There is no evidence anyone who used their services would of paid. The "theft" is propaganda. In fact from the article itself it even says Mega had a notice and takedown system available to the rights holders. So once again what is it that was stolen?
>Anyway, this system was bullocks. It was just a poor lip service which they stalled and ignored the whole time.
I can't unsubscribe easily in one click ? They don't get to complain easily in one click. I can't get easily an email address or phone number to contact them ? They won't get contact info too. They had a taste of their own medicine. It's unfair if it's easier for them to take down my content than for me to appeal the decision.
Please site source where it says theft, since apparently it's a judicial fact. Since last I checked, it says a right was infringed, not theft.[0]. Specifically
"copyright holders, industry representatives, and legislators have long characterized copyright infringement as piracy or theft – language which some U.S. courts now regard as pejorative or otherwise contentious."
And also I'm unsure there is evedence it was ignored, it just seems like you are spewing more copyright propaganda. Might I dare to say they might be in fact lying?
Well last I checked words have meanings. And you needing to resort to ad hominen when facts state otherwise is telling, especially since I am the Great Gatsby of parties.
