So we won’t answer questions unless they are about the law.

“You have no proof, therefore you have no fact.”

There was no opinion there, you’re only seeing one because you want to.

“So you acknowledge that your wrong”

“So you..”

We’ve talked about this phrase. It only means you’re strawmaning my argument and this wasn’t even a good attempt. It’s the exact opposite of what I said.

“It was most definitely your opinion”

Hilariously, it is your opinion that it is my opinion. Too bad objectively it’s a fact.

“By MU leaving the file for the other users of the file to utilize the same file (MU’s and other filelockers method of reducing storage) they therefore did not disable the file.”

I still don’t see how this isn’t being compliant. Links to infringing content are taken down when requested as per the DMCA requirements.

“There is nothing in the law that gives you a clean slate if you were previously breaking the law but changed to a pretense of abiding by it at a later date.”

Again, there is no such distinction in the DMCA You are either compliant or you are not and such an idea basically makes the safe harbor even more worthless seeing as you can now suddenly claim “oh you didn’t comply with the DMCA til your first notice, suck lawsuit”. It’s idiotic.

“So you are saying that youtube lies when it claims to have fully deleted an infringing video ?”

It doesn’t claim anything. This is completely transparent.

“Far from it. You are of the opinion that youtube’s biggest earners have something in common with the tens of thousands of uploaders who upload copyright infringing content for the lulz or that they simply think they have right to . Biggest earners in no way corresponds to biggest infringers”

Uh, if they violate no copyright or infringement why the hell do you think they aren’t entitled to the profit of their works?

“One of youtubes biggest revenue sources is ad-space”

Advertising as far as I know, is not infringing.

“That is a lot of earning potential for YT and a good percentage of it will actually come from material infringing copyrights”

Based on what?

“Your comment is still true”

Hmmm, most perplexing.

“The one where you claim MU complied because you say so ?”

Because the law says so.

“I wish all cases were as cut and dry as the defendant saying “wasn’t me” and that was the end of the story.”

Only a blind idiot wouldn’t ave seen the evidence MU was simply a gift to ollywood lobbyists

“Your opinion and it’s irrelevant”

That wasn’t an opinion. Maybe you should look up the definition. Opinions are not facts that you don’t like.

“Are you suggesting that most ISPs and websites relying on safe harbor are actually violating it even though those same violations would exempt them from SH protection provisions ?”

English?

“It’s a completely different question, which you have still failed to answer. Do you need help ?”

It’s not changed. Its the same question, hence your quotes around it and you insistent re spewing of it.

“You haven’t posted any facts regarding the DMCA yet. Not a single one”

I have but you simply won’t acknowledge them . It’s a tin can shield for your entire argument.

“So your belief is that it is transparent, even though you have no evidence to back that up ?”

There is plenty of evidence. Take a look at some of the blatantly false DMCAs sent every day.

“The money flow is totally irrelevant.”

You brought it up.

Now it’s irrelevant.

Great job.

“MU profiting directly from copyright infringement however is very relevant.”

Money is not relevant. Money is relevant. Are you god damned kidding me? Where do you get these gems?

“Yours had one point”

I addressed your points and why they were false and severely understating the effectiveness of the DMCA.

“I completely disagree”

You would believe the idiocy that spews out of your mouth.

“Your points”

That’s the thing about strawmans, they’re your points. You’ve made them up and argued them.

“It’s not that private lol. A user in a forum posts content with a MU link, you take it down, same users posts same content with MU link almost immediately. It was that brazen.”

So infringement happens outside MU now? Well, MU can hardly be blamed for non compliance when it’s not on their site can they?

“Youtube and Google do more as I’ve already explained a few times now”

“No they dont”.

That’s not explained. but go on.

“I still think their exploiting the SH provisions but that’s just one of those things I guess…their exploitation is simply better than other websites that require safe harbor protection for their business model.”

You honestly believe Google and YouTube “infringe”? Are you really this idiotic as to believe your own lies?

“We’ll go over it until you understand the conditions”

Then you’ll be waiting a long time since I’m not going to lie to satisfy your ego. MU was compliant with the DMCA and your assertions otherwise are simply false

“Your answers swing one way to the other. You also contradict previous posts.”

Projecting again. You’re the only one whose position keeps swinging.

“How exactly could they not benefit from infringement”

Do you know how Youtube works?

“Do you think the user cares if the advert is placed next to copyrighted content”

Same question dude. Why do you think the answer will change?

“DO YOUTUBE SURFERS CARE?”

Do you think I do? I think the answer is fairly obvious.

“And like I said before, do you have proof that youtube do not fully remove infringing content ?”

So you’ve basically never used Youtube?

“No it’s not”

That was the gist. At least what I could interpret from it given what a hodge podge sentence it was.

“No it’s irrelevant”

It’s very relevant.

You wanted to talk profit, lets talk profit.

“It might not be if 99% of people used ad-blockers”

At what point does a loss become a relevant loss?

“It certainly is almost free if you have safe harbor”

You don’t have to pay for laws to apply to you.

