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

81–90 of 122 posts

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#81

Post by res0nat0r »

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…

http://www.slashgear.com/megaupload-host-denies-data-delete-...

From a Carpathia rep: “In reference to the letter filed by the U.S. Department of Justice with the Eastern District of Virginia on Jan. 27, 2012, Carpathia Hosting does not have, and has never had, access to the content on MegaUpload servers and has no mechanism for returning any content residing on such servers to MegaUpload’s customers. The reference to the Feb. 2, 2012 date in the Department of Justice letter for the deletion of content is not based on any information provided by Carpathia to the U.S. Government. We would recommend that anyone who believes that they have content on MegaUpload servers contact MegaUpload. Please do not contact Carpathia Hosting”

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#82

Post by waitwhat »

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.

You appear to be confusing how the law really is with how you wish it were.

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

Why not? (A genuine question, btw. I'd be interested in any tested case law.)

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#83

Post by te_chris »

powertower wrote: post #73
abscondment wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

There are various international acts, treaties, and arrangements on copyright and intellectual property. You're copyright and IP rights don't disappear the moment the data crosses into the USA.

They generally only cover the recognition of copyright, not enforcement of batshit crazy american law.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#84

Post by ddlatham »

maratd wrote: post #71
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…

> 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. Dropbox has a very clear concept of private files and public files. If a DMCA request was issued for a file you're storing in your public folder, I would certainly expect Dropbox to remove all instances of that file in all public folders on…

What if the file in another public folder was held by the owner of the copyright, or someone else who had license to distribute it?

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#85

Post by muuh-gnu »

bobds wrote: post #37
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?

I believe Rapidshare went to court about this. They won and they are not required to operate a fingerprinting system.

> I believe Rapidshare went to court about this.

In Germany/Switzerland.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#86

Post by powertower »

anamax wrote: post #80
powertower wrote: post #76

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. 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.

> 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. UberUpload does not provide public links for "anyone to use your backed-up MP3s". It provides links so material can be accessed but those links aren't public unless I make them so. (Obama's direct phone number is private even though we know its format. The same princ…

Are we talking about MegaUpload or UberUpload? They seem to be quite different.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#87

Post by dodedo »

maratd wrote: post #71
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…

> 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. Dropbox has a very clear concept of private files and public files. If a DMCA request was issued for a file you're storing in your public folder, I would certainly expect Dropbox to remove all instances of that file in all public folders on…

You seem to be saying that if I write and record a song and put it on a dropbox public folder, then issue a DMCA takedown for another user who has copied my files, dropbox should delete my files as well.

That makes no sense, whatsoever.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#88

Post by saucetenuto »

bostonpete wrote: post #56
jordan0day wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...?

Yeah, pretty much. One of the essential principles of Western democracy is that everyone should be equal under the law, that what is a crime for a peasant should also be a crime for a noble. If you can use money to purchase better legal outcomes (through e.g. better legal representation), that principle is undermined.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#89

Post by Natsu »

powertower wrote: post #86
anamax wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. UberUpload does not provide public links for "anyone to use your backed-up MP3s". It provides links so material can be accessed but those links aren't public unless I make them so. (Obama's direct phone number is private even though we know its format. The same princ…

Are we talking about MegaUpload or UberUpload? They seem to be quite different.

MegaUpload links were not public unless the uploader published them somewhere.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#90

Post by cabalamat »

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…

> Now we have a single file with the same hash, but two pointers, one legal and one illegal.

That's a good point. The legal principle that bits have colour[1] works -- or ought to work -- equally when it's against the MPAA as for them.

[1]: What Colour Are Your Bits? http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

Post reply on HN