7 ms·

Why exactly wouldn't you know? Couldn't you see who shared them, how they were shared and pretty much know? Or at least know enough to send an email or someth

Why exactly wouldn't you know? Couldn't you see who shared them, how they were shared and pretty much know? Or at least know enough to send an email or something to find out. A private backup that is only accessed by one customer could sanely be considered a backup, a link that has been downloaded 10,000 times by lot's of users of the exact same content, what should that sanely be considered? What is the proper legal solution to this problem? Just "fuck 'em" and the lawyers search and write letters for each and every copy?

Natsu 15y ago
> Why exactly wouldn't you know? It's only infringing if it lacks permission. The URLs could be kept privately and while 9 of the 10 were put up by pirates, the last one might have been the copyright holder's own copy which they were doing something with privately. And then you delete it on them. Oops.
- Nelson69 15y ago
  Well back to my premise, could you not sort of figure that out by the access patterns? Subsequently the people that give the permission have contacted you about it, what else are we needing? Perhaps you could have the notion of "private" shares. Would it be reasonable to identify your users? Perhaps require and SMS or something to gain membership and then when there is this deduplication case why couldn't you contact them to find out if it's valid or not?
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    >Well back to my premise, could you not sort of figure that out by the access patterns? You "could", but you could be wrong and cheese off your users. Who's to say that an indie label isn't using your service for cheap file hosting? Just because $file is getting a lot of hits (and "lot" needs to be defined here) doesn't mean that those uses are necessarily infringing. And then we're back to the links + deduping problem anyways. Let's say you've determined that 3 of the 9 non-DMCA'd links are coming from CoolHotWarez.ru (first remembering that the law doesn't require you to do this research, and second remembering that any warez site worth a crap uses an anonymizer to strip referrer URLs ANYWAYS...) - You take them down. The 6 left don't have much traffic, so your metric kind of falls apart. And all this would result in would result in warez kiddies uploading two copies of each file, keeping one secret and sharing the other.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    So... you'd ask the pirates if they were valid or not? The copyright holder is literally the only person who knows who does and does not have permission, so they're the only one who can reliably inform others. Though some of the big copyright holders have trouble keeping track of what they have and have not approved, as was show in the Viacom case. Big websites operate at scale. Think millions of users and thousands of new ones each day. Things like this are not compatible with manual processes. And if you look at something like YouTube, I think they get more than a week's worth of video uploaded every day. Half of the problem is that there isn't a reasonable way to enforce this.
Karunamon 15y ago
>Just "fuck 'em" and the lawyers search and write letters for each and every copy? I would say yes, in precisely that many words, but then again, I tire of the content industry's abuses and I have a huge bias against them. When it comes to "something potentially legal being taken down" and "something potentially infringing being left up", I'm going to fall on the side of 'leave the content up' 100% of the time. The "Better 100 guilty men...." school of law enforcement.

Natsu 15y ago

> Why exactly wouldn't you know? It's only infringing if it lacks permission. The URLs could be kept privately and while 9 of the 10 were put up by pirates, the last one might have been the copyright holder's own copy which they were doing something with privately. And then you delete it on them. Oops.

Nelson69 15y ago
Well back to my premise, could you not sort of figure that out by the access patterns? Subsequently the people that give the permission have contacted you about it, what else are we needing? Perhaps you could have the notion of "private" shares. Would it be reasonable to identify your users? Perhaps require and SMS or something to gain membership and then when there is this deduplication case why couldn't you contact them to find out if it's valid or not?
- Karunamon 15y ago
  >Well back to my premise, could you not sort of figure that out by the access patterns? You "could", but you could be wrong and cheese off your users. Who's to say that an indie label isn't using your service for cheap file hosting? Just because $file is getting a lot of hits (and "lot" needs to be defined here) doesn't mean that those uses are necessarily infringing. And then we're back to the links + deduping problem anyways. Let's say you've determined that 3 of the 9 non-DMCA'd links are coming from CoolHotWarez.ru (first remembering that the law doesn't require you to do this research, and second remembering that any warez site worth a crap uses an anonymizer to strip referrer URLs ANYWAYS...) - You take them down. The 6 left don't have much traffic, so your metric kind of falls apart. And all this would result in would result in warez kiddies uploading two copies of each file, keeping one secret and sharing the other.
- Natsu 15y ago
  So... you'd ask the pirates if they were valid or not? The copyright holder is literally the only person who knows who does and does not have permission, so they're the only one who can reliably inform others. Though some of the big copyright holders have trouble keeping track of what they have and have not approved, as was show in the Viacom case. Big websites operate at scale. Think millions of users and thousands of new ones each day. Things like this are not compatible with manual processes. And if you look at something like YouTube, I think they get more than a week's worth of video uploaded every day. Half of the problem is that there isn't a reasonable way to enforce this.

Karunamon 15y ago

>Just "fuck 'em" and the lawyers search and write letters for each and every copy? I would say yes, in precisely that many words, but then again, I tire of the content industry's abuses and I have a huge bias against them. When it comes to "something potentially legal being taken down" and "something potentially infringing being left up", I'm going to fall on the side of 'leave the content up' 100% of the time. The "Better 100 guilty men...." school of law enforcement.