Oh wait, this is the US. Stupid fucking me. Yeah, MU forget to pay their DMCA bribe the other year. My bad.. No wonder they got taken down.

“”apples” ? are you on drugs ?”

Something wrong with your browser?

“What’s stupid is that you can’t refute the point”

I can and have. You just won’t let yourself see that however so you cling to your precious and stupidly transparent points.

“Lets not talk about mistakes Ice, it’s not like you’re going to deflect why you cant answer a simple question”

Unless it’s about the DMCA, I’m not obligated to answer.

“There are much bigger reasons why RG is failing. Mostly because the upload monkeys started fleeing when RG started messing around with payouts and IIRC they lost a few processors too. The ads were an attempt by RG to stay afloat in the dark times lol not what they were using to generate some sort of revenue when their shady business was performing better”

And this supplements your point how? RG was a dog house long before it even tried ads.

“Not at all…..I’m playing the same game with this one question that you have throughout this whole debate”

So you won’t answer? At least you’re honest in this regard, too bad it shows how two faced you are.

“it doesn’t change the question either”

Good since it means I’ve already answered it.

” “Are you saying it makes any difference if someone is breaking the law for financial gain but they lost money doing?”.”

Question mark…. Missing one quotation mark…. See me after class.

“There are provisions for that”

Routinely ignored as fair use content gets taken down any way.

“So you can’t answer a simple question.”

So you can’t read a simple answer?

“And you’ve failed to answer 3 times.”

Failed? The only failure here is you and your literacy. You haven’t read anything have you?

“Are you suggesting that recipients of DMCA’s can’t read ?”

Are you? They are required to take action

“Are you suggesting that recipients of DMCA’s can’t use the counter-notification procedure ?”

Are you suggesting this is an excuse for disruptive and abusive behavior?

“There’s no miss-representing your post. You made a gargantuan fuckup of a sentence with absolutely no clarity to your point.”

Blowing this out of proportion is your specialty. You’ve done nothing but misrepresent me and my arguments from the start because you’re a fool who can’t argue the points posed to him, only his own vague and deliberately twisted interpretations of the point. I feel sorry for you.

“No you haven’t. A simple section and subsection of the DMCA document will suffice.”

So you don’t know DMCA sections you’ve quoted at me? classic.

“Actually I wont spot them, there are none”

Must be the Pelouze edition. It sees what it wants to.

“You never answered it.”

You mean “you answered it but I didn’t like your answer”.

“You have explicitly said since post 6 that a DMCA only..”

We’ve been over this. I believe I’ve corrected this and won’t be coerced into arguing over a typo I’ve long admitted

“And what do lawsuits against websites and companies have to do with anything ? .”

The safe harbor isn’t safe if they’re getting sued now is it? Even under the DMCA.

“I’m not using a MPAA or RIAA site.”

Not my point.

“I wouldn’t let you anywhere near a 6th grader.”

Then why are you still here?

“Point them out then….where have I attempted to pass off something in a post “as if” you had actually typed it yourself?”

cntrl+F “so you say”

I’d be fine with that if you did just copy/paste parts of my posts”

Which is what I’ve done.

“No, I genuinely think it’s an irrelevant question. And being asked to contribute to a debate is pointless.”

Fixed it so it looks lalot more like what you really mean.

Lets face it, you don’t want an argument or a debate here at all.

“How have I been caught red handed”

From your posting style, from previous covos and everything you’ve implied about the DMCA. You’ve wanted to come off as a lawyer of some kind lol.

“I don’t agree”

You don’t have to.

“I can remember my posts,”

Then when you’re saying that you haven’t said what I’ve copy and pasted from your posts isn’t you, you’re lying?

“Oh right….in your made up system that doesn’t exist.”

You asked for a fabrication. If that upsets you then I’m simply not going to bother with anything regarding this as you seem unable to distinguish reality from fantasy.

Get that checked out in the mean time..

“Yeah, for now its called the DMCA”

Fail to see how with the numerous cases surrounding people and groups dragged to court over it any way.

“So you failed again”

Big laws= big important.

This was your premise remember?

“adding and changing your car analogy don’t you.”

If you don’t like clarification to better suit the analogy you shouldn’t argue it.

“And NO….that is not how the DMCA works”

Sadly, you’re wrong. This is very much the DMCA as it stands today.

“No, just credible would be a good start.”

Yeah, you’re not fooling anyone. Not even yourself.

1) You have not asked me to find anything within the law. 2) I have not asked you any questions regarding the working of the law apart from whether YOU were able to back up your evidence by quoting from the law – which you have failed on every occasion as evidenced in your posts.

______________________

Opinion? What I told you was fact. If you aren’t going to accept that, you are living in lala land.

You have no proof, therefore you have no fact.

______________________

I’ve already acknowledged this and they were fully complaint. Maybe you stick to fiction if you wana make things up.

So you acknowledge that your wrong. There are more conditions to meet.
______________________

It wasn’t an opinion.

