Not everyone has the same familiarity with the reputation of internet sites as you do.
I really don't have any idea if my webhost is complicit in hosting illegal activity. If they were to get shutdown to hosting child porn, that's all well and good, but I'd still want my sites back.
Good points. YouTube is pretty notorious, lots of illegal uploads there. I wonder if that guy is suggesting we should stop using YouTube? Also lots of links on Google to illegal content, such as the whole Google Books thing, Google's pretty clearly a rogue site.
On the other hand, it seems that for many the distinguishing factor of legal vs illegal is that legal sites are financed by venture capitalists and illegal sites are privately owned.
More importantly, what's the difference between your site (data) and an mp3 (data)? Your site was "taken from you" but you didn't take that artists mp3, just a copy?
> Your site was "taken from you" but you didn't take that
> artists mp3, just a copy?
I realize that you're just trolling, but I'm bored so I'll bite.
If you copy an mp3, there are now two copies of an mp3. One in the original 'owner's possession, and one in yours.
If I take the hard drive that an artist is storing the only copy of his/her mp3 on, then I have 'stolen' the mp3 because I have deprived the artist of possession.
When the FBI took down MegaUpload, if the only copy of my files were on MegaUpload, the FBI has taken physical possession of them through the seizure of MegaUpload's servers.
What the FBI did would only be analogous to pirating if they copied all of the data off of MegaUpload's servers, but left the servers intact (thereby allowing the original owners to still have access).
> I realize that you're just trolling, but I'm bored so I'll bite.
I wasn't. However, you're comment is clearly a thinly veiled attempt to discredit my comment without actually contributing anything back. That you'll bite is you attempting to play the part of the "bigger person."
The reality is, you start off by being ill-mannered, insulting, and petty.
Don't bring that stuff to HN. You should know better.
> If I take the hard drive that an artist is storing the only copy of his/her mp3 on, then I have 'stolen' the mp3 because I have deprived the artist of possession.
Actually, no. In this case, the original had to come from somewhere. Data was copied from one location to another. What is up on MU is, in essence, a copy. If the original owner then removes that original copy, it doesn't bless the copy with special privileges. Hell, if you want to get technical, the artist never had possession of the only mp3 up on MU's server. MU had possession. The artist had access, but not possession. He has, effectively, given MU the right to possess the copy.
Regardless, this example, as much as yours, is silly, because it's data. We aren't talking about a physical thing. You're trying to argue that data, somehow, can be stolen (1s and 0s, something we've long argued can't be "stolen").
Honestly, I can't take any of these arguments seriously, if only because they are using the same arguments the MPAA/RIAA have been attempting to use against us for years.
> 1s and 0s, something we've long argued can't be "stolen"
I don't understand this argument. Because it's "1's and 0's" doesn't mean that it can't be stolen. If I take a bunch of photos on my digital camera, and my camera is stolen, are my photos not also 'stolen' from me as I no longer have possession of them?
> Honestly, I can't take any of these arguments seriously,
> if only because they are using the same arguments the
> MPAA/RIAA have been attempting to use against us for
> years.
The MPAA/RIAA argues that making a copy while not depriving the original owner if his/her copy is stealing.
What is being argued here, as I understand it, is that depriving the original owner of their only copy is being called stealing. As I stated in my original comment, the FBI confiscated the drives that those copies are being stored on.
> If I take a bunch of photos on my digital camera, and my camera is stolen, are my photos not also 'stolen' from me as I no longer have possession of them?
Your camera is stolen.
If someone left you your camera, and merely deleted the pictures, and copied them onto their system, that would be copyright infringement at best (ignoring the act of hacking your camera, etc).
Whatever other philisophical argument you want to present is meaningless without an actual law backing it up. While it might feel like theft, it's not.
> is that depriving the original owner of their only copy is being called stealing.
That's the argument. It's flawed. If you make a copy of something an upload it to MU, MU now has a copy. If you delete your original copy, that doesn't bless the copy with special protection. Indeed, by uploading to MU, you probably gave them permissions to distribute the download, as well as other rights. In fact, I'd be surprised if any cloud service like what we are discussing gave you special rights over the hardware that was storing your devices.
MU is the bad guy here. They are the ones that were allegedly doing illegal things while accepting honest customers. It's a shame, yes, but the reason people are up in arms is because MU is the "little" guy fighting against the "evil" government and the vile "MPAA/RIAA." Sorry, but I don't sell out just because I don't like one side.
Not everyone has the same familiarity with the reputation of internet sites as you do.
I really don't have any idea if my webhost is complicit in hosting illegal activity. If they were to get shutdown to hosting child porn, that's all well and good, but I'd still want my sites back.