File Hosts that have closed Or will do!

jeez that doesnt look good

Sucks for pirates. Good news for everyone else. Who is going to miss them except for pirates?

Its not just pirates that upload to these sites, they do have tons of legit stuff. Besides, Think of all the members that have paid for premium, and no longer have access to anything. Millions of dollars were talking, and i very much doubt the users will get a refund...

I will end with this.

There is a lot of legal precedence regarding internet sites that indicates the site owners are responsible for the content they allow to be posted on their site. It is of course up to each site owner how easy they want to make it for people to post content on their sites.

However, as with file sharing sites, the site owners are responsible for any and all content on their servers. It is the responsibility of the site owners to make sure the content is legal. Those laws are already on the books.

Thats why people acknowledge DMCA notices and such. However if people wanted to go straight to the legal authorities and not bother with sending DMCA's the offending sites would be in much more trouble.

Site owners do not get to decide which laws to enforce. Ie..the sex vs FTC thing. If a site owner finds it too difficult to police itself into compliance with the law, that is not the fault or the problem of the law.

EDIT: if i am a singer and my hot single show up on youtube illegally, I don't have to talk to google about removing it. I have the legal right to seek damages from the poster and google immediately without sending a DMCA. There have already been several such cases. just not any high profile ones yet. Most settled out of court for relatively low money.

My intent was certainly not to bash the mods or the WF. In fact, i have reached out to Paul about this exchange.

However, to state that the WF is not liable for the content hosted here is simply not accurate.

I am fully aware of the practical issues with enforcing the laws, but that is something the WF signed up when they decided to open a community forum. They have every right not allow questionable posts or any posts at all if they wish. But when they allow posts, they do take on some liability.

Well, it looks like they're afraid to get caught by the authorities right now, just like MegaUpload. Lesson learned folks.

You do now , I thought this was about Filesharing and not the WF!!

The nudity happened in the halftime show, which is irrelevant. The real issue is whether the WF is legally responsible for the content on the WF.

We all agree that underage explicit pictures that are illegal should be removed by the wfor they would face legal action for condoning child porn. Of course the WF can't know for sure that what they believe to be child porn is not in fact legal material. But the WF must make judgment calls and do its best to enforce the laws. In this thewf does a great job.

Now other laws govern the use of testimonial, disclosures of affiliate relations, and many other things. The WF has the same obligation to do its best to enforce those laws as well. The interesting thing is that when confronted with these violations, the WF claim they can't know for sure they are violations.

I certainly see where an isolated incited may not be trouble for the WF just as an adult video sharing site will probably get a break if one video is found to not be legal. But if there is a pattern for that adult site of allowing what appears to be material that violates the law then they would find themselves in a much tougher legal battle.

I am suggesting that the WF is being complicate in FTC rules violations by consistently turning a blind eye and suggesting that they have no proof the content is in violation.

However Paul and others have said repeatedly not trust income claims and to be aware that testimonials are not always genuine. That certainly suggests that Paul and others have serious doubt about those claims and such.

So now Paul and many others are ok with taking down questionable explicit material that might violate laws based on their judgement. But when it comes to FTC stuff they claim it's not up to them to judge the legality of such claims and possible violations.

The WF is admitting they must follow the laws, but also turning a blind eye to enforcement of certain laws when it's comes to their money pit.

And don't get me wrong, I am not against the WF. I like the place and hope it sticks around. But this ostrich defense of ignoring the FTC laws is not a good idea, and will bite them.

Look to Clickbank recently. The FTC got on them and now they are enforcing the FTC rules much more regularly. I am suggesting the WF take a hard look at this before the FTC does.

The owner of a stolen image does not even have to notify anyone to seek damages. The dmca stuff was created as an easy way to deal with most of the issues. But groups like Getty images know they don't have to allow anyone the opportunity to undu the stealing of the image.

The dmca is a practical way to keep most of the litigation from all the stolen stuff out of the courts by involving web hosts, domain registers, and ISP. Essential by involving these people in the process the courts don't get flooded with endless cases and issue judgements where the accused will never pay anyway.

