6 ms·

A DMCA takedown process with was a sham and was not actaully removing anything counts as exactly that. Especially when internal mails reveal that the daily cap

by brazzy 15y ago

A DMCA takedown process with was a sham and was not actaully removing anything counts as exactly that. Especially when internal mails reveal that the daily cap for takedown notices was determined by what wouldn't impact revenue.

Karunamon 15y ago
>A DMCA takedown process with was a sham and was not actaully removing anything As described ad nauseum elsewhere, the DMCA only requires removing infringing links. Imagine 5 people upload a copy of a copyrighted song. 4 of those copies are for backup or personal use, one of them ends up on a file sharing site. The 1 is DMCA'd. Why would you remove the other 4? *edit This becomes even more crucial when you have any kind of sane deduping in place, where each link, in effect, points to a single piece of data.
- brazzy 15y ago
  "4 of those copies are for backup or personal use" If they're for personal use, why are the publically accessible (and actually being downloaded by hundreds or thousands of different users) and not restricted to the account that uploaded them?
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    >If they're for personal use, why are the publically accessible Because it becomes "publicly accessible" the moment the link to the file is generated when the upload completes. I.e. you can access the file if you know the URL. The law does not require you to do this kind of research, besides.
- tptacek 15y ago
  The DMCA requires service providers with actual knowledge of their hosting of infringing material to act "expedititously" to remove or disable access to the material. I don't know where this argument about "links" comes from. This whole argument seems like a bit of a red herring. What the DMCA actually says is that service providers aren't liable iff (a) they don't have actual knowledge of infringement --- and that if they themselves become aware of infringement they themselves without prompting remove infringing content, (b) don't have a financial interest in infringement, AND (c) respond to takedown notices. It beggars belief that MegaUpload could pass (a) and (b). All three need to apply to avoid liability.
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    >It beggars belief that MegaUpload could pass (a) and (b). Again. Rapidshare, hotfile, youtube. Also innocent until proven guilty, etc. Also, remove or disable access. Killing the link does precisely that.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      You're innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but that phrase isn't a magic totem that gets you out of bad message board arguments. This is a community of nerds. Nerds are literalists and also pretty well-versed with piracy. Why are you wasting breath trying to convince them that MegaUpload wasn't a hub for piracy? It clearly was. The link removal you're talking about did not "disable access" to the material; it only disabled access to it through that one removed link. This "linking" argument is just sophistry. Also: comparing Rapidshare and MegaUpload to Youtube is sapping your credibility.
      - Karunamon 15y ago
        >Nerds are literalists and also pretty well-versed with piracy. Why are you wasting breath trying to convince them that MegaUpload wasn't a hub for piracy? It clearly was. So? It was also a hub for legitimate file storage. And this is why I keep bringing up other file sharing sites and youtube, as every single argument you're making could equally be applied to them. > it only disabled access to it through that one removed link Which is kind of the whole bloody point. Look at it from a frontend/backend perspective. On the front end, access to a file is removed once a given link is killed. You, nor anybody else in the general public can access the targeted file once that link is dead. Unless the file is either re-uploaded, or another link is found, that is.
      - DanBC 15y ago
        > This "linking" argument is just sophistry. It's being supported by Google.
        tptacek 15y ago
- ori_b 15y ago
  Even better example: An artist uploads a copy of the song. An infringer uploads a copy of the song. Take down the [de-dup'ed] data, and you've just removed the copyright holder's upload. Oops.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    So the notion here is that motion picture studios are themselves uploading DVDRips of their films to MegaUpload? Before you answer, consider whether or not I'll just be able to pull an email quote out of the indictment to make your objection look silly.
    - ori_b 15y ago
      I'm thinking of a group of friends who used passworded uploads on Megaupload to share their band's music.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        ... and if the owners and operators of MegaUpload were using it to share DVD rips with their friends, and stated explicitly in their emails that they knew the majority of their media content was infringing, your particular group of friends would be relevant... how?
    - Karunamon 15y ago
      No, the notion is that you, as the owner of a file hosting site, cannot reasonably tell whether a given copy of $something was uploaded with permission or not (nevermind that you aren't required to do so anyways) And go pull quotes all you like, that doesn't change the fact that deduping means you pull links, not files. Full stop. It's not your job as a site owner to police copyright for big media. And if it was, it would be a full time job and then some.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        Definitely don't let the facts get in the way of this crusade you're on.

