4 ms·

So in terms of precedent, if dropbox can be used to store copyright files, could they also be shut down on a whim like this?

by brador 15y ago

The_Sponge 15y ago
It seems that way.
dchest 15y ago
Yeah, The Dropbox Conspirators now probably must implement a public search function and the list of top files. Instead, the indictment alleges that the conspirators manipulated the perception of content available on their servers by not providing a public search function on the Megaupload site and by not including popular infringing content on the publicly available lists of top content downloaded by its users. Oh, and affiliate programs are now money laundering: The indictment charges the defendants with conspiring to launder money by paying users through the sites’ uploader reward program and paying companies to host the infringing content.
- silverlight 15y ago
  Paying companies to host it? What the heck? That's like saying it's tax fraud to pay your electric bill if you're late on your tax return.
  - Drbble 15y ago
    Did Kim own the hosting companies too? That would be a textbook example of laundering.
ssebro 15y ago
I think it's worse that dropbox dedupes files, which means that they(dropbox) already have infrastructure that could seriously combat their use in infringement. I do wonder how this plays into the whole Swizz Beats is CEO news.
- bri3d 15y ago
  I don't think dedupe seriously combats use in infringement - it just forces pirates to repack/recompress their infringing content into many different forms, which pretty much happens anyway since lots of "torrent warez" groups like to put their names and spam links on everything. From a legal/rights-holder standpoint that's a double-edged sword - it could be argued that because Dropbox dedupe files, they have a head start on DMCA compliance, but it could also be argued that the technical infrastructure means they should be better at removing infringing content.
  - ssebro 15y ago
    it does because I'm fairly sure they aren't deduping at the file level - which means they're doing significant introspection into exactly how different copies of the same file are. This is why dropbox is so fast - they only need to send unique diffs.
    - bri3d 15y ago
      Content recompressed with a different file format at a different compression level will almost certainly not match, and many pirate sites use encrypted RARs which will all differ from each other almost entirely. That's why I think the "Megaupload took down only one link rather than all the infringing content" aspect of this indictment is so scary, especially for a site that does perform introspection into its hosted files - it's easy for a judge to go from "you can send only unique differences" to "you can locate every instance of this copyrighted content and remove it or else."
- itsnotlupus 15y ago
  The indictment papers specifically claim that megaupload was also dedupping files (general allegation 22.) That's related to their claim that the DMCA take down requests weren't honored: Allegedly, while appearing to comply with requests to remove infringing content, they would merely take down the reported links, yet would keep alternate links to the same md5-hash-matching content working.
davux 15y ago
Perhaps more interestingly, can Amazon S3 be shutdown? My understanding is that Dropbox is effectively an S3 client, so how is that line drawn?
- jonknee 15y ago
  Using this case as a guide, Dropbox would be "laundering" money to Amazon and everyone at Dropbox would be arrested and charged with felony money laundering and face 20 years in prison. "The indictment charges the defendants with conspiring to launder money by paying users through the sites’ uploader reward program and paying companies to host the infringing content."
adestefan 15y ago
No. MegaUpload lost their safe harbor status by doing the following as spelled out in the DoJ press release: As alleged in the indictment, the conspirators failed to terminate accounts of users with known copyright infringement, selectively complied with their obligations to remove copyrighted materials from their servers and deliberately misrepresented to copyright holders that they had removed infringing content. For example, when notified by a rights holder that a file contained infringing content, the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in place to make it seamlessly available to millions of users to access through any one of the many duplicate links available for that file. Of course this is only a grand jury indictment and they have not been found guilty in a court. But the Feds don't bring a case if they aren't damn well sure they can win.
- dman 15y ago
  Interesting that its okay for content owners to have false positives when flagging content, but it is not okay for site operators to have false negatives.
- julian37 15y ago
  the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in place I might be reading too much into this, but to me this sounds like ten people uploaded the same movie (maybe with different filenames, maybe different encodings/file formats), the DMCA request only named one of these files, and MegaUpload removed only that one file. (I know the quote says "link" not "copy" but it wouldn't be the first time people get confused over the distinction.) If so, this sets a dangerous precedent for other (maybe more legitimate) file sharing sites: firstly, if you host millions of files, detecting which files are copies of another file, or deciding which filenames are similar to other filenames, is not a trivial task. Secondly, as far as I understand the DMCA, it doesn't even require you to go to these lengths. Of course, I might be totally off base and they might really have kept the very same file in place and just removed a link to it on some pages while keeping the link on others. Does anyone know more details about this?