As to the link you posted. The key difference is the seeming compliance of the legal violations. That document basically would give the WF some legal cover ifthe offense were not the norm. However the FTC violations in the wso section are numerous and there seems to be not attempt to enforce legal compliance.

According to the FTC, testimonials must disclose any unanticipated relationships. Ie..review copies or discount copies. in each testimonial.

Next, testimonials must reflect normal results. Simple posting a results not typical disclaimer is no longer enough.

I am not sure how in the heck any normal reasonable intelligent person can argue that many wsos are not violating one or both of those laws.

Now let's somehow assume this link you posted does in fact give the WF cover. That means that it would also mean that other forums who have posts of stolen wsos are not responsible for their users posts either? We know that's not true. According to your interpretation we should not bother the host site and instead focus on pm ing the people who list stolen wso on other sites.

Or how about fivver gigs. If the hosting site is not responsible as you seem to be thinking this document says then fivver is not responsible if gigs offer illegal copies or if they violate other laws.

The above two examples are exactly why that document does not mean the WF can allow anything to be posted on this forum without attempts to moderate it for legal issues.

As for the WF responding to copywriters of images. I am sure they would and have. However, that means they do realize that they are in fact liable for the content on this site. Which means not just copywrite stuff, but stuff that violates laws.

If the WF continues the ostrich defense on the ftc stuff, the FTC will show up. The WF must make some efforts to curb the blatant disregard for the FTC rules or I guarantee the FTC will cause trouble for the WF.

I think if you will forget the name WF and look at the facts of what is goin on, you will see that this is not a good situation. The fact that this discussion is taking place on this forum is making it a very biase situation.

But I am certainly not against the WF. But I would much rather the WF take an objective look at this long before the FTC shows up and says hey guys we need to talk.

Its the end of freedom of expression and action.

Remember fellow warriors.

- Steal a music album from a store = Get a $200 fine and a warning
- Download 1 song - $500,000+ law suit against you.

Hi
Just shows how the internet is still changing lots. I been online since 1997.. there been some big changes in that time... and more still to come.
Peace Barry

I'm really concerned about SOPA. What is actually going on there!!!

I realize that there are legitimate uses for file sharing sites, such as when the actual copyright owner wants a way to deliver the files--I've seen that a few times. However, the piracy problem is so widespread, I'm in part, relieved that some of these sites are being shut down. I've spent time and money creating, and having created, graphics for resale products, as well as creating original digital products. I noticed sales were down, and just did a few google searches. My copyrighted images are all over the place! I've started a spreadsheet, and I'm on 52 entries since yesterday. One person had my copyrighted ecover on a fiverr gig, and my copyrighted description--2 paragraphs--with 3-4 words changed. It was still very recognizable. He seemed surprised that there was a problem when I contacted him. He said he found my site and thought the descriptions and images were "usable". And needless to say, the same is true of the digital files, for which I'm a licensed reseller. They are appearing on many file sharing sites, often with my images. In the instance of the products I'm reselling, the original product creator specifically prohibits uploading to file sharing sites, so these are not instances of legitimate uses of the file sharing sites. And then one competitor has my graphics prominently displayed on his website, and so far, has not responded to my requests to remove them. (He has a facebook fan page, however...)

So, instead of trying to build and promote my business, at the moment, I'm chasing down some of the more blatant examples of copyright infringement.

But I'm not alone, and some sellers have been hit much worse than I have. In an ideal world, I think we would keep file sharing sites, but have tighter controls from the site owners when blatant, intentional infringement takes place. Maybe they could work more closely with ISPs and law enforcement when the law is broken, yet keep the doors open for legitimate use of their services.

As far as SOPA, I think it may be a well intentioned law, but I realize we need to be careful of not only unintended consequences, but hidden pieces of legislation that can blow up in our faces later, like time bombs. If laws were written clearly and easy to understand, then I might support something like this, depending on the specifics.

Don't rely on free files sharing sites for legitimate stuff anyway, when they shut down, you will loose it! I have lost quite a bit of stuff that way.