (#42751397)

I wonder how difficult it would be to upload copyrighted content and then file a complaint about it...

Should have seen that coming and had a statement on the upload area to the effect that "any content uploaded to this site found to be from copyright holders, organizations or employees of those, relinquish any copyrights on said material in perpetuity."

Well, no one would use it for anything legitimate at all if that was the case. Better would be "by uploading content you hold the copyright to, you grant us a license to make copies as required for proper storage, and to distribute to anyone who can access it based on the permissions you set."

what? (1)

liamevo (1358257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749967)

Your shocked sarcasm loses me... what point are you trying to make?

Re:what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750013)

Only 150?

Re:what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750141)

Exactly. +1

Re:what? (2)

sirlark (1676276) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750961)

Indeed! Only 150 requests compared to 500,000 memebership within 14 hours of going live. Clearly this site exists substantially for piracy purposes, after all 0.003% of users (assuming those requests each targeted a unique user) are known infiringers! </sarcasm>

Re:what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750151)

Sarcastaball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcastaball - he can't help it.

Re:what? (1)

tooyoung (853621) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750381)

I'm shocked the submitter submitted a story to slashdot that even they thought wasn't newsworthy.

Well, actually....

Only 150? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42749981)

Yeah, I'm shocked...

Re:Only 150? (4, Funny)

Zappy (7013) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750041)

So, the upload is working now?

What about Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42749983)

They should send millions of copyright warnings to Google, too. To make the Interwebs a cleaner, better place where people can pay for the shit that is customarily shoved up their anus by large media companies!

Stung? Really? (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749987)

He is Dotcom! You are like the buzzing of flies to him!

Sounds like a great success. (5, Insightful)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about a year and a half ago | (#42749991)

150 complaints out of the millions of accounts they claim is pretty darn good.

Re:Sounds like a great success. (2)

EasyTarget (43516) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750413)

Indeed; Interesting how the article does not point out how many items are currently shared on Mega either, which will already be in the millions.

Re:Sounds like a great success. (3, Interesting)

GIL_Dude (850471) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750783)

Well since the files are encrypted, these 150 files are simply ones where the user shared the link and the key in the URL. This can also be done via mega-search.me. In fact, according to Ars Technica http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/01/wait-for-it-select-files-from-mega-now-indexed-on-third-party-site/ [arstechnica.com] , several people have shared copyrighted material using Mega as storage and mega-search.me as the locator. These files can easily be checked by the copyright holder.

Re:Sounds like a great success. (2)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year and a half ago | (#42751517)

150 complaints out of the millions of accounts they claim is pretty darn good.

Indeed. Here's a quick thumbnail check against YouTube:

More than 120 million videos have been claimed by Content ID

If 150 notices is getting "stung", what does 120 million count as?

Why is this news? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750005)

Megaupload had the same policy of removing copyrighted content. Even providing special access for rights holders to flag content themselves.

It's not like Doctom wanted Mega to be a Pirate Bay...

Re:Why is this news? (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750075)

Megaupload had the same policy of removing copyrighted content. Even providing special access for rights holders to flag content themselves.

It's not like Doctom wanted Mega to be a Pirate Bay...

Quite right. But then if I'm Megaupload, I'm not going to cry about all this hub-bub. It's free publicity.

Re:Why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750375)

"It's not like Dotcom wanted to appear accepting Mega to be a Pirate Bay".

Fixed that for you. Everything we knows clearly draws the picture that all Mr. Schmitz cares about is not being legally responsible for the wrongdoings on his site.

Re:Why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750991)

all Mr. Schmitz cares about is not being legally responsible for the wrongdoings on his site.

Wah wah wah you crammed your DMCA down our throats which did exactly that. You made your own bed, now quit crying like a little girl and lay in it.

Re:Why is this news? (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750533)

It's not like Doctom wanted Mega to be a Pirate Bay...

Yea, and I have some ocean front property to sell you in Vegas. I'll sell it REALLY cheap.

Are you really that stupid?

Filesharing sites are pointless when YouTube... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750069)

... is around. You can find almost any song on YT and a ton of full-length movies, all for free. You can attach "listento" after www. in YT's URL and download an MP3 of a video, for example. There's many other sites like that. And with iTunes Match around, you can convert any mp3 to a really nice 256kbps AAC file.

