Garo Special: Beast of the Midnight Sun Look what's out just in time for the something awful members to slot it in to after ADTRW people, you have about 72 hours from this posting to get the first episode if you want to be cool and pretend there are 27 episodes of Garo Ignoring the Gaiden during the simulwatch. If you can't manage that, tough shit, you can watch on your own time.
It won't hurt you, I promise. Why the DTV version? There aren't any readily available raws for the Director's Cut I paid more for Evangelion in the US, and I don't even like that show. Fortunately, encoding can be done mostly offline, which is good because the primary reason Agito is going so slow is the amount of tedium in cranking out a single episode, whereas doing a v2 with better video and minor corrections doesn't actually require a whole lot of personal interaction.
These subs were not originally ripped by kind anonymous, they were ripped by me with a different tool, which may help out that whole thing if I can get it to not choke on Agito's ugly ass subs. That will speed up the process tremendously. That's enough words, enjoy the wolves grunting and cutting things! Posted by Gomen Rider at Megaupload processed takedown notices swiftly and efficiently.
Megaupload went beyond the ordinary and used technology to speed up the take down process. For example trusted parties including major Hollywood entities received access to an innovative real-time direct takedown web tool. Megaupload negotiated with major copyright holders or their agents—including the Recording Industry Association of America, Disney, Warner Brothers, NBC, and Microsoft—to allow them access to take down directly, in an automated manner, an active link to material they believed infringed their copyrights.
Megaupload was commended by Hollywood organizations for its take down processes. While Megaupload made efforts to curb abuse of its service, it recognized a competing obligation to its users who legitimately use[d] the service to store their own copies of copyrighted material.
This obligation to its users who had a legal right to the files they stored presented an ongoing problem because the company was committed to ensuring that there was a proper and legitimate basis to require a data file to be removed. Whether a specific instance of a file is infringing or not depends on the context such as license status, fair use, and what local laws apply.
For example, a news organization may be permitted to use a photo in an article under the fair use doctrine while a commercial entity may not.
Copyright owners are in the best position to allege who and what is authorized and who and what isn't. Taking down all links pointing to the same file is neither pragmatic nor required by the law, nor would it be justified - another example one person's licensed music mp3 file is potentially another person's infringing file.
Megaupload used a freemium model which made it affordable for individuals and small businesses to use and "try out" the Internet cloud technology and only pay if they desired faster bandwidth and more robust storage. Megaupload's free cloud storage services were innovative , robust , and generous.
Megaupload had a copyright agnostic user rewards program limited to, amongst other things, small files under MB - to help introduce users to the cloud storage service. The rewards program did not promote copyright infringement and the small file size limit was a strong deterrent against program misuse. The amounts paid out were small and when the program was discontinued many months before the US action, it had no material effect on site traffic or revenue.
Allegations made by the US that Megaupload did not have significant capabilities to store private content long term are false. Allegations made by the US that free user files were deleted if not downloaded within 21 days or 90 days for those who were registered are false.
At the time of the shutdown, free user files had not been purged for multiple years. The US apparently wants to delete Megaupload server data evidence that will demonstrate the falsity of the Government allegations above. The New Zealand court found that the New Zealand police used an illegal search warrant to confiscate hard drives and other materials from Kim Dotcom and further found that the FBI violated the law when they took hard drive data outside of New Zealand without authorization.
0コメント