13 ms·

If you think MU is the victim here and that the FBI are the criminals, you’ve got it backwards. They took down individual links only, while still keeping the i

If you think MU is the victim here and that the FBI are the criminals, you’ve got it backwards. They took down individual links only, while still keeping the infringing files on the server, and all the other un-reported links to that exact file (they also hashed each upload, so to detect duplicates, and complete the upload instantly and have 1 data file... a fingerprint system they never used to prevent re-uploads of copyrighted material that was reported). Then they conspired (shown in leaked emails) to only follow DMCA requests coming from large US entities (while ignoring requests coming from Mexico, for example). Their entire business revolved around tricking people into signing up for paid accounts so they could download copyrighted material. And made 175 million from it.

OoTheNigerian 15y ago
As you have judged them guilty based on the charges brought against them, I wonder why we need the law courts.
- powertower 15y ago
  I've made an assessment based on the evidence provided, and my own experience. And MU will have their day in a US court of law, based on a system that's the worst in the world, except for all the others.
jonknee 15y ago
Removing individual links makes sense--if someone filed a DMCA request with Dropbox for a song and it ended up getting removed from my Dropbox as well that would be ridiculous. In the case of something that is always illegal (say child porn) there would be a duty to remove all instances of a file, but when it's a case by case basis of whether or not there is a copyright issue it does not make sense to take files down en masse. Remember that uploads to MU were private--you received a secret link.
- powertower 15y ago
  > but when it's a case by case basis of whether or not there is a copyright issue it does not make sense to take files down en masse. I disagree. If you're hosting copyrighted material that I own, and I file a DMCA, I'd expect you to remove that material from the server / to stop hosting it. You just don't get to keep the data file and hide it behind more links.
  - sbov 15y ago
    Hopefully they also remove the one they're hosting for you, the copyright holder. If I had files in dropbox for personal use removed because someone filed a DMCA request against the same file someone else was sharing with everyone I'd be rather annoyed. Especially in the day of digital downloads. Just because 1 upload is using it in an infringing manor doesn't mean all of them are.
    - powertower 15y ago
      In that case, I'd be hosting my download somewhere else.
  - waitwhat 15y ago
    You appear to be confusing how the law really is with how you wish it were. You just don't get to keep the data file and hide it behind more links. Why not? (A genuine question, btw. I'd be interested in any tested case law.)
- maratd 15y ago
  > Removing individual links makes sense--if someone filed a DMCA request with Dropbox for a song and it ended up getting removed from my Dropbox as well that would be ridiculous. Dropbox has a very clear concept of private files and public files. If a DMCA request was issued for a file you're storing in your public folder, I would certainly expect Dropbox to remove all instances of that file in all public folders on all accounts.
  - ddlatham 15y ago
    What if the file in another public folder was held by the owner of the copyright, or someone else who had license to distribute it?
    - awj 15y ago
      ...then that exceptionally rare person will be inconvenienced in the process of correctly dealing with the significantly more common case. In either case it should be relatively easy for them to reacquire the file, if needed.
  - dodedo 15y ago
    You seem to be saying that if I write and record a song and put it on a dropbox public folder, then issue a DMCA takedown for another user who has copied my files, dropbox should delete my files as well. That makes no sense, whatsoever.
- stfu 15y ago
  Random question here: Let's say I keep a backup of my movie and music library on Megaupload. Is there anything wrong with it? Like is it my duty to password protect the files in order that nobody else can access it? i.e. what I am trying to say is, does just because there is copyrighted content on Megaupload it has to be automatically illegal?
epoxyhockey 15y ago
If a file resides on a server, but has no access to the outside world, does the file still exist? When you delete a file, it is still technically retrievable even though your OS leads you to believe otherwise. The whole discussion on hashing and fingerprinting is irrelevant. Youtube could do the same thing, but they don't either. Also, those leaked emails, as you call them were actually emails that the feds obtained from MU's mail server, probably via warrant. Those emails were used as the foundation of the indictment that was later presented to a grand jury. So, there is a huge question as to what probable cause the feds had to search MU's mail server in the first place, given that MU was complying with the DMCA safe harbor provision. MU appeared to only honor DMCA requests that came from legitimate parties; the email snippit claiming that they ignored a request from Mexico does not state the name of the entity that made that request, probably because it was made by a guy named Jose from an aol.com account. Anyway, this whole case is going to dissolve in front of the prosecutors' faces on Thursday when any trace of offending material is deleted do to discontinuation of service from Cogent & Carpathia. Dr. Evil appears to always get away with it.
- powertower 15y ago
  > If a file resides on a server, but has no access to the outside world, does the file still exist? When there are 100 more links to it? Yes. It exists. > So, there is a huge question as to what probable cause the feds had to search MU's mail server in the first place, given that MU was complying with the DMCA safe harbor provision. The rest of your post is one assumption after the other, that goes against what is reasonable to assume based on everything we've witnessed in this case.
  - epoxyhockey 15y ago
    I guess I should have prefaced my last post by saying that I'm looking at the whole case from a legal perspective. There is no question in my mind that MU thrived by appearing to comply with the DMCA, while encouraging illegal use of its service. However, if the gov't wanted to really send these guys to jail for a long time, they appear to have screwed up the foundation of their case pretty well. If the initial search of the MU mail server was not found to be valid, the feds lose. If Cogent & Carpathia delete all of MU's data (i.e. evidence) and the feds can't prove in court that offending material existed, the feds lose. It's turned into a real mess from a prosecution standpoint. No wonder Kim pleaded not guilty instead of taking a plea bargain.
ryoshu 15y ago
Say I've legally purchased an MP3 from Amazon and I decide to use my UberUpload to host the file so I can access it from any device. UberUpload decides to hash the file so it can depulicate the file and save disk space. Some other user downloads a pirated copy of the file TheArrrrrrBay and uploads it to UberUpload. The file hash is the same, so instead of storing the pirated version, UberUpload points to the legal copy. Now we have a single file with the same hash, but two pointers, one legal and one illegal. If UberUpload deletes the file, it is deleting legal and illegal content. If it deletes the illegal pointer, the legal copy of the file still exists.
- powertower 15y ago
  > Say I've legally purchased an MP3 from Amazon and I decide to use my UberUpload to host the file so I can access it from any device. Then you should use a service that: 1) Does not provide unauthenticated access or public links for anyone to use to your backed-up MP3s from Amazon. 2) Is not known as the internet’s hub of piracy. 3) Did not offer bounties for people to upload copyrighted material.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > Then you should use a service that: > 1) Does not provide unauthenticated access or public links for anyone to use to your backed-up MP3s from Amazon. UberUpload does not provide public links for "anyone to use your backed-up MP3s". It provides links so material can be accessed but those links aren't public unless I make them so. (Obama's direct phone number is private even though we know its format. The same principle applies here.)
    - powertower 15y ago
      Are we talking about MegaUpload or UberUpload? They seem to be quite different.
      - Natsu 15y ago
        MegaUpload links were not public unless the uploader published them somewhere.
abscondment 15y ago
> Then they conspired (shown in leaked emails) to only follow DMCA requests coming from large US entities (while ignoring requests coming from Mexico, for example). Color me ignorant, but this doesn't sit right with me. Does the DCMA have international scope? Does the FBI enforce Mexican law?
- powertower 15y ago
  There are various international acts, treaties, and arrangements on copyright and intellectual property. You're copyright and IP rights don't disappear the moment the data crosses into the USA.
  - TylerE 15y ago
    That's not being asked. The question is wether a Mexican entity has legal standing to take legal action using a US law against a US-based entity in a US court.
  - te_chris 15y ago
    They generally only cover the recognition of copyright, not enforcement of batshit crazy american law.
PLejeck 15y ago
They didn't argue that MegaUpload was in the right, only that MegaUpload technically managed to not break any laws.