Movies are a little bit trickier but if you get creative with your google searching, you'll find sites with embedded YT private videos fairly easily.

I used to download a lot and was a "quality snob" and only used to download 320kbps files or FLAC files but now I just don't care.

So while these filesharing sites are getting all this flak from the RIAA/MPAA etc, the best way to "share" is just a click away on YT.

Re:Filesharing sites are pointless when YouTube... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750181)

This video is not available in your country...

Re:Filesharing sites are pointless when YouTube... (1)

mTor (18585) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750865)

Have you tried ProxMate for Firefox [mozilla.org] ? I use to to unblock when I want to watch some UK shows. I'm sure it works the other way around (i.e. for foreigners who want to watch American-only programming).

Proxmate just loads the page through a proxy and the video is streamed through your connection so there's no slowdown due to a use of a slow proxy.

Re:Filesharing sites are pointless when YouTube... (1)

cpghost (719344) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750237)

How do you share e-books via YouTube? By displaying every page in a video for a couple of minutes (or milliseconds)?

Re:Filesharing sites are pointless when YouTube... (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750473)

Maybe not like that, but it's conceivable that you could steganographically hide files inside the coded video stream, like how they embed digital watermarks. An interesting idea.

Re:Filesharing sites are pointless when YouTube... (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | about a year and a half ago | (#42751031)

I would be surprised if Youtube didn't recode your files at least somewhat, which would likely cause the loss of any encoded data.

Re:Filesharing sites are pointless when YouTube... (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750297)

I'd rather gouge my ears out.

Compress and rename (1)

CoolCalmChris (991775) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750703)

Anyone that thinks "fullalbumname.zip" is an acceptable title for something linked on a public blog or site needs a check up from the neck up.

fire sharing huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750111)

With fire, you can give someone else fire while keeping the original fire yourself. Pretty nifty. Understandably, the caveman lawyers don't like this.

Re:fire sharing huh? (1)

khr (708262) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750167)

Didn't learn from Prometheus, huh?

Sure I learned from Prometheus (1)

Trashcan Romeo (2675341) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750689)

Never see another Ridley Scott science fiction movie again.

Re:fire sharing huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750565)

They are hard at work on fire DRM and unilateral fire extinguishing notices.

zzzzzz (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750113)

zzzzzzzz

Re:zzzzzz (1)

larppaxyz (1333319) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750973)

Yes, what makes whole Mega thing interesting? Free storage? History of Mr. Dot? I would never upload anything to that service.

150 is significant? (3, Interesting)

BLKMGK (34057) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750123)

He supposedly got a million subscribers on the first day, including myself. 150 takedown notices is significant in light of this? Google probably process that many in a half day and no one says a thing. That this new service has so few should probably be the news rather than the other way around. This seems pretty trivial to me, especially in light of the fact that his previous service handled so many takedowns that they granted the content folks special access like YouTube does. Bet he doesn't do that again...

Re:150 is significant? (1)

GrahamJ (241784) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750387)

The other way around IS the news. TFA is clearly tongue-in-cheek.

Re:150 is significant? (1)

RandomUsername99 (574692) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750811)

Yeah, compared to YouTube, I'm quite sure this is peanuts.

Re:150 is significant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42751143)

Google only has 300 a day? More like 300 000.

Huh?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750131)

If, as has been stated, all content on the Mega site is encrypted, and only the poster has the decryption key, how in Hell do the complainers know the items in contention are infringing?? The only way I can figure out is if the complainers actually posted the material they are complaining about.

Re:Huh?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750185)

The uploader probably posted they key on a public forum so other people can download the content.

So the problem for filesharers is "how can I share my key with lots of anonymous downloader types whilst not letting the content owners find it".

Re:Huh?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750885)

You can use http://mega-search.me to find files on Mega.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750155)

new fire-sharing website

Should've called it Prometheus.

On another news (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750159)

Youtube received 150 take down notices this week.

Re:On another news (1)

angelbar (1823238) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750369)

I wil not be surprised if Youtube get 150 takedowns in half a day.

