Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 357 posts

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#251

Post by pyre »

cbs wrote: post #113
e1ven wrote: post #28

Wow. This is a really interesting situation; I can't agree with this action at all. 1) The site complied with DMCA regulations, and removed material when asked. 2) The site did not directly promote piracy, which was Grokster decision. 3) The listed employees are all (or nearly all) not US citizens, so this required international cooperation, and extradition over copyright? From my perspective it looks like they were…

>From my perspective it looks like they were follow the letter of the law on all, or nearly all counts I used to see them as an agnostic upload bin, but I'm reading the indictment right now, and from my perspective, its certainly questionable. I'm going to copy some text from the indictment here. I can see legal defenses that they could try to counter these claims, but I don't want to get into that, I just want to pu…

So, MegaUpload.com has two links to a movie file, each created by a different user (user1 and user2). The copyright holder files a DMCA notice against the link created by user1.

Should MegaUpload.com remove the link for user2? The rights holder has not claimed that the second link is offending. It's possible that user2 has the right to distribute the file, but user1 does not.

It's a dicey issue.

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#252

Post by bostonvaulter2 »

droithomme wrote: post #34

Wow, that article's certainly not biased! > "MegaUpload.com is already engaged in a legal fight with Universal Music Group over a promotional video featuring some UMG artists." I suppose there are some reading that that don't know MegaUpload hired all the artists and had contracts and copyright licenses with them and had complete rights to the video, which UMG illegally and fraudulently filed a takedown notice agains…

What's the basis for the money laundering conspiracy charges?

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#253

Post by dangrossman »

0xABADC0DA wrote: post #246
newhouseb wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a somewhat clever loophole around DMCA requirements. Host the same/duplicate file at an approximately infinite number of different URLs and take them down one by one as DMCA requests come in for specific links. This seems like a someone complicated loophole to write around because even if the DMCA was changed to allow takedowns of media and it's duplicates (if it doesn't already) you could combinator…

DMAA safe harbor only applies if you are not aware of the infringing content. If you have a bunch of links to the same file and only take down one then you have no protection under DMCA and the standard 'greater-than $3k damages then go to jail' applies. There is also a red flags test. If a reasonable person would be aware that the site is hosting files that infringe then it's not protected. And also you can't get di…

> If you have a bunch of links to the same file and only take down one then you have no protection

But the existence of a copy does not tell you whether the uploader had the appropriate license from the copyright holder, or is the copyright holder, of that copy. Files do not fit into "legal" and "illegal" bins by the order of the bits alone.

Let's say I create and sell a software package. I upload it to my Megaupload account so I can easily access it later at another location.

Someone else uploads a copy they bought with a stolen credit card so they can share it on a warez forum. I send a DMCA notice of infringement requesting this copy be removed from Megaupload.

Should Megaupload now also locate all links to that file and remove them, including mine, which is entirely legal for them to host? Is Megaupload required to breach its contract with me as a paying user of their service, in good faith and violating no laws, in order to meet the DMCA safe harbor requirements? I think not.

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#255

Post by bostonvaulter2 »

cyanbane wrote: post #22

From DOJ Presser: For example, when notified by a rights holder that a file contained infringing content, the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in place to make it seamlessly available to millions of users to access through any one of the many duplicate links available for that file. I assume the DMCA spec…

But what if that other person has right's to the file, perhaps they bought the file while the other person obtained it illegally.

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#256

Post by Tossrock »

rbanffy wrote: post #86

> According to the indictment, MegaUpload is responsible for at least $500 million in losses for the owners of the copyrights in question. I really can no longer stand such outlandish claims. Do they mean they would have sold 50 million more movies at US$ 10 each if the site didn't exist? Or do they think they'd have sold 500 million downloads for US$1 each? Or 5 billion for 10¢? In fact, they most probably got a cou…

It's the same thing as the DEA announcing they seized ten pounds of marijuana with a street value of 2 million dollars.

