5 ms·

This sounds like a somewhat clever loophole around DMCA requirements. Host the same/duplicate file at an approximately infinite number of different URLs and ta

This sounds like a somewhat clever loophole around DMCA requirements. Host the same/duplicate file at an approximately infinite number of different URLs and take them down one by one as DMCA requests come in for specific links. This seems like a someone complicated loophole to write around because even if the DMCA was changed to allow takedowns of media and it's duplicates (if it doesn't already) you could combinatorially add random junk into the stream and circumvent that as well.

nl 15y ago
That's not how the DMCA works - you can notify the site of the content and require them to remove the content and/or any links to it. Read some samples from ChillingEffects: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi
- aes256 15y ago
  A more nuanced version of the system newhouseb is proposing would be one in which, for every 'upload' of the file that receives a DMCA takedown notice, the associated download link could be deleted (i.e. complying with the notice as far as the rights holder is aware) but another one almost immediately created, linking to the same content. The host could simply claim another user uploaded it after the DMCA notice was received and the original link removed. Presumably DMCA notices don't apply to future uploads as well? That would be almost completely unenforceable for a service like Megaupload. Edit: Just a couple more proposals for such a system. First, the link re-creation could be conducted randomly at different times after deletion for different uploads, giving the impression that it is not the result of an automated process. Second, a host could publish all the DMCA notices they receive, providing a plausible explanation for why all the content is 're-uploaded' soon after being taken down. Surely a host can't be held responsible if its 'users' take it upon themselves to almost immediately re-upload any content taken down by DMCA notices?
0xABADC0DA 15y ago
DMAA safe harbor only applies if you are not aware of the infringing content. If you have a bunch of links to the same file and only take down one then you have no protection under DMCA and the standard 'greater-than $3k damages then go to jail' applies. There is also a red flags test. If a reasonable person would be aware that the site is hosting files that infringe then it's not protected. And also you can't get direct financial benefit from it, you have to close accounts of repeat offenders, and some other restrictions. Basically everybody knew Megaupload hosted warez, there were red flags, megaupload didn't take down links they knew were warez, and they made money off of it. Case closed. There may have also been legitimate use of megaupload, but they weren't covered by safe harbor and them being shut down is the law working as intended. > you could combinatorially add random junk into the stream and circumvent that as well. One could, like how people flip/speed up/record tv to get around youtube blocking, but it would take a lot of work and dedication to keep uploading your 500+ MiB movie rips over and over again.
- dangrossman 15y ago
  > If you have a bunch of links to the same file and only take down one then you have no protection But the existence of a copy does not tell you whether the uploader had the appropriate license from the copyright holder, or is the copyright holder, of that copy. Files do not fit into "legal" and "illegal" bins by the order of the bits alone. Let's say I create and sell a software package. I upload it to my Megaupload account so I can easily access it later at another location. Someone else uploads a copy they bought with a stolen credit card so they can share it on a warez forum. I send a DMCA notice of infringement requesting this copy be removed from Megaupload. Should Megaupload now also locate all links to that file and remove them, including mine, which is entirely legal for them to host? Is Megaupload required to breach its contract with me as a paying user of their service, in good faith and violating no laws, in order to meet the DMCA safe harbor requirements? I think not.
  - Drbble 15y ago
    This is exactly the sort of clever hackery that coders think is a loophole but judges think is contempt of court and obstruction of justice.

nl 15y ago

That's not how the DMCA works - you can notify the site of the content and require them to remove the content and/or any links to it. Read some samples from ChillingEffects: http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi

aes256 15y ago
A more nuanced version of the system newhouseb is proposing would be one in which, for every 'upload' of the file that receives a DMCA takedown notice, the associated download link could be deleted (i.e. complying with the notice as far as the rights holder is aware) but another one almost immediately created, linking to the same content. The host could simply claim another user uploaded it after the DMCA notice was received and the original link removed. Presumably DMCA notices don't apply to future uploads as well? That would be almost completely unenforceable for a service like Megaupload. Edit: Just a couple more proposals for such a system. First, the link re-creation could be conducted randomly at different times after deletion for different uploads, giving the impression that it is not the result of an automated process. Second, a host could publish all the DMCA notices they receive, providing a plausible explanation for why all the content is 're-uploaded' soon after being taken down. Surely a host can't be held responsible if its 'users' take it upon themselves to almost immediately re-upload any content taken down by DMCA notices?

0xABADC0DA 15y ago

DMAA safe harbor only applies if you are not aware of the infringing content. If you have a bunch of links to the same file and only take down one then you have no protection under DMCA and the standard 'greater-than $3k damages then go to jail' applies. There is also a red flags test. If a reasonable person would be aware that the site is hosting files that infringe then it's not protected. And also you can't get direct financial benefit from it, you have to close accounts of repeat offenders, and some other restrictions. Basically everybody knew Megaupload hosted warez, there were red flags, megaupload didn't take down links they knew were warez, and they made money off of it. Case closed. There may have also been legitimate use of megaupload, but they weren't covered by safe harbor and them being shut down is the law working as intended. > you could combinatorially add random junk into the stream and circumvent that as well. One could, like how people flip/speed up/record tv to get around youtube blocking, but it would take a lot of work and dedication to keep uploading your 500+ MiB movie rips over and over again.

dangrossman 15y ago
> If you have a bunch of links to the same file and only take down one then you have no protection But the existence of a copy does not tell you whether the uploader had the appropriate license from the copyright holder, or is the copyright holder, of that copy. Files do not fit into "legal" and "illegal" bins by the order of the bits alone. Let's say I create and sell a software package. I upload it to my Megaupload account so I can easily access it later at another location. Someone else uploads a copy they bought with a stolen credit card so they can share it on a warez forum. I send a DMCA notice of infringement requesting this copy be removed from Megaupload. Should Megaupload now also locate all links to that file and remove them, including mine, which is entirely legal for them to host? Is Megaupload required to breach its contract with me as a paying user of their service, in good faith and violating no laws, in order to meet the DMCA safe harbor requirements? I think not.
- Drbble 15y ago
  This is exactly the sort of clever hackery that coders think is a loophole but judges think is contempt of court and obstruction of justice.