Re:On another news (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | about a year and a half ago | (#42751217)

According to http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/ [google.com] (for google):
13 million requests received in the last month to remove links from Google. That equates to over 430,000 in one day or roughly 150 requests every 30 seconds.

Youtube may not be on quite the same scale, but I would still be surprised if it took more than an hour to reach 150 requests.

But... But.. (3, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750161)

Encryption! Der!

Seems he learned his lesson at least, and actually removed the content. You know what would be funny? If the FBI asked him to keep the files to help with an on-going investigation.

Re:But... But.. (2)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750495)

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me.... you can't get fooled again.

Re:But... But.. (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750563)

FB what ? There's a reason he refuses to host anything in the USA anymore. So he can tell the FBI to GTFO.

Re:But... But.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42751553)

Maybe it's time to have the file servers in Antigua? I wonder how good their internet connections are?

150? (2)

Mr_Silver (213637) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750175)

Raise your hand if you're shocked, simply shocked.

Honestly? I'm surprised they didn't have more than 150.

FIRE! (1)

shemyazaz (1494359) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750219)

"fire-sharing" I am intrigued by your idea and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:FIRE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750353)

I'm surprised to learn that fire still had copyright protection. If there was anything I assumed would be in the public domain, it was fire.

Next you'll be telling me that sex is protected.

Re:FIRE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750759)

I was kinda thinking the misspelling is deliberate, since the announcement also mentions "blaze" and "fireworks".

Out of???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750221)

150 out of how many total users and total files on the system?

We are not fooled by government propaganda and reports by the media terrorist.

The real question: incentives to pirate... (2)

nweaver (113078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750241)

The big reason that MegaUpload got into huge trouble is they structured things to create an incentive for piracy: those who uploaded "popular" files would earn $$$, and the "takedown" implemented by MegaUpload was deliberately defective: only taking down single URLs when, behind the scene, they kept the files available with different URLs. Thus the old MegaUpload deliberately created a structure to encourage and benefit from piracy.

If the new Mega drops this incentive structure, and their encryption eliminates the deduplication, they should be in much more solid shape.

I'd like to see... (2)

grub (11606) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750249)

... something like multicast BitTorrent. Not sure how it would scale with all those clients feeding into it but if it worked, holy moly would that be fast.

Mega knows what the uploaded files contained? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750489)

Are they just getting a DMCA infringement notice and blindly taking down content? If true, seems like a policy that can be abused.

Re:Mega knows what the uploaded files contained? (1)

MisterZimbu (302338) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750743)

My understanding is that that's pretty much SOP for any hosting provider (and possibly even the required action by the DMCA) and that it's illegal to DMCA something that you don't own the copyright to, or something that doesn't violate the copyright.

Of course, we're dealing with large companies and rich people here, who as we all know are immune to laws.

Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750507)

Google gets 2.5 MILLION DMCA notices a week. 150 is nothing.

wat (1)

JustOK (667959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750519)

rased ad bt t aes t ard t te tgs

Link to the original please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750549)

You link to a story that refers to the original story.

Why ? ( beyond usual slashdot incompetence )

An idea on how to handle takedowns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42750557)

Allow the media companies themselves to register and take-down material they own. Assess a $5,000 fine for every improper takedown to keep them honest, with their account suspended whenever unpaid fines exist.

Operate outside US jurisdiction, and handle all due process yourself.

*waves arm in the air* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42751123)

Me sir! I am shocked, simply shocked!

Never saw that coming. Who would have thought that out of a million subscribers only 150 would infringe. Shocked I tell you!

I guess the "Mega" business model is working. (1)

OneSmartFellow (716217) | about a year and a half ago | (#42751229)

When I read the details about the circumstances under which one would need to pay to access the site, it struck me that Kim had hit upon a truly novel idea; to wit, make the copyright holder pay in order to access his own copyrighted material - in order to verify of course !

Genius Kim, pure genius !

How do these kind of people get away with it? (0)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42751471)

Kim Dotcom got into major legal problems and arrested with Megaupload. Now he's just launching a new huge "warez" site like nothing happened? There are these certain people that just swipe off the dust from their shoulders and move on to the next project, no matter how badly they get beaten.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>