Megaupload.com seized

Sun Jan 22 22:00:15 UTC 2012

Nick B <nick at pelagiris.org> wrote:

> I'm about 90% sure that in a fair court, it would be concluded that
> disabling the reported URL qualifies as disabling access to the material.
> The court might then issue an injunction to, in the future, disable *all*
> *possible* access to the material, but that's not the current text of the
> law.  YMMV

The crux of the issue is whether a single DMCA take down notice refers only
to the content itemized in the notice, or to _all_ content that matches the
identification in the notice.  It is a *significant* difference, because the
former requires the _complainant_ to identify all the 'infringing' items,
while the latter requires the notice _recipient_ to search out all other
content that matches the notice.  Obviously, each side would rather have
the other guy do all the work.`