Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

Post by stfu » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 8:03 PM UTC

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…

Post by epoxyhockey » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 8:10 PM UTC

powertower wrote: post #68

epoxyhockey wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

Post by powertower » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 8:20 PM UTC

ryoshu wrote: post #66

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 co…

Post by jonhendry » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 8:39 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #22

nikcub wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MegaUpload ran a net profit margin of around 40%. Hosting anywhere else probably would have wiped a lot of that out. Their main competitive advantage was download speeds in the USA - if you read online comments there was constant bitching about the speeds of other sites vs Megaupload. But forget the download servers being hosted in Virginia - what is much much worse is that they hosted their email servers at the same…

That's a rational, measured assessment. You bring up an excellent point at the end: if all of their evidence is from the emails, how did they get the warrant to obtain the emails? I submitted it, but it looks like you already did so last week, and it didn't get much attention. I hope more people can see it from this thread.

Post by anamax » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 8:46 PM UTC

powertower wrote: post #76

ryoshu wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

> 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. Then you should use a service that: 1) Does not provide unauthenticated access or public links for anyone to use to your backed-up MP3s from Amazon. 2) Is not known as the internet’s hub of piracy. 3) Did not offer bounties for people to upload copyrighted material.