But hosting and profit are agnostic. It doesn’t matter what is hosted – if you’re making a profit from offering a hosting service it’s the responsibility of users what they upload, not the host. And no file storage host should have to expect having their business destroyed on the whim of another industry.

I forgot to carry over the “these stories don’t even make sense by themselves, so let’s make up a new story” remainder.

Here’s your yellow cake.

Which is correct under the DMCA takedown legislation. MU have previously stated this was the case. They only kept a single copy of a file on the servers if duplicates of the file were uploaded and only removed links to the file for users the copyright holders demonstrated to be infringing. It isn’t in the remit of the DMCA to require service providers to know who holds the copyright for a file. It remains the responsibility of the copyright holders to police their own works. If MU were to remove the file itself if could quite easily have disabled access for a perfectly legitimate uploader. Without the copyright holders showing that ALL uploaders of that particular file were infringing then there’d be no reason for MU to delete the copy on their servers rather than just the links.

So what’s the US govt’s case again?

How is it possible to do some “X% of TOTAL” kind of stats then?

Oh well i guess those stats are just as reliable as the warrant used to arrest KimDotcom at first.