by brazzy 15y ago

Karunamon 15y ago

>A DMCA takedown process with was a sham and was not actaully removing anything As described ad nauseum elsewhere, the DMCA only requires removing infringing links. Imagine 5 people upload a copy of a copyrighted song. 4 of those copies are for backup or personal use, one of them ends up on a file sharing site. The 1 is DMCA'd. Why would you remove the other 4? *edit This becomes even more crucial when you have any kind of sane deduping in place, where each link, in effect, points to a single piece of data.

brazzy 15y ago
"4 of those copies are for backup or personal use" If they're for personal use, why are the publically accessible (and actually being downloaded by hundreds or thousands of different users) and not restricted to the account that uploaded them?
- Karunamon 15y ago
  >If they're for personal use, why are the publically accessible Because it becomes "publicly accessible" the moment the link to the file is generated when the upload completes. I.e. you can access the file if you know the URL. The law does not require you to do this kind of research, besides.
tptacek 15y ago
The DMCA requires service providers with actual knowledge of their hosting of infringing material to act "expedititously" to remove or disable access to the material. I don't know where this argument about "links" comes from. This whole argument seems like a bit of a red herring. What the DMCA actually says is that service providers aren't liable iff (a) they don't have actual knowledge of infringement --- and that if they themselves become aware of infringement they themselves without prompting remove infringing content, (b) don't have a financial interest in infringement, AND (c) respond to takedown notices. It beggars belief that MegaUpload could pass (a) and (b). All three need to apply to avoid liability.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  >It beggars belief that MegaUpload could pass (a) and (b). Again. Rapidshare, hotfile, youtube. Also innocent until proven guilty, etc. Also, remove or disable access. Killing the link does precisely that.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    You're innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but that phrase isn't a magic totem that gets you out of bad message board arguments. This is a community of nerds. Nerds are literalists and also pretty well-versed with piracy. Why are you wasting breath trying to convince them that MegaUpload wasn't a hub for piracy? It clearly was. The link removal you're talking about did not "disable access" to the material; it only disabled access to it through that one removed link. This "linking" argument is just sophistry. Also: comparing Rapidshare and MegaUpload to Youtube is sapping your credibility.
    - Karunamon 15y ago
      >Nerds are literalists and also pretty well-versed with piracy. Why are you wasting breath trying to convince them that MegaUpload wasn't a hub for piracy? It clearly was. So? It was also a hub for legitimate file storage. And this is why I keep bringing up other file sharing sites and youtube, as every single argument you're making could equally be applied to them. > it only disabled access to it through that one removed link Which is kind of the whole bloody point. Look at it from a frontend/backend perspective. On the front end, access to a file is removed once a given link is killed. You, nor anybody else in the general public can access the targeted file once that link is dead. Unless the file is either re-uploaded, or another link is found, that is.
    - DanBC 15y ago
      > This "linking" argument is just sophistry. It's being supported by Google.
      - tptacek 15y ago
ori_b 15y ago
Even better example: An artist uploads a copy of the song. An infringer uploads a copy of the song. Take down the [de-dup'ed] data, and you've just removed the copyright holder's upload. Oops.
- tptacek 15y ago
  So the notion here is that motion picture studios are themselves uploading DVDRips of their films to MegaUpload? Before you answer, consider whether or not I'll just be able to pull an email quote out of the indictment to make your objection look silly.
  - ori_b 15y ago
    I'm thinking of a group of friends who used passworded uploads on Megaupload to share their band's music.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      ... and if the owners and operators of MegaUpload were using it to share DVD rips with their friends, and stated explicitly in their emails that they knew the majority of their media content was infringing, your particular group of friends would be relevant... how?
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    No, the notion is that you, as the owner of a file hosting site, cannot reasonably tell whether a given copy of $something was uploaded with permission or not (nevermind that you aren't required to do so anyways) And go pull quotes all you like, that doesn't change the fact that deduping means you pull links, not files. Full stop. It's not your job as a site owner to police copyright for big media. And if it was, it would be a full time job and then some.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      Definitely don't let the facts get in the way of this crusade you're on.