It was most definitely your opinion. Do you have any facts to back your opinion up ?
______________________

Removing the link is removing access to the file. How else do you justify Google’s infringement?

By MU leaving the file for the other users of the file to utilize the same file (MU’s and other filelockers method of reducing storage) they therefore did not disable the file.

______________________

Te safe harbor makes no such distinctions I’m afraid

There is nothing in the law that gives you a clean slate if you were previously breaking the law but changed to a pretense of abiding by it at a later date.

______________________

DMCAed content isn’t deleted, after it has processed a counter claim the video requires no reupload and keeps its previous stats.

You can also download the video you uploaded from your account, it’s much the same way private videos on a channel work.

So you are saying that youtube lies when it claims to have fully deleted an infringing video ?

And as I previously asked, have you ever issued a DMCA to youtube ?
______________________

Because it blows your advertising assertion out of the water?

Far from it. You are of the opinion that youtube’s biggest earners have something in common with the tens of thousands of uploaders who upload copyright infringing content for the lulz or that they simply think they have right to . Biggest earners in no way corresponds to biggest infringers

______________________

You want to claim Youtube makes revenue from infringement, you’re going to have give me something to go on.

One of youtubes biggest revenue sources is ad-space. I’ve already said this. They have nearly 5 billion video and page views per day. If (using your figures) only 40% see those ads, that’s 2 billion views to

their advertisements per day. That is a lot of earning potential for YT and a good percentage of it will actually come from material infringing copyrights

______________________

You misspelled false so I fixed it for ya.

Your comment is still false. And my screen shows no such spelling mistake.

______________________

haha. Nah. I unfortunately wish. I imagine it would be fun

Sadly your strawmaning isn’t doing you any favors as you simply ignore the fact Megaupload complied with DMCA take downs.

Which fact are you talking about ice ? The one where you claim MU complied because you say so ?

______________________

Because they said so. Read some of the court docs.

If MU say so….LOL. I wish all cases were as cut and dry as the defendant saying “wasn’t me” and that was the end of the story. LOL

Even the Judges know what’s going on here.

Your opinion and it’s irrelevant

______________________

Hah, millions. The DMCA is nothing but a paper shield designed to fall at first opposition, everyone uses it cause its harder to find you in a crowd.

Are you suggesting that most ISPs and websites relying on safe harbor are actually violating it even though those same violations would exempt them from SH protection provisions ?

______________________

Questions changing? Oh wait, no, its the same question. See above post where you asked this.

It’s a completely different question, which you have still failed to answer. Do you need help ?
______________________

It’s hard to argue my point if you wont acknowledge facts.

You haven’t posted any facts regarding the DMCA yet. Not a single one IIRC It’s easy to argue when you back your facts up Ice.
______________________

It is. Next stupid fucking question please.

So your belief is that it is transparent, even though you have no evidence to back that up ?…interesting lol.

______________________

You should just rephrase every time you judge something as “irrelevant” to it’s real meaning for you. “Disagree”.

The money flow is totally irrelevant. MU profiting directly from copyright infringement however is very relevant.

______________________

And evidently you don’t do this, you simply see what you want see.

My post contained 5 points that I feel backed up my point of view.

Yours had one point and even that point only contains one part of the safe harbor qualifying conditions…..why ? I guess because you can’t be bothered to find out the other conditions.

______________________

Hell we can’t get through a single reply from you now without you throwing words into my mouth and then arguing that point as though it were my point.

I completely disagree. Your points (when you make them) aren’t backed up by evidence or sources. Are you expecting me to just accept your word with zero evidence or as a minimum, some rational ?

______________________

Same user? I’d love to know how since that information is actually private to Megaupload and its customers.

It’s not that private lol. A user in a forum posts content with a MU link, you take it down, same users posts same content with MU link almost immediately. It was that brazen.

Remind me….did you ever DMCA megaupload ?

______________________

That’s Youtube does.

That’s what Google does.

Megaupload did and they don’t qualify for the same “exemptions” in your book.

Youtube and Google do more as I’ve already explained a few times now. I still think their exploiting the SH provisions but that’s just one of those things I guess…their exploitation is simply better than other websites that require safe harbor protection for their business model.

______________________

I don’t know how many times we will go over this but Megaupload was compliant with DMCAs.

We’ll go over it until you understand the conditions. And when you stop saying “Megaupload was compliant with DMCAs” with no evidence or rational and that you start to understand that removing links ARE NOT the only conditions to qualify for safe harbor

______________________

Answering my posts with “so you say” is a crutch so you can get something out of your mouth and into mine that you can more easily argue. If you can’t do that you have no place calling this a debate.

“Trust me, I’m never going to confuse your words with mine.”

Coulda fooled me.

Your answers swing one way to the other. You also contradict previous posts. You sometimes get your argument mixed up. You provide no evidence to back up your posts (mine are the Government PDF’s as I’ve told you and

you can refer to them whenever you like).

