5 ms·

Copyrights: Feds push a few novel theories in MegaUpload case

38 points by eplanit 15y ago

Natsu 15y ago
It will be interesting to see how the courts interpret the various DMCA requirements and whether or not they're able to clarify matters. For example, just what part of the DMCA requires them to deal with repeat infringers? There are allegations concerning that, but many of the allegations do not cite what law they think is being broken. I seem to recall that it has been considered by Congress, so is it really the court's place to decide those rules in their place? They sure don't mind deferring to Congress everywhere else, so I would tend to say no. But who knows just what they might read into the "red flag" requirement? Honestly, that's probably the biggest thing to watch. If they come up with some particular rule, a lot of people will have to scramble to implement something. And it will be even worse if they just say that people need one without giving any guidance. I hope to see remarks from grellas on this one. EDIT: Note that they do mention the repeat infringers bit the "conspiracy" section of the indictment, but that doesn't really make things very clear. I note that they also claim a link to ninjavideo (whose owner was taken down for criminal infringement) at the very start, then leave it out when talking about the "conspiracy." Weird.
eurleif 15y ago
>Because only a small percentage of Megaupload.com users pay for their use of the systems, Mega Conspiracy's business strategy for advertising requires maximizing the number of online downloads (i.e., distributions of content), which is also inconsistent with the concept of private storage. Except bandwidth costs money. Was MegaUpload really able to recoup the bandwidth costs of a full-length movie with ads?
- Natsu 15y ago
  Yeah, there are a ton of non sequiturs in there and other ostensibly reasonable decisions they've cast into a bad light. And then there are all the emails which, if real, are pretty damning. I guess they're trying to be thorough or something, but probably 2/3rds of the indictment is pointless and the real complaints are hidden by a lot of insinuations that sound ridiculous.
- charliesome 15y ago
  > Except bandwidth costs money. Was MegaUpload really able to recoup the bandwidth costs of a full-length movie with ads? I think you're overestimating the cost of bandwidth. Let's say a full length movie is 4 GB. I can get a server with 30 TB of monthly data transfer for $40 a month. That's 75 cents a terabyte, or 0.3 cents per full length movie. That's not outrageous. Given the scale of MegaUpload's operation, they would probably be paying considerably less for their bandwidth.
  - brador 15y ago
    Link to provider of such low cost bandwith please.
    - charliesome 15y ago
      http://www.interserver.net/custom-managed-dedicated-servers.html http://www.interserver.net/custom-managed-dedicated-servers.... Although if you're looking for something more well known, 100tb will sell you a box with 100tb/mo on a gigabit connection for $200 a month
      - beagle3 15y ago
        The $40 plan for the link you provided only gives 6TB/month. These guys charge $5/TB beyond that, so with 30TB would put you closer to $200/month. Not totally unreasonable, but five times higher (400% higher) than the number you quoted. So, back to the numbers - that's 1.5cent per full length movie -- and they're probably getting something like $0.40 CPM == 400 microusd; Assuming they show 10 ads per download, that means they get 4 milliusd per download; slightly higher than the cost you assumed, but almost 25% of the cost at the link you provided. Even if they get it much cheaper, something still doesn't add up here -- unless most of their downloads are not full length movies (e.g. tv shows, songs, pdf files) - in which case it makes much more sense. [edited: corrections]
        brador 15y ago
        1. The ads were usually poker affiliate ads. High paying. 2. They had the premium membership scheme. 3. I'd estimate average file size of a download was <100mb. It wasn't just movies, and a music file would weigh in at just <5mb yet still get an ad view.
badclient 15y ago
Pro tip: If you are in an industry like Megaupload's, avoid the word "Conspiracy" as part of your official company name. It makes it that much easier for a prosector to convince the jury of a conspiracy...by Mega Conspiracy.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- eis 15y ago
  The indictment calls them "Mega Conspiracy". It was not part of their official company name. It's propaganda within a court file.
  - badclient 15y ago
    Oh wow, that's just wrong.
  - kolektiv 15y ago
    I was struck by that as well. I can't imagine that flying over here in the UK (I would hope not, certainly). Legal indictments are supposed to be precise and dispassionate, accurately and succinctly itemising all offences believed to have been committed. I would hope that this kind of prejudicial framing would see the case looked at unfavourably by most juries/judges.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
DanBC 15y ago
> "[...]which is also inconsistent with the concept of private storage." Megaupload wasn't private storage, it was public storage. A musician wanting to distribute songs for free can either buy bandwidth or can host the file on MegaUpload. Joe Sixpack (in Alabama) can host the Christmas family videos for his sisters in Australia and England. But I'd really want to see figures for how much material was copy vio vs non copyvio. And I want to be prepared for how that information is going to be presented; byte size? number of files?
jbuzbee 15y ago
It's good to see coverage in the press that doesn't just echo the "Government Shuts Down Evil Pirate Web Site" that you too often see in mainstream media. And in Hollywood's hometown none-the-less. The comments on the article are also skeptical of the whole thing as well. Wonder if Hollywood execs read their home-town papers?
powertower 15y ago
Everyone seems to be falling over backwards trying to assert that MU was a legitimate business because it had a small number of legitimate users... If the majority of MegaUploads revenues came from clicks/views of ads on downloads of illegal content, then I'd say the government's assertions are correct. Kind of hard to make 150MM with a few paid users uploading/downloading own content.