So in terms of precedent, if dropbox can be used to store copyright files, could they also be shut down on a whim like this?

by brador 15y ago

So in terms of precedent, if dropbox can be used to store copyright files, could they also be shut down on a whim like this?

The_Sponge 15y ago

It seems that way.

dchest 15y ago

Yeah, The Dropbox Conspirators now probably must implement a public search function and the list of top files. Instead, the indictment alleges that the conspirators manipulated the perception of content available on their servers by not providing a public search function on the Megaupload site and by not including popular infringing content on the publicly available lists of top content downloaded by its users. Oh, and affiliate programs are now money laundering: The indictment charges the defendants with conspiring to launder money by paying users through the sites’ uploader reward program and paying companies to host the infringing content.

silverlight 15y ago
Paying companies to host it? What the heck? That's like saying it's tax fraud to pay your electric bill if you're late on your tax return.
- Drbble 15y ago
  Did Kim own the hosting companies too? That would be a textbook example of laundering.

ssebro 15y ago

I think it's worse that dropbox dedupes files, which means that they(dropbox) already have infrastructure that could seriously combat their use in infringement. I do wonder how this plays into the whole Swizz Beats is CEO news.

bri3d 15y ago
I don't think dedupe seriously combats use in infringement - it just forces pirates to repack/recompress their infringing content into many different forms, which pretty much happens anyway since lots of "torrent warez" groups like to put their names and spam links on everything. From a legal/rights-holder standpoint that's a double-edged sword - it could be argued that because Dropbox dedupe files, they have a head start on DMCA compliance, but it could also be argued that the technical infrastructure means they should be better at removing infringing content.
- ssebro 15y ago
  it does because I'm fairly sure they aren't deduping at the file level - which means they're doing significant introspection into exactly how different copies of the same file are. This is why dropbox is so fast - they only need to send unique diffs.
  - bri3d 15y ago
    Content recompressed with a different file format at a different compression level will almost certainly not match, and many pirate sites use encrypted RARs which will all differ from each other almost entirely. That's why I think the "Megaupload took down only one link rather than all the infringing content" aspect of this indictment is so scary, especially for a site that does perform introspection into its hosted files - it's easy for a judge to go from "you can send only unique differences" to "you can locate every instance of this copyrighted content and remove it or else."
itsnotlupus 15y ago
The indictment papers specifically claim that megaupload was also dedupping files (general allegation 22.) That's related to their claim that the DMCA take down requests weren't honored: Allegedly, while appearing to comply with requests to remove infringing content, they would merely take down the reported links, yet would keep alternate links to the same md5-hash-matching content working.

davux 15y ago

Perhaps more interestingly, can Amazon S3 be shutdown? My understanding is that Dropbox is effectively an S3 client, so how is that line drawn?

jonknee 15y ago
Using this case as a guide, Dropbox would be "laundering" money to Amazon and everyone at Dropbox would be arrested and charged with felony money laundering and face 20 years in prison. "The indictment charges the defendants with conspiring to launder money by paying users through the sites’ uploader reward program and paying companies to host the infringing content."

adestefan 15y ago

No. MegaUpload lost their safe harbor status by doing the following as spelled out in the DoJ press release: As alleged in the indictment, the conspirators failed to terminate accounts of users with known copyright infringement, selectively complied with their obligations to remove copyrighted materials from their servers and deliberately misrepresented to copyright holders that they had removed infringing content. For example, when notified by a rights holder that a file contained infringing content, the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in place to make it seamlessly available to millions of users to access through any one of the many duplicate links available for that file. Of course this is only a grand jury indictment and they have not been found guilty in a court. But the Feds don't bring a case if they aren't damn well sure they can win.

dman 15y ago
Interesting that its okay for content owners to have false positives when flagging content, but it is not okay for site operators to have false negatives.
julian37 15y ago
the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in place I might be reading too much into this, but to me this sounds like ten people uploaded the same movie (maybe with different filenames, maybe different encodings/file formats), the DMCA request only named one of these files, and MegaUpload removed only that one file. (I know the quote says "link" not "copy" but it wouldn't be the first time people get confused over the distinction.) If so, this sets a dangerous precedent for other (maybe more legitimate) file sharing sites: firstly, if you host millions of files, detecting which files are copies of another file, or deciding which filenames are similar to other filenames, is not a trivial task. Secondly, as far as I understand the DMCA, it doesn't even require you to go to these lengths. Of course, I might be totally off base and they might really have kept the very same file in place and just removed a link to it on some pages while keeping the link on others. Does anyone know more details about this?