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

Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers

informationweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers

#51

Post by Steko »

earl wrote: post #47
mdasen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I brought up something similar to a third year law student last week. As he explained it, when the police arrest a drug dealer, the drugs are seized and tested for evidence. They don't get to keep the drugs, possibly destroy or sell them, etc. while the trial is pending. Likewise, in this case, the servers are going to be seized as evidence pending trial. He also noted that a grand jury had been impaneled and ind…

Nothing you said contradicted the fact that an unaccountable person in the government broke their business without any opportunity for megaupload to defend themselves. And so it is exactly like Russia. Unless you think that a grand jury indictment -- and let's not pretend, prosecutors are more than capable of indicting a street post, or a ham sandwhich [1] -- should give the doj or fbi the ability to destroy a busine…

Look if the police are corrupt and go around destroying legitimate businesses willy nilly it's the people's responsibility to demand new police.

However there's no indication that's what's going on here. Every indication is that this business knew exactly what they were doing at the highest levels.

Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers

#52

Post by Steko »

yassim wrote: post #26
powertower wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does your business completely revolve around profiting from the illegal distribution of copyrighted works?

Did theirs? Can real numbers be shown of the money that was generated by piracy with this service vs money that was not? My guess is from this point we will never know the real unbiased numbers, not matter who wins. Edit: to clarify tone.

My guess is that we'll be shown fairly conclusive internal communication that makes it clear the MU knew exactly that they were profiting illegally and continued to do it and enable it. At that point it doesn't matter exactly how much they made legally or illegally. Does it matter that a pawn shop makes some money legitimately if it's basically a front for selling stolen property?

Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers

#53

Post by scott_s »

dsthysd wrote: post #34
scott_s wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have only been skimming the MegaUpload discussion and articles, so please understand that I am asking an honest question: in what was was due process not followed?

-Megaupload never got to state their case -There was no trial (and probably will not matter because their site has already lost all its traffic and revenue) -It is not a US based site -The majority of its traffic did not come from the US -There is not much evidence that that they were doing anything illegal by US law. They had a system in place (such as youtube) to remove copyright infringing content if found. The fa…

As pyre explains, it sounds like the federal government followed due process as it is laid out in federal law. Perhaps they didn't follow what you think is fair "due process," but that's a different matter.

Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers

#54

Post by droithomme »

Steko wrote: post #50
tikhonj wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help thinking that this exact logic (life's not fair, sucks to be you) can just as easily be used to justify crime as law enforcement. Oh, you didn't realize this was a pyramid scheme? Sucks to be you, life's not fair. I really do not think it is a constructive argument.

I'm just explaining the way it works and that there's nothing special about megaupload or new happening here: Break the law and the police are going to take your stuff. If you used that stuff for your business oh well sucks to be you. You may think that is a bad system and have some great ideas for liberating us from the bad police but those ideas are no more valid or invalid today then they were 5, 10, 20, 50 or 100…

By using the terminology "break the law", you seem to be intentionally disregarding the fact they have not been convicted of anything, and the assertions they even did anything illegal are questionable at best given they complied with DCMA takedown notices. That they may or may not have been aware of infringement is your next response, but irrelevant since DCMA deals with response to requests, not awareness. Sites are not required to be copyright police independently determining which user backups are legitimate fair use of rips of CDs they own and which are not. YouTube is certainly aware of misuse of their site, something they capitalize on by organizing and directing users to content they know perfectly well is unlicensed such as the Beatles catalog.

Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers

#55

Post by droithomme »

powertower wrote: post #7

I still don't get what this fuss is about? Do you really think that MegaUpload generated 175MM from a few users signing up to a paid account, and from ads and scams that were displayed on URLs with legit content. If 95% of their revenue came from copyrighted material being shared (without permission), then I'd say MU was a criminal enterprise and what happened was completely okay. If 5%, than not okay. The supporting…

> Do you really think that MegaUpload generated 175MM from a few users signing up to a paid account

No, I think they made money from a LOT of users signing up for paid accounts. I know lots of people that did so, Megaupload is widely used by professionals in the video, music, graphics and games industries for transferring and distributing large files at low cost legally.

I find it highly unlikely that those engaging in illegal activity went in and gave their traceable credit card information to get accounts for illegal activity. That may have happened, but it seems obvious that users doing illegal stuff, particularly those involving stealing things because you don't want to pay, are not highly likely to be creating easily traceable financial connections between their illegal activity and their real identities.

File sizes are large nowadays and millions of people and teams work remotely. There is a tremendous need for locker sites with large file capabilities, reasonable usability, and low cost. Megaupload provided a good technical solution and price to a strong need in modern business and this is why they were successful. People paid them because people have large files they need to work with and distribute. Completely separately from illegal use.

Any company that allows uploading of material is going to have this problem. Legislation such as DMCA was supposed to protect business from copyright violation liability when the infringement was committed by third parties as long as they followed the takedown process. Now we find that DMCA does no such thing, and businesses are beginning to shut down or drastically limit file hosting services. This is creating serious problems for tens of thousands or more of legitimate users and is harming legal businesses that benefit from locker file hosting services.

Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers

#56

Post by Steko »

droithomme wrote: post #54
Steko wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just explaining the way it works and that there's nothing special about megaupload or new happening here: Break the law and the police are going to take your stuff. If you used that stuff for your business oh well sucks to be you. You may think that is a bad system and have some great ideas for liberating us from the bad police but those ideas are no more valid or invalid today then they were 5, 10, 20, 50 or 100…

By using the terminology "break the law", you seem to be intentionally disregarding the fact they have not been convicted of anything, and the assertions they even did anything illegal are questionable at best given they complied with DCMA takedown notices. That they may or may not have been aware of infringement is your next response, but irrelevant since DCMA deals with response to requests, not awareness. Sites ar…

Look no one is ever convicted of anything when the police initially take the evidence away. That's how the system works, that's the way it's worked for decades, there's nothing different here.

Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers

#57

Post by anamax »

droithomme wrote: post #54
Steko wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just explaining the way it works and that there's nothing special about megaupload or new happening here: Break the law and the police are going to take your stuff. If you used that stuff for your business oh well sucks to be you. You may think that is a bad system and have some great ideas for liberating us from the bad police but those ideas are no more valid or invalid today then they were 5, 10, 20, 50 or 100…

By using the terminology "break the law", you seem to be intentionally disregarding the fact they have not been convicted of anything, and the assertions they even did anything illegal are questionable at best given they complied with DCMA takedown notices. That they may or may not have been aware of infringement is your next response, but irrelevant since DCMA deals with response to requests, not awareness. Sites ar…

> By using the terminology "break the law", you seem to be intentionally disregarding the fact they have not been convicted of anything, and the assertions they even did anything illegal are questionable at best given they complied with DCMA takedown notices.

Substitute "be accused of breaking the law" for "break the law".

Yes, the police and prosecutors have that kind of discretion.

And no, grand juries are not a significant impediment. As the saying goes, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.

Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers

#58

Post by powertower »

droithomme wrote: post #55
powertower wrote: post #7

I still don't get what this fuss is about? Do you really think that MegaUpload generated 175MM from a few users signing up to a paid account, and from ads and scams that were displayed on URLs with legit content. If 95% of their revenue came from copyrighted material being shared (without permission), then I'd say MU was a criminal enterprise and what happened was completely okay. If 5%, than not okay. The supporting…

> Do you really think that MegaUpload generated 175MM from a few users signing up to a paid account No, I think they made money from a LOT of users signing up for paid accounts. I know lots of people that did so, Megaupload is widely used by professionals in the video, music, graphics and games industries for transferring and distributing large files at low cost legally. I find it highly unlikely that those engaging…

> No, I think they made money from a LOT of users signing up for paid accounts.

Except that the indictment states that MU had only a few paid users and was largely ad supported... And I could have sworn that before all this happened, MU said the same thing.

> Legislation such as DMCA was supposed to protect business from copyright violation liability when the infringement was committed by third parties as long as they followed the takedown process.

DMCA didn't protect MU because they refused to delete the actual files (they only deleted some of the links pointing to that same file), and actively ignored DMCA takedown notices that did not come from major US parties.

Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers

#59

Post by funkah »

I guess people have quarrel with some of the tactics, but the people who ran this site are just pieces of shit. There just seems to be so little question that they were acting in bad faith. Again, if some of the tactics were bad I have no argument there, but shuttering this site overall does not exactly strike me as a travesty of justice.

Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers

#60

Post by droithomme »

powertower wrote: post #58
droithomme wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you really think that MegaUpload generated 175MM from a few users signing up to a paid account No, I think they made money from a LOT of users signing up for paid accounts. I know lots of people that did so, Megaupload is widely used by professionals in the video, music, graphics and games industries for transferring and distributing large files at low cost legally. I find it highly unlikely that those engaging…

> No, I think they made money from a LOT of users signing up for paid accounts. Except that the indictment states that MU had only a few paid users and was largely ad supported... And I could have sworn that before all this happened, MU said the same thing. > Legislation such as DMCA was supposed to protect business from copyright violation liability when the infringement was committed by third parties as long as the…

I did not remember reading in the indictment that it was largely ad supported and not subscriptions as you indicate, but you do cite the indictment itself so I assumed you noticed something I did not and went and reread it. It documents $8,840,000 in ad revenue in items 42 through 44, $110 million in subscription revenue from PayPal in item 41, and then in item 67 says "Between September 2005 and the date of this Indictment, the defendants collectively have received more than $175 million from advertising and subscriptions."

It would be nice if there was a more detailed break down but the breakdown given does not support claims that subscription income was inconsequential. I wonder, had you actually read the complete indictment, or were you just relying on summaries from other web sites. Sometimes summaries are not accurate or don't give the whole picture. Then again, perhaps I missed a more detailed breakdown elsewhere, if you have it please reference it by specific item number within the indictment. Thanks.

Post reply on HN