38 points by eplanit 15y ago

Natsu 15y ago

It will be interesting to see how the courts interpret the various DMCA requirements and whether or not they're able to clarify matters. For example, just what part of the DMCA requires them to deal with repeat infringers? There are allegations concerning that, but many of the allegations do not cite what law they think is being broken. I seem to recall that it has been considered by Congress, so is it really the court's place to decide those rules in their place? They sure don't mind deferring to Congress everywhere else, so I would tend to say no. But who knows just what they might read into the "red flag" requirement? Honestly, that's probably the biggest thing to watch. If they come up with some particular rule, a lot of people will have to scramble to implement something. And it will be even worse if they just say that people need one without giving any guidance. I hope to see remarks from grellas on this one. EDIT: Note that they do mention the repeat infringers bit the "conspiracy" section of the indictment, but that doesn't really make things very clear. I note that they also claim a link to ninjavideo (whose owner was taken down for criminal infringement) at the very start, then leave it out when talking about the "conspiracy." Weird.

eurleif 15y ago

>Because only a small percentage of Megaupload.com users pay for their use of the systems, Mega Conspiracy's business strategy for advertising requires maximizing the number of online downloads (i.e., distributions of content), which is also inconsistent with the concept of private storage. Except bandwidth costs money. Was MegaUpload really able to recoup the bandwidth costs of a full-length movie with ads?

Natsu 15y ago
Yeah, there are a ton of non sequiturs in there and other ostensibly reasonable decisions they've cast into a bad light. And then there are all the emails which, if real, are pretty damning. I guess they're trying to be thorough or something, but probably 2/3rds of the indictment is pointless and the real complaints are hidden by a lot of insinuations that sound ridiculous.
charliesome 15y ago
> Except bandwidth costs money. Was MegaUpload really able to recoup the bandwidth costs of a full-length movie with ads? I think you're overestimating the cost of bandwidth. Let's say a full length movie is 4 GB. I can get a server with 30 TB of monthly data transfer for $40 a month. That's 75 cents a terabyte, or 0.3 cents per full length movie. That's not outrageous. Given the scale of MegaUpload's operation, they would probably be paying considerably less for their bandwidth.
- brador 15y ago
  Link to provider of such low cost bandwith please.
  - charliesome 15y ago
    http://www.interserver.net/custom-managed-dedicated-servers.html http://www.interserver.net/custom-managed-dedicated-servers.... Although if you're looking for something more well known, 100tb will sell you a box with 100tb/mo on a gigabit connection for $200 a month
    - beagle3 15y ago
      The $40 plan for the link you provided only gives 6TB/month. These guys charge $5/TB beyond that, so with 30TB would put you closer to $200/month. Not totally unreasonable, but five times higher (400% higher) than the number you quoted. So, back to the numbers - that's 1.5cent per full length movie -- and they're probably getting something like $0.40 CPM == 400 microusd; Assuming they show 10 ads per download, that means they get 4 milliusd per download; slightly higher than the cost you assumed, but almost 25% of the cost at the link you provided. Even if they get it much cheaper, something still doesn't add up here -- unless most of their downloads are not full length movies (e.g. tv shows, songs, pdf files) - in which case it makes much more sense. [edited: corrections]
      - brador 15y ago
        1. The ads were usually poker affiliate ads. High paying. 2. They had the premium membership scheme. 3. I'd estimate average file size of a download was <100mb. It wasn't just movies, and a music file would weigh in at just <5mb yet still get an ad view.

badclient 15y ago

Pro tip: If you are in an industry like Megaupload's, avoid the word "Conspiracy" as part of your official company name. It makes it that much easier for a prosector to convince the jury of a conspiracy...by Mega Conspiracy.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
eis 15y ago
The indictment calls them "Mega Conspiracy". It was not part of their official company name. It's propaganda within a court file.
- badclient 15y ago
  Oh wow, that's just wrong.
- kolektiv 15y ago
  I was struck by that as well. I can't imagine that flying over here in the UK (I would hope not, certainly). Legal indictments are supposed to be precise and dispassionate, accurately and succinctly itemising all offences believed to have been committed. I would hope that this kind of prejudicial framing would see the case looked at unfavourably by most juries/judges.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

DanBC 15y ago

> "[...]which is also inconsistent with the concept of private storage." Megaupload wasn't private storage, it was public storage. A musician wanting to distribute songs for free can either buy bandwidth or can host the file on MegaUpload. Joe Sixpack (in Alabama) can host the Christmas family videos for his sisters in Australia and England. But I'd really want to see figures for how much material was copy vio vs non copyvio. And I want to be prepared for how that information is going to be presented; byte size? number of files?

jbuzbee 15y ago

It's good to see coverage in the press that doesn't just echo the "Government Shuts Down Evil Pirate Web Site" that you too often see in mainstream media. And in Hollywood's hometown none-the-less. The comments on the article are also skeptical of the whole thing as well. Wonder if Hollywood execs read their home-town papers?

powertower 15y ago

Everyone seems to be falling over backwards trying to assert that MU was a legitimate business because it had a small number of legitimate users... If the majority of MegaUploads revenues came from clicks/views of ads on downloads of illegal content, then I'd say the government's assertions are correct. Kind of hard to make 150MM with a few paid users uploading/downloading own content.