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

91–100 of 122 posts

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#91

Post by awj »

ddlatham wrote: post #84
maratd wrote: post #71

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. 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?

...then that exceptionally rare person will be inconvenienced in the process of correctly dealing with the significantly more common case. In either case it should be relatively easy for them to reacquire the file, if needed.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#92

Post by PLejeck »

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…

They didn't argue that MegaUpload was in the right, only that MegaUpload technically managed to not break any laws.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#93

Post by trotsky »

nikcub wrote: post #40
cookiecaper wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another excellent argument to use encryption. It seems every couple of weeks there is another high-profile incident where a lot of trouble would have been saved if people had taken the time to set up Enigmail. I would also love to see some advances in client-side steganography that could be usable as easily as GPG. Probably the closest thing we have now is TrueCrypt hidden volumes but that doesn't really work for ema…

or just don't host in the USA, since apparently now you can be forced to decrypt. I wouldn't trust the UK, EU, Singapore, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand etc. either - which rules out most countries that have decent peering and colocation infrastructure. Can anybody suggest a country/host that is cheap, fast and outside of the reach or co-operation of a US federal investigation?

You'd want to look at where the spammers and malware pushers host or are located, mostly china, russia and a few eastern european countries. Of course you're trading one set of problems for another: depending on the location you'll likely lack most IP protection, be subject to constant surveillance, extortion and organized crime.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#94

Post by powertower »

Natsu wrote: post #89
powertower wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

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

They were publically accessible (as in no authentication was required) regardless of how you want to spin it. But if that's not good enough for you...

It's my understanding that megaupload (and it's other sites) links were of the form: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XXXXXXXX

I could be wrong, but the links I've found so far all have 8 characters.

Notice it's a somewhat easily searchable space. You can enumerate all links starting from point1 to point2 (I think they assigned sequential numbers so no need to search the entire space).

Hence the slew of public MegaUpload-search websites that you could go to and search for every file in the index.

The point of the response was that if you needed private backups of your Amazon MP3 you should use a service that is a true lockerbox, and not a pseudo sharing site thats designed for sharing content. Otherwise, you need to take the blame for 1) losing access to your backups, and 2) knowingly sharing it even if you did not give the link out.

A lockerbox service that requires some authentication, or a very large GUID type link that can't be enumerated.

MegaUpload was designed for sharing.

The case of someone losing their legitimate Amazon MP3 upload is an edge-case that inconveniences one person, but takes down the sharing of hundreds, or thousands, of copies of illegitimate copies.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#95

Post by trotsky »

plorkyeran wrote: post #28
adgar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that the FBI should be allowed to arrest a business's operators and seize equipment that they believe are violating the law... but leave the business (which they believe is illegal) to keep running somehow? The FBI will attempt to prove that MegaUpload was an illegal business. Why should they just let it keep running if that is the case?

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

While you may not think much of the distinction, it wasn't the FBI that decided to shut them down - it was the judge that decided there was probable cause and thus signed the seizure warrants. So the judicial branch made the decision - this is the same branch that can imprison you before you're found guilty if they believe you're dangerous or a flight risk.

If you allowed all organizations to continue to operate until they were proven to be breaking the law you'd have something very closely resembling anarchy. Imagine if ever pump and dump boiler room operation had 1-3 years advanced notice before being subject to asset seizures.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#96

Post by pnmahoney »

This is crucial: the difference between the state of mind (mens rea) requirement for the criminal charges, and the clear(!) violations of the civil statutes at hand.

Even if, for some reason, this isn't getting Megaupload off the hook, it's worth remembering why exactly this isn't going to (gasp!) destroy that "cloud" thing everyone keeps writing about.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#97

Post by lwat »

powertower wrote: post #94
Natsu wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> MegaUpload links were not public unless the uploader published them somewhere. They were publically accessible (as in no authentication was required) regardless of how you want to spin it. But if that's not good enough for you... It's my understanding that megaupload (and it's other sites) links were of the form: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XXXXXXXX I could be wrong, but the links I've found so far all have 8 char…

So you're arguing that MU was illegal because their file IDs are too short?

What the fuck.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#98

Post by Natsu »

powertower wrote: post #94
Natsu wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> MegaUpload links were not public unless the uploader published them somewhere. They were publically accessible (as in no authentication was required) regardless of how you want to spin it. But if that's not good enough for you... It's my understanding that megaupload (and it's other sites) links were of the form: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XXXXXXXX I could be wrong, but the links I've found so far all have 8 char…

Eight characters is about the length of an ordinary password. Exactly how far does blame extend, then? I've seen more than a few people who honestly believe that keeping a URL secret somehow protects the content.

I can understand if you're mad about copyright infringement, but why does that person who recorded all of their child's sports matches deserve this merely for using MU? They were sharing their own movies with the rest of the team, true, but that's all the more reason to use a site like that in the first place.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#99

Post by dekz »

powertower wrote: post #94
Natsu wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> MegaUpload links were not public unless the uploader published them somewhere. They were publically accessible (as in no authentication was required) regardless of how you want to spin it. But if that's not good enough for you... It's my understanding that megaupload (and it's other sites) links were of the form: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XXXXXXXX I could be wrong, but the links I've found so far all have 8 char…

  > MegaUpload was designed for sharing.
So it youtube, I don't see your point here.

  > Notice it's a somewhat easily searchable space.
What is shady/illegal about this? 8 Characters are memorable and easily accessible. Just because someone puts their wallet in their handbag doesn't give me the right to take it if I can.

It would be nonsensical to store two copies of the same file as a service like MU or Dropbox. That file might legitimately be owned by user A and illegitimately owned by user B. Just because a DMCA takedown request was filed against user B's link doesn't mean user A should lose their legitimately owned file. This is analogous to someone storing stolen cash in a bank. Just because there was a stolen $20 in the vault, doesn't mean all $20 notes in the bank are stolen.

It will be interesting to see the outcomes of these events, it may make me lose all faith in humanity.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#100

Post by dekz »

From what I've read about Dotcom he seems like a shady guy. But in all honesty, how is he worth persuing over some drug cartel in a different country. (Note: I'm not making an opinion on whether drugs should be legal or illegal). Was it really worth the potential international relations fiasco, dollars spent on investigators; agents et al. All this wasted time and money to go after a set of people who have allowed internet users to write 1's and 0's and share them.

Oh the humanity! How can these people be allowed to live. /s

The time for cyber villans is not now, when the streets are still full of their ancestors.

Post reply on HN