6 ms·

I never used megaupload so I apologize if I'm way off, but I'm really confused: After this "bust" it seems the received wisdom is that MegaUpload was not some s

by sequoia 15y ago

I never used megaupload so I apologize if I'm way off, but I'm really confused: After this "bust" it seems the received wisdom is that MegaUpload was not some shady illegal file sharing site; whereas beforehand (if memory serves), it was common knowledge that that was exactly what it was. Some friends who engage in such sharing tell me they "don't use bittorrent anymore, DD [direct download] is easier." Have I gone crazy? Do most BT tracker sites that feature "illegal" content not advertise direct download sites as an alternative way to download stuff illegally? I'm really confused because I thought that "DD sites are a competitor to BT for downloading stuff illegally" was common knowledge, now we're shocked-SHOCKED that such unseemly allegations would be leveled at such respectable Netizens as Megaupload. I am not commenting on whether copyright is broken, merely "was this not a popular site to d/l illegal stuff?"

ori_b 15y ago
The question isn't whether it was popular to use them to host infringing material -- I think everyone agrees that it was. The question is whether they acted as they were legally required when it came to takedown requests. That's what determines if they are liable for other people putting infringing content on their servers.
icebraining 15y ago
Yes, it was a popular site to download stuff without a proper license. That doesn't mean they were an "illegal file sharing site". Youtube is also a popular site to view illegally shared videos, but they're not an "illegal video sharing site".
- powertower 15y ago
  MU made its profits from tricking people into paying for the privilege of downloading that pirated content. That's the difference.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    How did MU trick people? You could download any file for free. You paid for faster and concurrent downloads. That was very explicit.
    - powertower 15y ago
      No, it was not at all explicit or obvious for the average internet user. The "premium" download button was prominent, and the other options were not, and sometimes hidden. They made a science of maximizing the clicking into the premium download funnel, because that was their business model.
      - icebraining 15y ago
        Sorry, but I find that hard to believe. Here's a screenshot of a typical download page: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kK5Xkb7D0Bc/Tr9-7reP2JI/AAAAAAAABko/I6lEMKhmlug/s1600/Untitled.png http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kK5Xkb7D0Bc/Tr9-7reP2JI/AAAAAAAABk... While the Premium button is immediately available and the other isn't, they have both the same size, and furthermore it's made very clear from the prominent comparison table that there was a Free version and the differences between the two. How exactly is this hidden? Is the Premium version slightly more prominent? Sure. But calling it "tricking people" is misrepresenting it completely, in my opinion.
        powertower 15y ago
        > But calling it "tricking people" is misrepresenting it completely, in my opinion. You're dealing with average internet users here. They will have no idea what's going on, and will just click the premium button. From my tech support experience, I can guarantee that 100%.
        icebraining 15y ago
        Sorry, but while I'm a great supporter of consumer rights - even of things that many US citizens consider appalling, like our 2 year minimum warranty - I think there's a point at which the responsibility lies on the person; it's a gray area, but I believe MU had more than surpassed that. Otherwise, we should start suing knife makers for not including a label that says "Not to stab people", newspapers for link-baiting titles that scare readers, or even simple bad designs. Besides, and even if they did maliciously cause people to overlook the free option, that still isn't tricking people into paying. They didn't exactly charge your CC when you clicked on the Premium button; people were willingly paying for access to the content by inserting their CC information and getting what they were looking for. Offering a service for a price that you can get otherwise for free is not tricking people.