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

61–70 of 122 posts

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#61

Post by nooneelse »

vidarh wrote: post #54
unreal37 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 claimin…

Indeed, a fingerprinting system doesn't tell you what "legal color" the bits are (http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23). One copy of a file can be infringing while another, identical copy, is legit.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#62

Post by vidarh »

josefresco wrote: post #45
plorkyeran wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the FBI be able to shut down a company without proving that the company is illegal first ?

I think the reasoning the feds use is it prevents the suspect from destroying evidence, and/or stops the activity from continuing to 'harm' the public.

But then they better have damn solid evidence first that the additional time period the company is left operating will be instrumental in increasing the damage done sufficiently to make significant difference. In this case Megaupload have been operating for years.

IF they're found guilty, the additional time of operating in a situation where everyone who might want to use them to pirate knows they're under significant government scrutiny is not likely to make the damage done all that much greater.

As for destroying evidence, in this case the feds are happy to let the hosting companies destroy data - they've apparently warned Megaupload that lots of user data will get deleted by the hosting companies soon for failure to pay, because Megaupload's assets were seizes so they can't pay...

So not only are they not allowing the files to stay online, they're preventing Megaupload from ensuring they can retain copies of customer data in the event they're found not guilty.

Regardless of whether or not they're found guilty, this way of acting is downright disgusting.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#63

Post by powertower »

OoTheNigerian wrote: post #57
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.

I've made an assessment based on the evidence provided, and my own experience.

And MU will have their day in a US court of law, based on a system that's the worst in the world, except for all the others.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#64

Post by powertower »

jonknee wrote: post #60
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…

> 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.

I disagree.

If you're hosting copyrighted material that I own, and I file a DMCA, I'd expect you to remove that material from the server / to stop hosting it.

You just don't get to keep the data file and hide it behind more links.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#65

Post by epoxyhockey »

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…

If a file resides on a server, but has no access to the outside world, does the file still exist? When you delete a file, it is still technically retrievable even though your OS leads you to believe otherwise. The whole discussion on hashing and fingerprinting is irrelevant. Youtube could do the same thing, but they don't either.

Also, those leaked emails, as you call them were actually emails that the feds obtained from MU's mail server, probably via warrant. Those emails were used as the foundation of the indictment that was later presented to a grand jury. So, there is a huge question as to what probable cause the feds had to search MU's mail server in the first place, given that MU was complying with the DMCA safe harbor provision. MU appeared to only honor DMCA requests that came from legitimate parties; the email snippit claiming that they ignored a request from Mexico does not state the name of the entity that made that request, probably because it was made by a guy named Jose from an aol.com account.

Anyway, this whole case is going to dissolve in front of the prosecutors' faces on Thursday when any trace of offending material is deleted do to discontinuation of service from Cogent & Carpathia. Dr. Evil appears to always get away with it.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#66

Post by ryoshu »

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…

Say I've legally purchased an MP3 from Amazon and I decide to use my UberUpload to host the file so I can access it from any device. UberUpload decides to hash the file so it can depulicate the file and save disk space. Some other user downloads a pirated copy of the file TheArrrrrrBay and uploads it to UberUpload. The file hash is the same, so instead of storing the pirated version, UberUpload points to the legal copy.

Now we have a single file with the same hash, but two pointers, one legal and one illegal. If UberUpload deletes the file, it is deleting legal and illegal content. If it deletes the illegal pointer, the legal copy of the file still exists.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#67

Post by sbov »

powertower wrote: post #64
jonknee wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I disagree. If you're hosting copyrighted material that I own, and I file a DMCA, I'd expect you to remove that material from the server / to stop hosting it. You just don't get to keep the data file and hide it behind more links.

Hopefully they also remove the one they're hosting for you, the copyright holder.

If I had files in dropbox for personal use removed because someone filed a DMCA request against the same file someone else was sharing with everyone I'd be rather annoyed. Especially in the day of digital downloads.

Just because 1 upload is using it in an infringing manor doesn't mean all of them are.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#68

Post by powertower »

epoxyhockey wrote: post #65
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…

If a file resides on a server, but has no access to the outside world, does the file still exist? When you delete a file, it is still technically retrievable even though your OS leads you to believe otherwise. The whole discussion on hashing and fingerprinting is irrelevant. Youtube could do the same thing, but they don't either. Also, those leaked emails , as you call them were actually emails that the feds obtained…

> If a file resides on a server, but has no access to the outside world, does the file still exist?

When there are 100 more links to it? Yes. It exists.

> So, there is a huge question as to what probable cause the feds had to search MU's mail server in the first place, given that MU was complying with the DMCA safe harbor provision.

The rest of your post is one assumption after the other, that goes against what is reasonable to assume based on everything we've witnessed in this case.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#69

Post by abscondment »

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…

> 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).

Color me ignorant, but this doesn't sit right with me. Does the DCMA have international scope? Does the FBI enforce Mexican law?

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#70

Post by dmbass »

vidarh wrote: post #59
dmbass wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The analogous party here might be the money laundering business that gets shut down for the duration of the trial.
Post reply on HN