There is no crutch Ice. You simply don’t seem to want to back up your claims with any evidence. And sometimes it’s not clear WTF your referring to or talking about because you wont read the law. BTW You got the safe harbor conditions wrong again ;)

______________________

And you’ve quite simply been unable to prove Youtube benefits from infringement and you’re unwilling to accept either of these services have any use beyond infringement.

How exactly could they not benefit from infringement lol. Youtube serve ads on pages with video. Some video is sought after copyrighted content put their without the owners permission. Youtube gets 1000′s to millions

of views on these videos allowing them to serve their ads….until that is, the rights-holder finally comes across it and tells them to take it down. And then someone else just puts the same video back up again.

It’s affectionately called whack a mole lol

Don’t tell me…..you don’t see it or get it ;)

The benefits of the services have not even been part of this debate yet….you’re making things up again.

______________________

Same question. Same answer.

In what world does your answer Close to 60% of users never see ads on Youtube – answer my original question “Do you think the user cares if the advert is placed next to copyrighted content ?”

You buffoon lol.

And lets say we even taken your 60% figure with a grain of salt, what about the remianing 40%, do you think they CARE ?

The question is (and i’ll simplfy it even more for you) DO YOUTUBE SURFERS CARE THAT THE VIDEO IS COPYRIGHTED AND THE ACTUAL OWNERS OPPORTUNITY TO EARN FROM THEIR OWN CREATION IS REDUCED SIMPLY BECAUSE SOME RECTUM UPLOADED IT TO YOUTUBE…………………..IT CERTAINLY WASN’T “what percentage of youtube users does Ice think see the adverts” LOL

The only people earning here are youtube lol

______________________

They remove links. Not content.

And like I said before, do you have proof that youtube do not fully remove infringing content ?

______________________

Your argument is Megaupload is non complaint because they did remove infringing links.

No it’s not.

______________________

It is if you want to talk profit. Of course you’d be forced to admit you have no damned clue about this. Piracy makes no money.

No it’s irrelevant. It might not be if 99% of people used ad-blockers (and that would only decrease revenue to those businesses generating revenue from ads) but 99% is not a reality and even if you can’t make money from ads……others quite obviously can.

Cyberlockers is another very lucrative business for pirates.

So this “piracy makes no money” is horsehit. Maybe you mean “you don’t make much money from piracy”.

______________________

Nothing is free. Not even on the internet.

It certainly is almost free if you have safe harbor lol. Well, for one, you don’t have to pay for the millions in content creation costs when you have immunity from your users actions if you can follow some simple conditions ;)

______________________

You don’t pick and mix on what apples when and where in common law.

“apples” ? are you on drugs ?
______________________

Well its getting fucking stupid you can’t read your dumb shit and realize the difference between an “ad”, short for advert and “add”, as in adding and subtracting with math.

What’s stupid is that you can’t refute the point that you’ve been arguing for eons.

Lets not talk about mistakes Ice, it’s not like you’re going to deflect why you cant answer a simple question LOL.

Because otherwise we’d have to bring up for example, that you keep typing “Safe arbor”(because there’s a non working H on your keyboard I suspect) . And that last post where you’re talking about the law and “apples” ;)

______________________

Is this English?

Let me check….. what was the phrase you quoted ? Oh yes……“But ey, lets not let blindness get in teh way”

You know, I don’t know Ice….because YOU typed it (notice the missing H near the beginning of the sentence….that’s your keyboard not working again lol)

are you getting confused again ?

______________________

Big surprise? This was my point.

There are much bigger reasons why RG is failing. Mostly because the upload monkeys started fleeing when RG started messing around with payouts and IIRC they lost a few processors too. The ads were an attempt by RG to stay afloat in the dark times lol not what they were using to generate some sort of revenue when their shady business was performing better

______________________

*Yawn*. So it’s made up.

Not at all…..I’m playing the same game with this one question that you have throughout this whole debate and every “fact” that you think you have spoken but can’t back up…….which is Ice…go “Google it” ;) You’ll find them.

And if you have trouble you can ask me and i’ll give you the source.

______________________

Read upside down won’t really change the meaning.

It doesn’t change the question either – which was:

“Are you saying it makes any difference if someone is breaking the law for financial gain but they lost money doing.

______________________

Evidently not. Fair use is routinely overlooked despite its impact on free speech.

There are provisions for that, as I’ve said.

______________________

Ask the same question and you get the same answer. There’s no reason to change my answer just because you don’t like it.

So you can’t answer a simple question.

______________________

Weak? You’ve been posting essentially the same post 3 times.

And you’ve failed to answer 3 times.

______________________

As explained, it allows and encourages abuses of the system because of the lack of oversight in its enforcement.

Are you suggesting that recipients of DMCA’s can’t read ?

Are you suggesting that recipients of DMCA’s can’t use the counter-notification procedure ?

______________________

If you actually read the Exact post you quoted, you’ll find we were discussing contested DMCAs. It’s suddenly convenient for you to claim on my exact wording because you really can’t pick an argument apart without

misrepresenting it.