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Youtube is a popular site to view unreliable, low-quality streaming versions of unlawfully shared videos. Nobody thinks Youtube is a substitute for (say) a Hulu+ or Amazon Prime subscription. People also shared legitimate content on Napster. Once in a blue moon, someone will use BitTorrent to transfer a Linux kernel. But we all know why those services were or are popular. Nerds appreciate good hacks, and are also infuriated by how fuzzy and nondeterministic the legal system is. So they tend to vigorously adhere to arguments like "how can you prove a DVDRIP of The Muppets wasn't a lawfully-created backup of a purchased DVD stored for entirely legitimate reasons", or, "how can you claim a service like MegaUpload is a gigantic scam that milks millions of dollars out of piracy when people obviously do use it to store Linux kernels". If the legal system worked the way nerds want it to, these arguments would be totally convincing: if you can't prove as if to a programming language runtime that something is criminal, well, you shouldn't even be able to get an indictment. Of course, that's not how the legal system works. A gigantic portion of almost every criminal case hinges on the question of intent, which involves proving to a jury what someone was thinking. That's a head-explodey concept, because you can't write a computer program to evaluate it. But it's also the basis for many centuries of western law. Similarly, if you find some awesome, clever scheme by which you can profit from piracy without ever touching pirated content, the law is not going to evaluate your culpability simply from the bits on your hard drive. The totality of the circumstances involved in your scheme will be used to make a case as to your interest in and promotion of piracy, much of which will involve trying to read your mind based on tea leaves like "what sites did you choose to run your ads on". Similarly, the DoJ is required to spend their time on cases they believe they can win. It can be considered unethical for them to prosecute cases they don't have a reasonable shot at. So as audibly as the pattern engine in the nerd cortex may ring with recognition at the similarities between Youtube and MegaUpload, they fact that Youtube isn't being prosecuted is irrelevant. The DoJ will start with the cases it can win.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Youtube is a popular site to view unreliable, low-quality streaming versions of unlawfully shared videos. Nobody thinks Youtube is a substitute for (say) a Hulu+ or Amazon Prime subscription. Maybe not, but for many people it is a replacement for MP3 downloading services like iTunes. Sure, it doesn't offer all the same features (neither did MU), but it offers enough. People also shared legitimate content on Napster. Once in a blue moon, someone will use BitTorrent to transfer a Linux kernel. But we all know why those services were or are popular. In my (anecdotal, yes) experience of watching people use it, that's exactly why Youtube is popular too. User created content is an exception.
FreeKill 15y ago
It was a popular site to download illegal stuff, but that's not the real issue with this case. The debate is whether or not they complied with DMCA takedown laws when they were alerted to copyrighted content and also if they personally uploaded illegal content themselves.
marknutter 15y ago
Google's search engine yields links to all kinds of sites engaging in "illegal" activity. Why are they immune to this kind of attack?
- brazzy 15y ago
  Because they're not hosting the stuff themselves. Megaupload did.
  - cookiecaper 15y ago
    OK, why does any P2P site ever get in trouble? If the standard is only linking and not hosting, why were Napster, Kazaa, Grokster, isohunt, oink, etc. shut down? None of these were hosting content, they just provided links (or the equivalent of links). The reality is that the courts have recognized that operators who should have a knowledge that the content on their network is almost completely infringing don't have a viable excuse by just saying "we just provide links, we have nothing to do with the actual content". See the Grokster case. So, here's the question: how much of Google's index is out of copyright, and would it be reasonable to expect Google to know that they are making money off of a catalog that is almost entirely copyrighted content without any license from or compensation to the copyright owners?
- sequoia 15y ago
  A: Tunnels under the US/Mexican border are to be shut down because they are used to transport drugs. B: Well the US Postal service is used to transport drugs as well, are you going to shut it down too??? ahem Do you really not see any difference between what MegaUpload used to do and what Google does? If so, I suspect willful ignorance. Again, I'm not arguing that copyright laws are sane, just saying I'm confused about the reactions of "how DARE they cast aspersions on MU and suggest that their model was based on piracy" when, well, casual observation of MU's case and the industry as a whole (RapidShare etc.) seems to strongly suggest that their model was based on piracy.* Heck, I'll just say it straight: it's universal common knowledge that RS, MU, etc. build their businesses on piracy; people in this thread and on TorrentFreak who are trying to suggest otherwise are willfully ignoring the obvious in order to make a point. This makes the point weaker, so I suggest they stop. :)
tripzilch 15y ago
Another problem is that, even if MegaUpload had all the MPAA infringing content you can imagine, taking all of those 25 petabyte offline is kind of similar to nuking a big city in order to take down a few local drug dealers.
woodall 15y ago
Yes. Anyone who says otherwise is using some strong cognitive dissonance.

