5 ms·
> If 'illegal' was as binary as you want to imply, then all penalties would be exactly the same What a ridiculous statement, which bears absolutely no relation
by chairface 15y ago
> If 'illegal' was as binary as you want to imply, then all penalties would be exactly the same
What a ridiculous statement, which bears absolutely no relation to what I said.
> This statement implies that UMG was making a deliberate effort to shut down MegaUpload's campaign
... That's because DMCA takedown notices require deliberate effort. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
- pyre 15y ago> That's because DMCA takedown notices require deliberate > effort. Are you being intentionally obtuse? You've translated: > A DMCA take-down notice requires a statement under > penalty of perjury that the issuer has a good-faith > reason to believe that they are the owner of the > copyright in question. Into meaning that the following two statements are equivalent: I want to take down this video because I want to stop MegaUpload's viral campaign because it could be damaging to my bottom line. and This video has the name 'Snoop Dogg' in it so I'll send a take-down notice because I might own the copyrights to this, and I'm too lazy/over-worked to be bothered to check. You say that the above statements are equivalent because the end result is the same (a video is wrongfully and illegally taken down). If that is true, then you have to accept that nothing that you do in your life matters because you'll only end up dead. The end result is exactly the same.
- chairface 15y agoMore ridiculous drivel. The "end result" of my life will be substantially different, depending on how I affect the people around me. Do you have anything to say that's even slightly true?