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#257

Post by iandanforth »

billpatrianakos wrote: post #250
rickmb wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's analyze the propaganda speak here: > Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests Based on not only the experience of others, but the claims of the DoJ itself, this is clearly false. > The site charged for access to, and provided advertising around, pirated content. This is true in the same way YouTube provides advertising around, and your friendly local ISP provides access to, pirated content. > The site paid…

The other side of this SOPA battle is playing us like a fiddle. This WSJ article took our stance (it's not my stance but the majority here's stance) and attacked us with it by saying we're pro-piracy. That doesn't go over well outside this community. If we just got off the copyright/privacy topic for a minute and focused on the big picture we could fight more effectively. Point out that SOPA/PIPA are unnecessary beca…

'What this is really about is the government and entertainment industry trying to grab the power to do the things they've already been doing without having to go do all that annoying stuff like gathering evidence, building a case, or holding a trial.'

Parts of SOPA/PIPA will make their lives easier, this is true, however it also grants new powers. Much recent fervor revolves around these new powers.

You also criticize the rhetoric of the community, but due so in reference to the Wall Street Journal. I have no doubt that they will be the last publication to adopt, support, or accept our rhetoric. Now that doesn't make the general criticism false.

The primary fallacy I see in your argument is instead that the terms like pro-piracy need be liabilities. There are pirate parties in several countries now, and historically powerful, emotionally salient terms can be used either as marks of shame or pride. Language is fickle like that.

Now I can say that there is a dangerous cancer in this country and it is a malignancy that has been growing for years, and now that we've found a way to hurt it, slow its growth, to bleed it out, it's releasing toxins. Piracy is the cure to the cancer on the creativity of America. I can say that the 1% of middlemen and lawyers that call themselves 'rightsholders' are afraid of people point out how bloated they are, and how Un-American it is to be bad at your job, inefficient, and dictatorial. They represent barriers to innovation, to freedom, and to the growth and prosperity of their nation. Some of us have decided the situation is so intolerable that we will advocate breaking unjust laws and causing direct, lasting, and public harm to this institution.

This is protest and the hope of change. It is only history that will determine who played whom.

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#258

Post by zotz »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #241
unreal37 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, its the "day after the blackout" which I think is a favor to the MPAA/RIAA folks. "Let's erase these 'sopa is bad' stories from the nightly news and replace them with a good evil pirates tale."

I "like" how the news is plastered all over the Internet that the "government" has taken down Megaupload. Like small children, fascinated by the sock puppet, forgetting the hand that actually moves it. It's very clear now, we live in a plutocracy. Big corporations are above the law in every single way that matters.

> we live in a plutocracy

I prefer the word "synarchism", as used by Fairbank and King:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synarchy#China

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#259

Post by jrockway »

dangrossman wrote: post #176
jrockway wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does megaupload have to comply with the DMCA; they're a Hong Kong company. The US simply has no jurisdiction over what they do.

People in the US don't have to comply with DMCA notices either. The safe harbor provision of the DMCA does not create new obligations, it creates a "if this then that" situation: IF a service provider receives a notice of infringement AND promptly disables access to the content, THEN the service provider is granted immunity from liability for that infringement. If you ignore the notice then this provision simply does…

What you're saying makes no sense. Can Iran extradite me for writing software to upload pornography to the Internet? (It's a capital offense there.) Of course not, because that's not how laws work. They can try to extradite me, of course, but no reasonable country would ever assist them. Similarly, it makes very little sense to extradite programmers at Megaupload. Sure, Megaupload is probably illegal in the US. But we're not in the US, so it doesn't matter. (They got the extradition by saying that Megaupload is laundering money, among other things. This is like extraditing a coffee shop owner in Amsterdam for selling pot. It's illegal in the US, after all, and he's laundering his ill-gotten money by pretending to sell coffee.)

This is garbage and I can't believe any court in the world would uphold this extradition. I'm appalled that they even got a US court to issue a warrant for such obviously-trumped-up charges. This is truly unprecedented.

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#260

Post by jrockway »

adestefan wrote: post #209
DennisP wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your link says the state of Virginia is claiming jurisdiction because some of the servers were there. The lesson I guess is if you're going to run a site like this, don't host it in America. There's no indication that any laws of New Zealand were broken. The NZ cops simply cooperated in enforcing U.S. law.

The Berne Convention stipulates that the laws of where the copyright is registered takes precedent.

It's a good thing that common carriers are well-protected in the United States, then.
Post reply on HN