by sequoia 15y ago

ori_b 15y ago

The question isn't whether it was popular to use them to host infringing material -- I think everyone agrees that it was. The question is whether they acted as they were legally required when it came to takedown requests. That's what determines if they are liable for other people putting infringing content on their servers.

icebraining 15y ago

Yes, it was a popular site to download stuff without a proper license. That doesn't mean they were an "illegal file sharing site". Youtube is also a popular site to view illegally shared videos, but they're not an "illegal video sharing site".

powertower 15y ago
MU made its profits from tricking people into paying for the privilege of downloading that pirated content. That's the difference.
- icebraining 15y ago
  How did MU trick people? You could download any file for free. You paid for faster and concurrent downloads. That was very explicit.
  - powertower 15y ago
    No, it was not at all explicit or obvious for the average internet user. The "premium" download button was prominent, and the other options were not, and sometimes hidden. They made a science of maximizing the clicking into the premium download funnel, because that was their business model.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      Sorry, but I find that hard to believe. Here's a screenshot of a typical download page: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kK5Xkb7D0Bc/Tr9-7reP2JI/AAAAAAAABko/I6lEMKhmlug/s1600/Untitled.png http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kK5Xkb7D0Bc/Tr9-7reP2JI/AAAAAAAABk... While the Premium button is immediately available and the other isn't, they have both the same size, and furthermore it's made very clear from the prominent comparison table that there was a Free version and the differences between the two. How exactly is this hidden? Is the Premium version slightly more prominent? Sure. But calling it "tricking people" is misrepresenting it completely, in my opinion.
      - powertower 15y ago
        > But calling it "tricking people" is misrepresenting it completely, in my opinion. You're dealing with average internet users here. They will have no idea what's going on, and will just click the premium button. From my tech support experience, I can guarantee that 100%.
        icebraining 15y ago
        Sorry, but while I'm a great supporter of consumer rights - even of things that many US citizens consider appalling, like our 2 year minimum warranty - I think there's a point at which the responsibility lies on the person; it's a gray area, but I believe MU had more than surpassed that. Otherwise, we should start suing knife makers for not including a label that says "Not to stab people", newspapers for link-baiting titles that scare readers, or even simple bad designs. Besides, and even if they did maliciously cause people to overlook the free option, that still isn't tricking people into paying. They didn't exactly charge your CC when you clicked on the Premium button; people were willingly paying for access to the content by inserting their CC information and getting what they were looking for. Offering a service for a price that you can get otherwise for free is not tricking people.
tptacek 15y ago
Youtube is a popular site to view unreliable, low-quality streaming versions of unlawfully shared videos. Nobody thinks Youtube is a substitute for (say) a Hulu+ or Amazon Prime subscription. People also shared legitimate content on Napster. Once in a blue moon, someone will use BitTorrent to transfer a Linux kernel. But we all know why those services were or are popular. Nerds appreciate good hacks, and are also infuriated by how fuzzy and nondeterministic the legal system is. So they tend to vigorously adhere to arguments like "how can you prove a DVDRIP of The Muppets wasn't a lawfully-created backup of a purchased DVD stored for entirely legitimate reasons", or, "how can you claim a service like MegaUpload is a gigantic scam that milks millions of dollars out of piracy when people obviously do use it to store Linux kernels". If the legal system worked the way nerds want it to, these arguments would be totally convincing: if you can't prove as if to a programming language runtime that something is criminal, well, you shouldn't even be able to get an indictment. Of course, that's not how the legal system works. A gigantic portion of almost every criminal case hinges on the question of intent, which involves proving to a jury what someone was thinking. That's a head-explodey concept, because you can't write a computer program to evaluate it. But it's also the basis for many centuries of western law. Similarly, if you find some awesome, clever scheme by which you can profit from piracy without ever touching pirated content, the law is not going to evaluate your culpability simply from the bits on your hard drive. The totality of the circumstances involved in your scheme will be used to make a case as to your interest in and promotion of piracy, much of which will involve trying to read your mind based on tea leaves like "what sites did you choose to run your ads on". Similarly, the DoJ is required to spend their time on cases they believe they can win. It can be considered unethical for them to prosecute cases they don't have a reasonable shot at. So as audibly as the pattern engine in the nerd cortex may ring with recognition at the similarities between Youtube and MegaUpload, they fact that Youtube isn't being prosecuted is irrelevant. The DoJ will start with the cases it can win.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 15y ago
  Youtube is a popular site to view unreliable, low-quality streaming versions of unlawfully shared videos. Nobody thinks Youtube is a substitute for (say) a Hulu+ or Amazon Prime subscription. Maybe not, but for many people it is a replacement for MP3 downloading services like iTunes. Sure, it doesn't offer all the same features (neither did MU), but it offers enough. People also shared legitimate content on Napster. Once in a blue moon, someone will use BitTorrent to transfer a Linux kernel. But we all know why those services were or are popular. In my (anecdotal, yes) experience of watching people use it, that's exactly why Youtube is popular too. User created content is an exception.

FreeKill 15y ago

It was a popular site to download illegal stuff, but that's not the real issue with this case. The debate is whether or not they complied with DMCA takedown laws when they were alerted to copyrighted content and also if they personally uploaded illegal content themselves.

marknutter 15y ago

Google's search engine yields links to all kinds of sites engaging in "illegal" activity. Why are they immune to this kind of attack?

brazzy 15y ago
Because they're not hosting the stuff themselves. Megaupload did.
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  OK, why does any P2P site ever get in trouble? If the standard is only linking and not hosting, why were Napster, Kazaa, Grokster, isohunt, oink, etc. shut down? None of these were hosting content, they just provided links (or the equivalent of links). The reality is that the courts have recognized that operators who should have a knowledge that the content on their network is almost completely infringing don't have a viable excuse by just saying "we just provide links, we have nothing to do with the actual content". See the Grokster case. So, here's the question: how much of Google's index is out of copyright, and would it be reasonable to expect Google to know that they are making money off of a catalog that is almost entirely copyrighted content without any license from or compensation to the copyright owners?
sequoia 15y ago
A: Tunnels under the US/Mexican border are to be shut down because they are used to transport drugs. B: Well the US Postal service is used to transport drugs as well, are you going to shut it down too??? ahem Do you really not see any difference between what MegaUpload used to do and what Google does? If so, I suspect willful ignorance. Again, I'm not arguing that copyright laws are sane, just saying I'm confused about the reactions of "how DARE they cast aspersions on MU and suggest that their model was based on piracy" when, well, casual observation of MU's case and the industry as a whole (RapidShare etc.) seems to strongly suggest that their model was based on piracy.* Heck, I'll just say it straight: it's universal common knowledge that RS, MU, etc. build their businesses on piracy; people in this thread and on TorrentFreak who are trying to suggest otherwise are willfully ignoring the obvious in order to make a point. This makes the point weaker, so I suggest they stop. :)

tripzilch 15y ago

Another problem is that, even if MegaUpload had all the MPAA infringing content you can imagine, taking all of those 25 petabyte offline is kind of similar to nuking a big city in order to take down a few local drug dealers.

woodall 15y ago

Yes. Anyone who says otherwise is using some strong cognitive dissonance.