New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Tim lies.
Francisco
Redirecting a website like that is against our AUP as well as the AUPs of many other hosting companies out there. (It's a very common spam tactic. Detect for the google bot, allow the page to be scanned. Anyone else gets the redirect.) We're allowing our clients to do so but pointing out to them that all they're pretty much doing is annoying their visitors. We've provided banners, links and talking points.
Summed it up best: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/wikipedia-blackout-editors-question-plan-168013
The main Wikimedia Foundation servers are located in the US. Most global-audience websites are hosted in the US. Most LEB providers' servers are located in the US. SOPA and PIPA are a problem for people outside the US, and even if they weren't there's still a benefit in scaring off any attempt at similar legislation in every other country.
That is true but 99% of the sources for the Wiki articles are allowed and are usually the exact types of sources used for research papers since that's essentially what each Wikipedia article is.
http://i.qkme.me/35nbl7.jpg
:-)
Use https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page
BlueVM didn't go black like they said they would. (yet)
WHY!!!!?!?!?!?
So, I am not allowed to read the Math articles at wikipedia to get help with my homework?
I did that 4 years... ¬_¬
You are not allowed to cite wikipedia as a source in scientific papers.
Of course.
These people are hypocrites. They didn't black out their own site.
It's still up. Look at http://americancensorship.org/ it's not black. Tools.
We went black, but gave our clients a way to access our billing/support system.
Looks good.
Leaving AmericanCensorship.Org online during the SOPA strikes maximises its effectiveness, when people are most agitated by the inconvenience is when they will fill out that form with their details.
You do realise you just called one of the core organising web bodies behind the SOPA awareness campaign protest a "hypocrite" right?
I thought I was too obvious with that sarcasm to be trollin' but thanks @Joel!
It's dead, Jim.
Although, as the commenter over there mentions, it'll come back if the politicians want it to.
Oh, wow. I never thought it would work, I guess I was wrong.
But again, with Megaupload they're showing they don't really need SOPA to do whatever they want ... Everyone wins!
Megaupload had blatant illegal content and they had servers in US.
Of course they had illegal content, but they always removed it on complaint (like everyone else).
Yeah, that's the main thing for me. Sure, megaupload is less strict than say Rapidshare now, but all the other filesharing sites do the same thing.
They are back! may be! http://109.236.83.66/
Nope. That's just a ripped version of MegaUpload I believe. I think it's a phishing website.
False. Please read the indictment.
Actually they were fairly quick on removing reported material. The copyright holders wanted them to filter against newly uploaded material and there's no real way to do that correctly without false positives or missing material.
There are a lot worse sites out there that don;t remove the reported material. They were just the next folks in line.
Hi,
it seems that SOPA is dead for now :
http://mashable.com/2012/01/20/sopa-is-dead-smith-pulls-bill/
but a new bill :
http://www.slashgear.com/sopa-sponsor-has-another-internet-bill-that-records-you-247-20210264/
Huh!? Where is a form? Is just a plain website with legitimate facebook/twitter plugins.
Keep in mind that the above 39 movies were reported in June of 2010 and this indictment was written in January of 2012... plenty of time for them to take care of those reported material.
No.
The reported files have been removed, but they stored other (non-reported) files with the same MD5 hash. They were supposed to implement a system which would remove all files with the same hash as reported files, even if those other files have never been reported. Please read it again.
What's your percentage of correctly formed copyright complaints submitted to you?
Mine's about 12% although it's been a few years since I actually worked out the numbers. I know Fran's mentioned that theirs is very low as well. (edit: And yes, we'll deal with an incorrectly formulated report. It's the extremely vague ones that I love dealing with. Like how they forget to include the actual link. Or even what I'm supposed to be looking at.)
And you all thought I always asked for a reference link, a ticket, or an explanation just for kicks.
It's always been fun looking at the RIAA's numbers. You have to take anything that they say with a grain of salt. For example:
http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html
(And yes, I realize that's from 2001 but 1) it's the first example I can find right off 2) I've got some screaming kid in my ear yet again and 3) I've got to run and deal with a project.)
Not a biggie though. Like I said, it just looks like to me that they're going down the list of top file providers.
I quoted the indictment word for word. As for the "system", they had it in place and used it for certain material but failed to use it for copyright material.