There’s no miss-representing your post. You made a gargantuan fuckup of a sentence with absolutely no clarity to your point.

______________________

I’ve shown you plenty of times where the DMCA perjury penalty is ignored. It’s not hard to find them.

No you haven’t. A simple section and subsection of the DMCA document will suffice.

______________________

Could have fooled me.

I have mentioned the Government PDF’s at least 6 times in my posts. Are you saying that you’re incapable of reading ?

______________________

Run a spell checking browser. You’ll spot them.

Actually I wont spot them, there are none.

______________________

Question unchanged. Answer unchanged.

You never answered it….again ;)

______________________

No. You “argued” that point for 15 posts because instead of being straight, opting for the “lololololl you look foolish” while I confusedly tried to coax an actual fact from your mouth.

You have explicitly said since post 6 that a DMCA only requires “a name and assertion”. It doesn’t and you were wrong all the way up to finally admitting the identifiers were part of a compliant DMCA.

1)I asked you to read the law repeatedly (that would have shown you that you were wrong straight away).(2) I told you what the identifiers were.(3)I explained that Counter DMCA’s didn’t require the same identifiers.

I spoon fed you the whole way with proof that you could check for yourself Ice (it’s in the fucking government PDF’s) and it still took you 15 posts.

______________________

Except it plainly hasn’t since we still have lawsuits pending on people in compliance with the DMCA.

It plainly has. I have always said the Safe harbor outweighs the other parts of the DMCA in relation to piracy.

And what do lawsuits against websites and companies have to do with anything ?

Whats the point having laws if not for seeking address through a justice system ?

Your opinion that these companies are compliant (and we know that basically means you “just THINK” they are compliant” with no proof, is completely irrelevant.

______________________

Well hey. That was predictable. I can’t link any Torrent-freak articles cause they’re “bias” lol. You wouldn’t have a problem if I was using MAFFIAs website.

I’m not using a MPAA or RIAA site.

______________________

I wouldn’t give a 6th grader on pass on BS like that.

I wouldn’t let you anywhere near a 6th grader.

______________________

I have but you won’t accept it.

Point them out then….where have I attempted to pass off something in a post “as if” you had actually typed it yourself?

______________________

If you didn’t understand the example, you shouldn’t have tried to use it

Which is exactly what I said, i didn’t try to use it.

______________________

If copy pasting your replies into my post and then putting quotes around em is making stuff up, you can kindly refrain from quoting me in the future, thank you.

Id be fine with that if you did just copy/paste parts of my posts…..however, you change the words in my sentences and THEN put them in quotes. It’s kinda obvious Ice, even for you ;)

I do not change yours….just copy and paste them and highlight the quote in italics (when I feel you’re suffering from more confusion than usual).

______________________

Be honest. It’s not and you won’t answer it because it simply proves your faulty reasoning.

No, I genuinely think it’s an irrelevant question. And being asked to contribute to even more hypothetical and meaningless debate is pointless.

______________________

It’s fairly apparent it was what you wanted to portray. It wasn’t until after that the sub section wiki titles started flyin.

I’ve told you about 10 times what it is I do. and it doesn’t have anything to do with the DMCA law in a direct capacity. I just get the pleasure of learning about it and issuing DMCAs because pirate rectums feel they are entitled to profit from my companies work.

______________________

You’ve been caught red handed. Have the decency to come clean.

How have I been caught red handed (and i’ll quote the relevant section of your post here)

Icecold said: “like you think you’ve convinced me you’re a lawyer”

I have told you on many many occasions that I work in a completely different field. You muppet lol

______________________

Look who is talking. You won’t answer my 2 or 3.

What are your 2 and 3 ?

______________________

Yea, it really has. Its a crutch for people who don’t want an argument

I don’t agree. I believe there is a very strong entitlement mentality with online users and the copyrighted content that is being redistributed without permission.

______________________

If I can’t expect you to remember your posts why do suddenly expect me to?

I can remember my posts, I asked you if YOU could remember what YOU wrote in your post. Which clearly you can’t. I even copied and pasted it for your convenience in my last post too LOL.

______________________

Prove the Sky is blue. I’ve never been outside.

Have fun. It’s exactly what you’re claiming right now and maintain to this point.

So you have no proof then. ok.

______________________

I think we’re done here if you think I’m not going to note how claim to understand these things and fail to describe them in their basic sense while demanding someone else explain it for you.

Cyberlockers are easy.

I’ve not used adblock in years. Which doesn’t for one second mean that adblock wouldn’t be easy to explain if I spent 10 minutes with it.

Simply that having not the product recently, I wasn;t aware that they now blocked the ads at the begining of youtube videos.

In any event, back to the question……..Can you explain how the Cyberlockers business model earns revenue and profit ?

______________________

No one would be taken to court. They’d simply be asked to produce the appropriate copyright ownership and demonstrate infringement before dragging someone into a lawsuit.

Oh right….in your made up system that doesn’t exist.

