The reason they could take down MU is that you can't maintain you as owner of a file sharing site can't know there's illegal material until it is pointed out to you, if the owner himself puts illegal material on his site. In my opinion MU would've been ok if not for that, as long as they kept removing all files they got complaints about.
I really hope the owners have enough money for a decent legal defense, so somebody finally attacks the claims the MIAA always makes about how much money piracy is costing them. They have no proof at all that it costs them *anything*. Everybody knows their calculations assume every illegal download means one less sale, and this clearly isn't true. There's lots of people who only watch their stuff because it's free and they wouldn't buy it even if that was the only way to see it. However, as long as nobody stands up to them and disputes those calculations they can keep on doing it.
That's why I'm sure they won't sue youtube as they know very well google has the money to go up against them and win, and then there's be legal precedence for all other people to use.
I really hope the owners have enough money for a decent legal defense, so somebody finally attacks the claims the MIAA always makes about how much money piracy is costing them. They have no proof at all that it costs them *anything*. Everybody knows their calculations assume every illegal download means one less sale, and this clearly isn't true. There's lots of people who only watch their stuff because it's free and they wouldn't buy it even if that was the only way to see it. However, as long as nobody stands up to them and disputes those calculations they can keep on doing it.
That's why I'm sure they won't sue youtube as they know very well google has the money to go up against them and win, and then there's be legal precedence for all other people to use.