Megaupload.com seized

Sun Jan 22 22:08:06 UTC 2012

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nick B" <nick at pelagiris.org>

> 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

I believe we're all conflating 2 separate and, really, disparate things:

1) what does the law actually require and is that realistic?

2) how were MU actually behaving, and does that relieve The Law of cutting
them any slack?

The former isn't really affected by the latter; it can still be unreasonable,
even if that is *not* the reason why MU proper won't be getting cut any 
slack which might exist.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274