4 ms·

"simply removing a single link to the content while duplicate links were left in place" I don't know how MegaUpload works. Does that statement mean that a sing

"simply removing a single link to the content while duplicate links were left in place" I don't know how MegaUpload works. Does that statement mean that a single user uploaded a file and there were multiple links to that file or does it mean that multiple users uploaded bit-for-bit identical files which each had links? The way it's phrased it sounds like the former, in which case it's obviously wrong.

Maxious 15y ago
The latter but that is what Dropbox does. See claims 21-24 @ http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment Megaupload took DMCA requests in the form of URLs (21), URLs allow access to a certain MD5 sum indexed file on their CDN (22), they would disable specific URLs to comply with DMCA requests while leaving others active rather than removing the file from their CDN (23) however if the material was child pornography/terrorism they had the ability to actually delete files and all their links (24)
- forrestthewoods 15y ago
  Ah well alright then. I see music as an interesting situation. It is legal to rip music (Google/Amazon both have cloud services) and multiple users could easily rip and upload identical files. However it wouldn't be legal to share that ripped file. In that case you'd want the infringing file to still exist but only be accessible to the user(s) who uploaded it. Property rights in the digital age sure is complicated. :(
- josnyder 15y ago
  The way I view copyright law (IANAL), this is the correct approach. Each upload of an item to Megaupload is an independent assertion by the uploader that they have a license to put the work in question on the site. _Content_ itself is not prima facie infringing; instead, it is the unlicensed _use_ of the content that is infringement. This was essentially Youtube's argument when Viacom uploaded "roughed up" content to their site [1]. In that case, the roughed up copy as originally uploaded would be a licensed copy, but any copies that other users uploaded, even with the same MD5 hash, would be unlicensed. On the other hand, child pornography can never be "non-infringing." It is always illegal to knowingly store obscene content, regardless of who stores it. Thus, one link to a child-pornographic file is as culpable as the next, justifying mass removal. This is essentially the argument made by Katherine Oyama of Google at one of the SOPA hearings [2]. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8575666.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8575666.stm [2] http://danwin.com/2012/01/the-sopa-debate-and-how-its-affected-by-congresss-understanding-of-child-porn/ http://danwin.com/2012/01/the-sopa-debate-and-how-its-affect... (Ctrl-f "REP. MARINO")
jQueryIsAwesome 15y ago
The first one, but with different links. If you uploaded something that is 100% equal to a file that was already on Megaupload servers it would take just a couple of seconds, Heck! If you were premium there was even an option to copy a file to your Megaupload account (with a different link).

Maxious 15y ago

The latter but that is what Dropbox does. See claims 21-24 @ http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment Megaupload took DMCA requests in the form of URLs (21), URLs allow access to a certain MD5 sum indexed file on their CDN (22), they would disable specific URLs to comply with DMCA requests while leaving others active rather than removing the file from their CDN (23) however if the material was child pornography/terrorism they had the ability to actually delete files and all their links (24)

forrestthewoods 15y ago
Ah well alright then. I see music as an interesting situation. It is legal to rip music (Google/Amazon both have cloud services) and multiple users could easily rip and upload identical files. However it wouldn't be legal to share that ripped file. In that case you'd want the infringing file to still exist but only be accessible to the user(s) who uploaded it. Property rights in the digital age sure is complicated. :(
josnyder 15y ago
The way I view copyright law (IANAL), this is the correct approach. Each upload of an item to Megaupload is an independent assertion by the uploader that they have a license to put the work in question on the site. _Content_ itself is not prima facie infringing; instead, it is the unlicensed _use_ of the content that is infringement. This was essentially Youtube's argument when Viacom uploaded "roughed up" content to their site [1]. In that case, the roughed up copy as originally uploaded would be a licensed copy, but any copies that other users uploaded, even with the same MD5 hash, would be unlicensed. On the other hand, child pornography can never be "non-infringing." It is always illegal to knowingly store obscene content, regardless of who stores it. Thus, one link to a child-pornographic file is as culpable as the next, justifying mass removal. This is essentially the argument made by Katherine Oyama of Google at one of the SOPA hearings [2]. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8575666.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8575666.stm [2] http://danwin.com/2012/01/the-sopa-debate-and-how-its-affected-by-congresss-understanding-of-child-porn/ http://danwin.com/2012/01/the-sopa-debate-and-how-its-affect... (Ctrl-f "REP. MARINO")

jQueryIsAwesome 15y ago

The first one, but with different links. If you uploaded something that is 100% equal to a file that was already on Megaupload servers it would take just a couple of seconds, Heck! If you were premium there was even an option to copy a file to your Megaupload account (with a different link).