The file remains there. If you change the file folder, it will generate another link, totally accessible to anyone.

I find this pretty clever of them. Since theoretically they “don’t know” what you hosting there, they treat the link and the actual file as two separate things.

Don’t want your files removed? Simple, by a cheap cloud server and store what you like.

Need to share a file with someone? Send a link.
Need to share a file with the masses? Risk it and use a file hosting service like MEGA, it’s their servers they can do whatever they want to with the files.

You’re moaning about a service that is FREE, fuckin’ cheapskate cunts, it’s as though storage is expensive in today’s world, fuckin’ indie artists moaning they’re legal songs are being deleted, store it yourselves muppets.

Some people.

Yes. I do agree with the public’s right to shout “Fire! Fire!” in a crowded theatre.

http://www.popehat.com/?s=crowded+theatre

“People tend to cite the “fire in a crowded theater” quote for two reasons, both bolstered by Holmes’ fame. First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Saying it is not an apt or persuasive argument for the proposition that some particular speech is unprotected, any more than saying “well, some speech is protected by the First Amendment” is a persuasive argument to the contrary. Second, people tend to cite Holmes to imply that there is some undisclosed legal authority showing that the speech they are criticizing is not protected by the First Amendment.”

Just because it’s a common phrase does not mean that it’s valid ground to stand on. The concept you’re describing was utilized to suppress someone’s right to distribute pamphlets advocating against conscription, and the decision that the “fire in a crowded theatre” argument was used in favour of was also overturned over 50 years ago specifically because it was a violation of people’s rights to freedom of speech.

Certainly, if there is a fire in a crowded theatre, one should absolutely make people aware. Are you advocating “every man for himself” when the theatre is on fire, and quietly making your way out on your own, because otherwise someone might get trampled, so let’s let them worry about it on their own and quite possibly let the entire audience burn to death? I’d say given the choice, sharing the knowledge with my fellow man stands a much greater chance to incur less death.

Or do you mean falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre, causing a stampede that killed people needlessly? While certainly there are certain situations in which the greater good would be more important than the right to freedom of speech (and this concept pains me to even agree with) I do not think it is a valid argument in favour of acceptance of suppression of any free speech. Indeed, american courts have found this to be the case time and time again, even when discussing hate speech that can potentially incite violence, it is still constitutionally protected. As it should be.

There is no valid argument that freedom of speech should not be allowed; in fact enforced. Anything else is a slippery slope towards repression, and this is something that the forefathers recognized when writing the constitution, which is why it’s enshrined therein. Certainly without freedom of speech America would never have become the land of the free.

/patriotic bullshit. My point is that there is no argument that one can make that would ever convince me that censorship is a favourable tactic, in any situation.