No one cares about these systems Ice.

And there are a couple of major obstacles regarding copyright that you would be unable to overcome. Such as “Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation” which is not going to work out too well on the paper work front… is it ;)

______________________

You shouldn’t be dragged into court for something that could very easily be proven and done with before dragging out stupid expensive lawsuits against innocent people.

Yeah, for now its called the DMCA with it’s simple no cost (effectively) take-down and counter notification procedures LOL.
______________________

Yes. If copyright is such a vital part of the economy they can justify it’s expense in increased taxes for materials transitioning through such court cases.

Hang on, you just said no court ….which is it Ice ?

______________________

That’s an easy one. The Judge. In England they wear awesome wigs and swing hammers and shit while sitting in the best seat in the house.

Are we done asking stupid questions?

You just typed two answers in the previous two posts starting with “No one taken to court” followed by ” you shouldn’t be dragged to courts”

Which is fine, that’s what the DMCA already does.

Then all of a sudden your transitioning through court again in the following post and the tax payer in now facing a higher tax burden !

______________________

They’d oversee and make sure the accuser can actually accuse someone of infringement. Infringement would be proven and established before a DMCA is ever sent.

So we’re back in court again….paid for by the taxpayer and bogging the whole system up because lets face it Ice…..there are millions of copyright claims every week.

Did you even think your idea through ?

______________________

1st amendment right isn’t big but it’s still important.

So you failed again by underestimating Title II

______________________

We have no association. The cars involved in the so called incident happen to be impossible because they simply don’t drive the same roads. How do you get a reckless driving penalty if you are not even in the same
state, let alone using the same roads?

Wow…..you keep adding and changing your car analogy don’t you. LOL

It started off with “Can you name the last time you were handed someones car repair detail and told you had to pay for the repairs when you had never met or even see this person or car?”

No, just credible would be a good start.

Pot calling the kettle black. Classic.

You basically don’t want to answer.

“I don’t care about your opinion on whether you “think” they met safe harbor and it’s conditions”

Opinion? What I told you was fact. If you aren’t going to accept that, you are living in lala land.

“Proven when you said that in order to qualify for Safe harbor you only need to remove links.”

I’ve already acknowledged this and they were fully complaint. Maybe you stick to fiction if you wana make things up.

“Your opinion is not a fact”

It wasn’t an opinion.

“Which in no way relevant to Title II and the relationship between service providers and the users of the services.”

Which it is.

You don’t pick and mix on what apples when and where in common law.

“Yes I know what it does, Megaupload still did not disable or remove the file. Removing the link is not removing or disabling access to the file”

Removing the link is removing access to the file. How else do you justify Google’s infringement?

“Litigation catagorically does not restrict criminal charges on what the perpertraitors are “currently doing” and any previous transgretions are ignored.”

Te safe harbor makes no such distinctions I’m afraid

“Do you have any evidence to prove that they don’t delete the video once a DMCA has been processed by them ?.”

DMCAed content isn’t deleted, after it has processed a counter claim the video requires no reupload and keeps its previous stats.

You can also download the video you uploaded from your account, it’s much the same way private videos on a channel work.

“Completely irrelevant.”

Because it blows your advertising assertion out of the water?

“What do youtubes biggest earners have to do with the ability of a website to benefit heavily from copyrighted content uploaded by its users ?”

You want to claim Youtube makes revenue from infringement, you’re going to have give me something to go on.

“Which is plainly false.”

You misspelled false so I fixed it for ya.

“I can’t believe KDC hasn’t contacted you to argue on their case for them”

haha. Nah. I unfortunately wish. I imagine it would be fun

Sadly your strawmaning isn’t doing you any favors as you simply ignore the fact Megaupload complied with DMCA take downs..

“Because you say so ?”

Because they said so. Read some of the court docs. Even the Judges know what’s going on here..

“Judging by the millions of sites that use the provisions without issue compared to the handful that were unable to”

Hah, millions. The DMCA is nothing but a paper shield designed to fall at first opposition, everyone uses it cause its harder to find you in a crowd

“Well call them conditions if you prefer : “Do you even know what the conditions are ?”.”

Questions changing? Oh wait, no, its the same question. See above post where you asked this.

“If you are unable to explain your position and back it up with some facts, then I guess you don’t have much of a point do you.”

It’s hard to argue my point if you wont acknowledge facts.

“is it transparent or not Ice ?”

It is. Next stupid fucking question please.

“No its not”

You should just rephrase every time you judge something as “irrelevant” to it’s real meaning for you. “Disagree”.

“Everybody else has to use the information that they have access to to determine their own belief.”

And evidently you don’t do this, you simply see what you want see.

Hell we can’t get through a single reply from you now without you throwing words into my mouth and then arguing that point as though it were my point.

“Mine is that MU profitted by knowingly redistributing copyrighted files for financial gain. Due to my experience of continually removing files from MU only to find the same user uploading them 2 seconds later, that the user almost never got banned and that their business model rewarded uploaders for uploading copyright infringement material. That MU had sufficient red flag knowledge to take action against repeat infringement and understand that they had piracy concerns with a percentage of their rewarded users. Amongst others.”

