Why don't the copyright police shut a certain site down?

[jimdagys]

I ran into a well known website that allows you to store and share 100mb of files. You can also search/download on their website for files (music, software, etc). My question is, why don't the copyright police sue the website and its advertisers and shut it down?

[guns1inger]

It is probably hosted in a country that doesn't have a "fair trade" agreement with the US.

[rallynavvie]

I love Finland. Birthplace of Linux, land of rally fanatics, beautiful women, great healthcare and education, and of course their open policies on internet activity.

[Supreme2k]

Why would they need to shut down a site that simply hosts files? If it advertises pay or free commercial (copyrighted) files, that's one thing, but if it's a simple file storage site, there's no problem.

Plus, I really hate the term or viewpoint of "copyright police". It's up to the copyright holders to protect their work. There shouldn't be any government or taxpayer sponsored help.

[rallynavvie]

Plus, I really hate the term or viewpoint of "copyright police". It's up to the copyright holders to protect their work. There shouldn't be any government or taxpayer sponsored help.

I agree that there shouldn't be a government-funded agency that does this at their whim (or at the whims of the highest bidder) but I do agree that there should be government support for those people who are going after others who have violated their copyrights. For instance a freelance novelist writes a book but then Disney creates a movie based directly on the characters in that book without providing credit to the novelist. That author shouldn't have to fear Disney's massive funds and legal counsel and simply give up.

But in this case, as is the case with P2P, it is the responsibility of the owner of the materials not to re-distribute. It could also be assumed that the downloader is aware of the legality of their actions. It's the same argument about gun control. Guns are just a tool that can be used to kill people they don't kill people on their own. P2P and file hosting services can be used to distribute copywritten materials but they don't place those materials there.

[Conquest10]

My question is, why don't the copyright police sue the website and its advertisers and shut it down?

Because those sites also serve legitimate purposes.

[thecoalman]

It's the responsibility of the copyright owner to send a DMCA notice to the site hosting the content. Same deal with youtube and any other site that allows users to upload content/files etc. For example there is file upload utility on this site, I could upload copyrighted material right now. Is videohelp responsible for that?

No they aren't, if they were then every site on the internet would be potentially liable.

[offline]

I could upload copyrighted material right now. Is videohelp responsible for that? No they aren't.

Correct. We have no direct control over the content of posts, or the content of links that may be posted.

It is the responsibility of members to make their own decisions about the accuracy, currency, reliability, correctness and legality of information contained in their posts, and that of linked external web sites. Forum posts do not constitute an endorsement by Videohelp, nor a recommendation of any content of any third party products or services.

[HmNtr]

It's the same argument about gun control. Guns are just a tool that can be used to kill people they don't kill people on their own.

I just had a flash back of the movie Happy Gilmore, where the guy had a shirt on that said something like GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, I KILL PEOPLE! ROFLMFAO!