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

Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 122 posts

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#51

Post by ryusage »

dmbass wrote: post #29
victork2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes the fact that they are dead even before any judgement has been pronounced is quite infuriating. It's not a coincidence that money is seized and their domain name taken, it's made to destroy the website even before any kind of judgement can roll out. I may be the only one but I find that outrageous. But if the FBI loses this case and its image is tarnished then it could be a precedent and may change the way t…

IANAL, but isn't this situation equivalent to a drug ring bust?

It seems similar, but one significant difference is that, in a drug bust, it's pretty cut and dry as to whether the targets are doing something illegal. The mere presence of drugs automatically makes it so. That's not really the case here. A judge could very well determine that Megaupload never broke any laws.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#53

Post by powertower »

If you think MU is the victim here and that the FBI are the criminals, you’ve got it backwards.

They took down individual links only, while still keeping the infringing files on the server, and all the other un-reported links to that exact file (they also hashed each upload, so to detect duplicates, and complete the upload instantly and have 1 data file... a fingerprint system they never used to prevent re-uploads of copyrighted material that was reported).

Then they conspired (shown in leaked emails) to only follow DMCA requests coming from large US entities (while ignoring requests coming from Mexico, for example).

Their entire business revolved around tricking people into signing up for paid accounts so they could download copyrighted material. And made 175 million from it.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#54

Post by vidarh »

unreal37 wrote: post #35
franklindholm wrote: post #10

What kind of DMCA system did Megaupload provide? And what kind of DMCA system is required by law?

Apparently they responded to DMCA requests to take down individual links. But they did nothing to stop the same file from being uploaded again with a new link. I am not sure if that is required by the DMCA. I know youtube has this "fingerprinting" system that stops copyrighted uploads, but is that the law?

The argument they will presumably make is that their system is a deduplicating file storage system. That one instance is infringing does NOT automatically mean another instance is infringing. For example, assuming the court agrees that personal backup copies can legally be kept, deleting the actual file instead of the links could delete legitimate backup copies. See the number of artists that were features as claiming to use Megaupload in their ads, for example...

Even other public links might be legitimate, and Megaupload would not have a way of determining that based merely on the presence of links.

Do I think they were aware that there were tons of illegal copies? Absolutely. But whether or not they could blanket delete content without in effect deleting content the people filing the DMCA takedown requests had no rights to request taken down is an entirely different matter.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#55

Post by bri3d »

cwp wrote: post #42
bri3d wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keeping encrypted data in the US is increasingly futile - see http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/judge-fifth-... . Steganography is a good idea, though. (edited: corrected stenography -> steganography per too-aggressive spellchecker usage)

I think you mean steganography. "Stenography" is writing down what someone is saying.

Thank you! Corrected.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#56

Post by bostonpete »

jordan0day wrote: post #15
joering2 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My gut tells me so much money went into this multi-national synchronized operation that no judge in his sound mind will let all charges go. at least they will have to break even.

I don't know, I think there have been some high-profile cases where a lot of time and money was spent by the government, but the result was either no conviction, or a conviction of a much lesser charge. Now, since as you say, this was a large multi-national operation, I don't know if all those charged will be extradited to the USA, or if they'll be tried in other countries. I really have no idea about laws & procedur…

So capitalism is good except when it comes to lawyers...?

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#57

Post by OoTheNigerian »

powertower wrote: post #53

If you think MU is the victim here and that the FBI are the criminals, you’ve got it backwards. They took down individual links only, while still keeping the infringing files on the server, and all the other un-reported links to that exact file (they also hashed each upload, so to detect duplicates, and complete the upload instantly and have 1 data file... a fingerprint system they never used to prevent re-uploads of…

As you have judged them guilty based on the charges brought against them, I wonder why we need the law courts.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#58

Post by dmbass »

ryusage wrote: post #51
dmbass wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but isn't this situation equivalent to a drug ring bust?

It seems similar, but one significant difference is that, in a drug bust, it's pretty cut and dry as to whether the targets are doing something illegal. The mere presence of drugs automatically makes it so. That's not really the case here. A judge could very well determine that Megaupload never broke any laws.

in a drug bust, it's pretty cut and dry as to whether the targets are doing something illegal

That's way too subjective for law. The prosecution has to prove to the jury (NOT the judge) that what they found is, in a criminal case, beyond a reasonable doubt, an illegal substance.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#59

Post by vidarh »

dmbass wrote: post #29
victork2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes the fact that they are dead even before any judgement has been pronounced is quite infuriating. It's not a coincidence that money is seized and their domain name taken, it's made to destroy the website even before any kind of judgement can roll out. I may be the only one but I find that outrageous. But if the FBI loses this case and its image is tarnished then it could be a precedent and may change the way t…

IANAL, but isn't this situation equivalent to a drug ring bust?

That they're being compared to a drug ring is rather unsettling, even if we assume that all the prosecutions claims are true.

The ongoing damage here, if any, is only economical and a much more narrowly construed seizure could still largely prevent further damage while safeguarding their legitimate customers.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#60

Post by jonknee »

powertower wrote: post #53

If you think MU is the victim here and that the FBI are the criminals, you’ve got it backwards. They took down individual links only, while still keeping the infringing files on the server, and all the other un-reported links to that exact file (they also hashed each upload, so to detect duplicates, and complete the upload instantly and have 1 data file... a fingerprint system they never used to prevent re-uploads of…

Removing individual links makes sense--if someone filed a DMCA request with Dropbox for a song and it ended up getting removed from my Dropbox as well that would be ridiculous.

In the case of something that is always illegal (say child porn) there would be a duty to remove all instances of a file, but when it's a case by case basis of whether or not there is a copyright issue it does not make sense to take files down en masse. Remember that uploads to MU were private--you received a secret link.

Post reply on HN