They actually take down copyright infringements if they are pointed out or they find them.

According to Kim Dotcom, distribution companies had *direct access* to files on their servers -- all they had to do was input a link and it was immediately deleted off MU servers.

As did this guy. Try reading?

Don't be stupid. That is an argument being made in court. One side says he is compliant, the other doesn't.

I can say I never speed. It doesn't make that statement true.

In a 2008 chat, one employee noted that "we have a funny business... modern days [sic] pirates ," to which the reply was, "we're not pirates, we're just providing shipping servies [sic] to pirates ."

Employees send each other e-mails saying things like, “can u pls get me some links to the series called ‘Seinfeld’ from MU [Megaupload]," since some employees did have access to a private internal search engine.

Employees even allegedly uploaded content themselves, such as a BBC Earth episode uploaded in 2008. - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ed-megaupload/

No offense. But whether Dotcom gets convicted, or not, that company knew what it was doing. And when the graphic design is making $1million off it, I have a lot less respect for it than I would torrent sites that don't seem to be trying to run a big business.

News flash: property and permission are not the same thing.

Evening update: Day is not night.

Lol, whatever.

Your ideas won't save the man from legal proceedings. Glad, you aren't his lawyer for his sake.

It should be pretty easy to prove his statement that they had direct access true. If it is, they can STFU.

If by this post you are implying that copyright infringement is not 'theft' then fine. If you want to argue semantics then use a different word, like 'piracy' or whatever. AFAIK copyright infringement is still against the law.

I wont pretend to understand the legal intricacies of this case, but in my opinion this guy is a total parasite and I wont be shedding any tears if he does go down.

If I remember correctly, they had access, but if was mostly a mirage. If 100 people all uploaded the same file, 100 unique links to a single copy of the file was created. If there was a DMCA complaint, the actual file was unaffected, just whatever specific link they complained about was taken down, the other 99 links were still functional even though they all pointed at the same infringing content. If you know anything about how the piracy scene works, you can see how this is laughably ineffective.

So if they had 100 actual copies and deleted a copy each time it would be fine?

Trying to enforce against the crime of 'copyright infringement' is laughable though.

I'm still not sure what the difference is between megaupload and youtube is. If 100 people upload a copyrighted file on Youtube - don't they have to delete each one separately as well?

The pure volume of copyrighted material seems like a weak argument. If I'm a skilled virus maker can I use a large botnet I created to upload a ton of copyrighted material to Youtube in a way to suddenly make them an illegal company?

From Kim's twitter not long ago:

Should of just killed him. Would of saved our tax payer's money. Now we get to play a game of charades instead.