OoTheNigerian 15y ago

As you have judged them guilty based on the charges brought against them, I wonder why we need the law courts.

powertower 15y ago
I've made an assessment based on the evidence provided, and my own experience. And MU will have their day in a US court of law, based on a system that's the worst in the world, except for all the others.

jonknee 15y ago

Removing individual links makes sense--if someone filed a DMCA request with Dropbox for a song and it ended up getting removed from my Dropbox as well that would be ridiculous. In the case of something that is always illegal (say child porn) there would be a duty to remove all instances of a file, but when it's a case by case basis of whether or not there is a copyright issue it does not make sense to take files down en masse. Remember that uploads to MU were private--you received a secret link.

powertower 15y ago
> but when it's a case by case basis of whether or not there is a copyright issue it does not make sense to take files down en masse. I disagree. If you're hosting copyrighted material that I own, and I file a DMCA, I'd expect you to remove that material from the server / to stop hosting it. You just don't get to keep the data file and hide it behind more links.
- sbov 15y ago
  Hopefully they also remove the one they're hosting for you, the copyright holder. If I had files in dropbox for personal use removed because someone filed a DMCA request against the same file someone else was sharing with everyone I'd be rather annoyed. Especially in the day of digital downloads. Just because 1 upload is using it in an infringing manor doesn't mean all of them are.
  - powertower 15y ago
    In that case, I'd be hosting my download somewhere else.
- waitwhat 15y ago
  You appear to be confusing how the law really is with how you wish it were. You just don't get to keep the data file and hide it behind more links. Why not? (A genuine question, btw. I'd be interested in any tested case law.)
maratd 15y ago
> Removing individual links makes sense--if someone filed a DMCA request with Dropbox for a song and it ended up getting removed from my Dropbox as well that would be ridiculous. Dropbox has a very clear concept of private files and public files. If a DMCA request was issued for a file you're storing in your public folder, I would certainly expect Dropbox to remove all instances of that file in all public folders on all accounts.
- ddlatham 15y ago
  What if the file in another public folder was held by the owner of the copyright, or someone else who had license to distribute it?
  - awj 15y ago
    ...then that exceptionally rare person will be inconvenienced in the process of correctly dealing with the significantly more common case. In either case it should be relatively easy for them to reacquire the file, if needed.
- dodedo 15y ago
  You seem to be saying that if I write and record a song and put it on a dropbox public folder, then issue a DMCA takedown for another user who has copied my files, dropbox should delete my files as well. That makes no sense, whatsoever.
stfu 15y ago
Random question here: Let's say I keep a backup of my movie and music library on Megaupload. Is there anything wrong with it? Like is it my duty to password protect the files in order that nobody else can access it? i.e. what I am trying to say is, does just because there is copyrighted content on Megaupload it has to be automatically illegal?