Same user? I’d love to know how since that information is actually private to Megaupload and its customers.

“And yours is that they removed links so they’re ok”

That’s Youtube does.

That’s what Google does.

Megaupload did and they don’t qualify for the same “exemptions” in your book.

“Which is exactly what I said. MU did not comply with safe harbor provisions and your argument that they did “because they removed links” is not transparent because there are more conditions to be met as I have repeatedly told you, to qualify for safe harbor”

I don’t know how many times we will go over this but Megaupload was compliant with DMCAs.

“Maybe you should clarify your position then, then I wouldn’t need to ask you a question to confirm which way you’re swinging on every point.”

Answering my posts with “so you say” is a crutch so you can get something out of your mouth and into mine that you can more easily argue. If you can’t do that you have no place calling this a debate.

“Trust me, I’m never going to confuse your words with mine.”

Coulda fooled me.

“There is very little to distinguish the two. And as I have repeatedly said all along….they both benefit heavily from piracy.”

And you’ve quite simply been unable to prove Youtube benefits from infringement and you’re unwilling to accept either of these services have any use beyond infringement.

“Your stats (whether true or false) are irrelevant. So the question again “Do you think the user cares if the advert is placed next to copyrighted content ?””

Same question. Same answer.

“I’ve never had a problem removing links or infringing materials from either…..when was the last time you sent a DMCA to either youtube or Google?”

They remove links. Not content.

Your argument is Megaupload is non complaint because they did remove infringing links

“The percentage of people using adblockers is irrelevant”

It is if you want to talk profit. Of course you’d be forced to admit you have no damned clue about this. Piracy makes no money.

“the cost of bandwidth has nothing to do with the zero that it costs”

Nothing is free. Not even on the internet.

“If all you can point out is an extra “d” on adds, you clearly are unable to refute the point.”

Well its getting fucking stupid you can’t read your dumb shit and realize the difference between an “ad”, short for advert and “add”, as in adding and subtracting with math.

“And there are ad services that do as evidenced by Rapidgators recent attempts to use one. It failed as far as I can tell”

Big surprise? This was my point.

“When you start sharing sources I will too.”

*Yawn*. So it’s made up.

“That depends on a very simple perspective.”

Read upside down won’t really change the meaning.

“There’s nothing to argue”

Evidently not. Fair use is routinely overlooked despite its impact on free speech.

“We’re not discussing any particular law here. I’m simply asking you a question whether it’s ok to break it.

So again……”Do you think that even if a piracy website breaks even or losses money, that it’s ok for it to be breaking laws ?”

Ask the same question and you get the same answer. There’s no reason to change my answer just because you don’t like it.

“Should I assume from that weak response”

Weak? You’ve been posting essentially the same post 3 times.

“Of course I’m right that theres no section like you have repeatedly claimed there to be.”

As explained, it allows and encourages abuses of the system because of the lack of oversight in its enforcement.

“Because a delisting can occur for a number of reasons. And at no point did you say it was a contested DMCA. You’re the one that repeatedly trots out the garbage Ice.”

If you actually read the Exact post you quoted, you’ll find we were discussing contested DMCAs. It’s suddenly convenient for you to claim on my exact wording because you really can’t pick an argument apart without misrepresenting it.

“You refuse to show where you think it does exsist”

I’ve shown you plenty of times where the DMCA perjury penalty is ignored. It’s not hard to find them.

“I’ve mentioned my source at least 5 times.”

Could have fooled me.

“Except you haven’t”

Run a spell checking browser. You’ll spot them.

“here’s the question again: “So you are confirming that you want the process to be slower, more expensive and have users tied up in courts before action is taken to remove copyrighted infringing materials from websites””

Question unchanged. Answer unchanged.

“Yes yes, we know, stupid you….because the DMCA is specifically written to ease the cost and time for both parties……AND SHOULD EITHER WISH TO BATTLE THEIR POSITION IN COURT…..THEY CAN DO THAT TOO”

You shouldn’t be dragged into court for something that could very easily be proven and done with before dragging out stupid expensive lawsuits against innocent people.

“But ey, lets not let blindness get in teh way”

Is this English?

“I disagree, would you prefer people get taken directly to court rather than use identifiers for every act of copyright infringement ?”

No one would be taken to court. They’d simply be asked to produce the appropriate copyright ownership and demonstrate infringement before dragging someone into a lawsuit.

“You argued and lied about that point for 15 plus posts before giving up.”

No. You “argued” that point for 15 posts because instead of being straight, opting for the “lololololl you look foolish” while I confusedly tried to coax an actual fact from your mouth.

“That has always been the case”

Except it plainly hasn’t since we still have lawsuits pending on people in compliance with the DMCA.

“Well, no wonder you’re getting all confused”

Well hey. That was predictable. I can’t link any Torrent-freak articles cause they’re “bias” lol. You wouldn’t have a problem if I was using MAFFIAs website.

