3 ms·

> MegaUpload did seem like it was brazenly profiting off of other people's intellectual property. As much as US propaganda would like us to see it as a lame te

> MegaUpload did seem like it was brazenly profiting off of other people's intellectual property. As much as US propaganda would like us to see it as a lame technicality, there is a very important distinction here: Megaupload was not directly profiting from copyright infringement, they were profiting by being a place for copyright infringement. The reason they were so successful is that there wasn't a competing service in that niche other than BitTorrent. Megaupload just hosted files. They are seen as some evil copyright-infringing business simply because they didn't actively filter those files. They considered the content of their users' data to be none of their business. I think it's ludicrous to prosecute them for such reasonable behavior.

ALittleLight 8y ago
I don't really see this as US propaganda. I think it's likely that MegaUpload was facilitating for profit copyright infringement. If copyright exists for any reason it should be to stop other people from selling your intellectual property for a profit. MegaUpload did not just host files but they also made it easy to share access to those files and paid people who hosted files that were shared a lot. MegaUpload knew about content that was infringing on copyright and did nothing about it (per the indictment). When MegaUpload was given take down notices they did not remove offending content but instead deactivated links to the content. If I torrented a movie, uploaded it on MegaUpload, then generated a hundred links to share on a hundred forum posts, I could share the movie, make money from Mega for doing so, and avoid take downs by generating new links. Do you believe that intellectual property should be defended by law?
- varenc 8y ago
  The key point for me is that even when MegaUpload was given a DMCA takedown notice, they intentionally made the simplest possible response that barely addressed the issue. If they'd simply removed all the shared links for a file that matched an infringing file's hash, that'd be a huge difference in my mind. Of course, if they did this, they likely would have had far fewer paying customers...
  - thomastjeffery 8y ago
    If they blocked files by hash, users would simply upload slightly corrupt duplicates, and the situation would quickly get out of hand. Megaupload's business model was to promote data consolidation (more downloads of the same file) and to provide good data retention (don't delete users' data). Now they are seen as evil for favoring that model instead of favoring heavy-handed DMCA takedowns.
- thomastjeffery 8y ago
  The distinction I want to make here is that Megaupload itself was not directly infringing any copyright. The problem you have with them is that they sided with their customers instead of copyright holders, doing what they believed the bare minimum to comply with the law. I'm not saying that is not an immoral practice, or that Megaupload was completely following the law. I just want to make the distinction clear. There are three parties: 1. Megaupload 2. Users 3. Copyright holders What has happened is that copyright holders had a dispute with users, and demanded Megaupload handle that dispute in a way benefiting only the copyright holders. Since when are data hosting services police? We have seen the problems caused by that mentality at YouTube, where fair use content is censored. My opinion is that it should not be the burden of a data hosting service to police copyright infringement.

ALittleLight 8y ago

I don't really see this as US propaganda. I think it's likely that MegaUpload was facilitating for profit copyright infringement. If copyright exists for any reason it should be to stop other people from selling your intellectual property for a profit. MegaUpload did not just host files but they also made it easy to share access to those files and paid people who hosted files that were shared a lot. MegaUpload knew about content that was infringing on copyright and did nothing about it (per the indictment). When MegaUpload was given take down notices they did not remove offending content but instead deactivated links to the content. If I torrented a movie, uploaded it on MegaUpload, then generated a hundred links to share on a hundred forum posts, I could share the movie, make money from Mega for doing so, and avoid take downs by generating new links. Do you believe that intellectual property should be defended by law?

varenc 8y ago
The key point for me is that even when MegaUpload was given a DMCA takedown notice, they intentionally made the simplest possible response that barely addressed the issue. If they'd simply removed all the shared links for a file that matched an infringing file's hash, that'd be a huge difference in my mind. Of course, if they did this, they likely would have had far fewer paying customers...
- thomastjeffery 8y ago
  If they blocked files by hash, users would simply upload slightly corrupt duplicates, and the situation would quickly get out of hand. Megaupload's business model was to promote data consolidation (more downloads of the same file) and to provide good data retention (don't delete users' data). Now they are seen as evil for favoring that model instead of favoring heavy-handed DMCA takedowns.
thomastjeffery 8y ago
The distinction I want to make here is that Megaupload itself was not directly infringing any copyright. The problem you have with them is that they sided with their customers instead of copyright holders, doing what they believed the bare minimum to comply with the law. I'm not saying that is not an immoral practice, or that Megaupload was completely following the law. I just want to make the distinction clear. There are three parties: 1. Megaupload 2. Users 3. Copyright holders What has happened is that copyright holders had a dispute with users, and demanded Megaupload handle that dispute in a way benefiting only the copyright holders. Since when are data hosting services police? We have seen the problems caused by that mentality at YouTube, where fair use content is censored. My opinion is that it should not be the burden of a data hosting service to police copyright infringement.