epoxyhockey 15y ago

If a file resides on a server, but has no access to the outside world, does the file still exist? When you delete a file, it is still technically retrievable even though your OS leads you to believe otherwise. The whole discussion on hashing and fingerprinting is irrelevant. Youtube could do the same thing, but they don't either. Also, those leaked emails, as you call them were actually emails that the feds obtained from MU's mail server, probably via warrant. Those emails were used as the foundation of the indictment that was later presented to a grand jury. So, there is a huge question as to what probable cause the feds had to search MU's mail server in the first place, given that MU was complying with the DMCA safe harbor provision. MU appeared to only honor DMCA requests that came from legitimate parties; the email snippit claiming that they ignored a request from Mexico does not state the name of the entity that made that request, probably because it was made by a guy named Jose from an aol.com account. Anyway, this whole case is going to dissolve in front of the prosecutors' faces on Thursday when any trace of offending material is deleted do to discontinuation of service from Cogent & Carpathia. Dr. Evil appears to always get away with it.

powertower 15y ago
> If a file resides on a server, but has no access to the outside world, does the file still exist? When there are 100 more links to it? Yes. It exists. > So, there is a huge question as to what probable cause the feds had to search MU's mail server in the first place, given that MU was complying with the DMCA safe harbor provision. The rest of your post is one assumption after the other, that goes against what is reasonable to assume based on everything we've witnessed in this case.
- epoxyhockey 15y ago
  I guess I should have prefaced my last post by saying that I'm looking at the whole case from a legal perspective. There is no question in my mind that MU thrived by appearing to comply with the DMCA, while encouraging illegal use of its service. However, if the gov't wanted to really send these guys to jail for a long time, they appear to have screwed up the foundation of their case pretty well. If the initial search of the MU mail server was not found to be valid, the feds lose. If Cogent & Carpathia delete all of MU's data (i.e. evidence) and the feds can't prove in court that offending material existed, the feds lose. It's turned into a real mess from a prosecution standpoint. No wonder Kim pleaded not guilty instead of taking a plea bargain.

ryoshu 15y ago

Say I've legally purchased an MP3 from Amazon and I decide to use my UberUpload to host the file so I can access it from any device. UberUpload decides to hash the file so it can depulicate the file and save disk space. Some other user downloads a pirated copy of the file TheArrrrrrBay and uploads it to UberUpload. The file hash is the same, so instead of storing the pirated version, UberUpload points to the legal copy. Now we have a single file with the same hash, but two pointers, one legal and one illegal. If UberUpload deletes the file, it is deleting legal and illegal content. If it deletes the illegal pointer, the legal copy of the file still exists.

powertower 15y ago
> Say I've legally purchased an MP3 from Amazon and I decide to use my UberUpload to host the file so I can access it from any device. Then you should use a service that: 1) Does not provide unauthenticated access or public links for anyone to use to your backed-up MP3s from Amazon. 2) Is not known as the internet’s hub of piracy. 3) Did not offer bounties for people to upload copyrighted material.
- anamax 15y ago
  > Then you should use a service that: > 1) Does not provide unauthenticated access or public links for anyone to use to your backed-up MP3s from Amazon. UberUpload does not provide public links for "anyone to use your backed-up MP3s". It provides links so material can be accessed but those links aren't public unless I make them so. (Obama's direct phone number is private even though we know its format. The same principle applies here.)
  - powertower 15y ago
    Are we talking about MegaUpload or UberUpload? They seem to be quite different.
    - Natsu 15y ago
      MegaUpload links were not public unless the uploader published them somewhere.

abscondment 15y ago

> Then they conspired (shown in leaked emails) to only follow DMCA requests coming from large US entities (while ignoring requests coming from Mexico, for example). Color me ignorant, but this doesn't sit right with me. Does the DCMA have international scope? Does the FBI enforce Mexican law?

powertower 15y ago
There are various international acts, treaties, and arrangements on copyright and intellectual property. You're copyright and IP rights don't disappear the moment the data crosses into the USA.
- TylerE 15y ago
  That's not being asked. The question is wether a Mexican entity has legal standing to take legal action using a US law against a US-based entity in a US court.
- te_chris 15y ago
  They generally only cover the recognition of copyright, not enforcement of batshit crazy american law.

PLejeck 15y ago

They didn't argue that MegaUpload was in the right, only that MegaUpload technically managed to not break any laws.