“If you know what a dramatic pause is, it isn’t confusing at all”

I wouldn’t give a 6th grader on pass on BS like that.

“Except you haven’t”

I have but you won’t accept it.

“If I were going to use an example to explain a point it wouldn’t be yours. Trying to clarify what the hell it is your talking about by way of mentioning your flawed example is not agreeing with the idea or sentiment of your example.”

If you didn’t understand the example, you shouldn’t have tried to use it

“You making up sentances and putting quotes around them trying to pass them off as my posts is something you have done”

If copy pasting your replies into my post and then putting quotes around em is making stuff up, you can kindly refrain from quoting me in the future, thank you.

“No It really is a totally irrelvant question.”

Be honest. It’s not and you won’t answer it because it simply proves your faulty reasoning.

“That does not mean for one second that the DMCA is part of my occupation description …ie my job? as I said, you’re lying again.”

It’s fairly apparent it was what you wanted to portray. It wasn’t until after that the sub section wiki titles started flyin.

“Your babbling again Ice. Your opinions are yours alone.”

You’ve been caught red handed. Have the decency to come clean.

“You are free to do a list like I did for you when you refused to answer around 25 questions over the couse of numerous posts”

Look who is talking. You won’t answer my 2 or 3.

“I’ve maintianed that Google benfits from the copyright infringement of it’s users.”

Lol, next.

“Who the fuck knows Ice, you’re the one that bought up “bad guys””

I clarified it and you get angry? Geez. The bad guys are who you want them to be. Whatever suits you. This is one of the few times you are allowed to make up something.

“No it hasn’t”

Yea, it really has. Its a crutch for people who don’t want an argument

“I just did..”

*Looks at post about Google Infringing*

Heh, facts.

“It’s there in black and white Ice. Are you saying you’re too stupid to recall from memory or even locate what you wrote in your own posts.”

If I can’t expect you to remember your posts why do suddenly expect me to?

“Where’s the proof Ice ?”

Prove the Sky is blue. I’ve never been outside.

Have fun. It’s exactly what you’re claiming right now and maintain to this point.

“No it isn’t. Do you need help again ?”

If you wont acknowledge the argument, just say so

“So I didn’t say anything to that effect at all then did I. Your assumptions make no difference to the matter.”

“Ad block don’t stop YouTube ads”.

Fucking lol.

“So you can’t explain them at all then ?”

I think we’re done here if you think I’m not going to note how claim to understand these things and fail to describe them in their basic sense while demanding someone else explain it for you.

“Not necessarily. But even before you can logically get to that, the actions of a website would have to be established.”

Talk profit.

“So the question again”

Not another round of “I don’t like your answer so now its time to endlessly repeat the question”.

“You’re the one that said “one website” not me. And why does amount even matter when it comes to websites potnetially breaking laws to gain financially ?”

“potnetially breaking laws to gain financially”

“gain financially”

“gain”

I think you ave your answer.

“I was making a suggestions actually”

Your suggestions are noted but they are not my argument

“Are you suggesting that you don’t have the talent to make your own content and have to rely on other peoples even if it infringes their copyrights ?.”

Your suggestion is noted but it is not what I’ve argued.

“Being that your points are rarely clear,”

Those are your arguments built on faulty explanations hell bent on failed reasoning and interpretation.

Stick to what I’ve said or don’t argue the point.

“You would also have the entire justice system (your suggestion that courts perform this task remember) blocked with copyright infringement cases…….is that what you want Ice ?”

Yes. If copyright is such a vital part of the economy they can justify it’s expense in increased taxes for materials transitioning through such court cases.

“But every infringment would need to be addressed first. So, Who decides what is trivial or not trivial when it comes to rights of ownership ?”

That’s an easy one. The Judge. In England they wear awesome wigs and swing hammers and shit while sitting in the best seat in the house.

Are we done asking stupid questions?

“I didn’t you muppet”

The only muppet here is on your hand.

“Title II is one of the largest sections of the DMCA”

1st amendment right isn’t big but it’s still important.

“Involved in what way….how would you see this going down Ice….it’s your suggestion…flesh it out a bit”

They’d oversee and make sure the accuser can actually accuse someone of infringement. Infringement would be proven and established before a DMCA is ever sent.

“You having not seen me or my car doesn’t mean that your driving actions couldn’t have caused mine to be in disrepair. Reckless freeway driving for example can quite often result in cars being damaged obliviously to the person in the offending car and without their cars ever actually being in direct contact.”

We have no association. The cars involved in the so called incident happen to be impossible because they simply don’t drive the same roads. How do you get a reckless driving penalty if you are not even in the same state, let alone using the same roads?

This is essentially what a DMCA take down is. A false, oft impossible accusation and request to come into a court and prove your innocence at your expense. This wouldn’t hold in real life.

“You haven’t given one credible source in twenty plus posts…..why would you start now lol.”

“Credible”? you mean “that I like”.