MegaUpload has been shut down

[RomanNose]

Of course I didn't, it was removed. As I said I only caught the first minute.

Ther sites take down the content when asked. Look how muh content is removed from YouTube, not just one of the hundread links. Removing a link is in no way removing the content.

Because they are different! Completely different files. Because Google analyze the frequency spectrum of the audio and find matches. File hosts cannot do this!

MU weren't deleting any physical content though were they? Just the one reported link pointing to it. Any links pointing to the same actual file weren't removed at the same time.

Pointless, absolutely pointless to do. Again I mentioned rapidshare used to do this, guess what happened? All the file uploaders such as RUM added md5 modifications that idea completely redundant. It stopped the same files having the same hashes. So it was impossible to tell a file was the same as another one.

 

[Glaucus]

Because they are different! Completely different files. Because Google analyze the frequency spectrum of the audio and find matches. File hosts cannot do this!

No they aren't different files. Read up on how it worked and why they were busted..

To be protected they don't have to analyse anything. They only have to work with take down bodies and remove the content once they have been notified. They were notified and left the content up, with active links.

 

[RomanNose]

No they aren't different files. Read up on how it worked and why they were busted..

I was saying that it's actually impossible to do the same thing that youtube do not saying that he is innocent. He may have ignored DMCA take downs which I understand but otherwise there is not much else that could have been done to stop copyright infringement.
Youtube has automated algorithms to remove copyrighted content, this actually cannot be done by file hosts.

 

[Glaucus]

I was saying that it's actually impossible to do the same thing that youtube do not saying that he is innocent. He may have ignored DMCA take downs which I understand but otherwise there is not much else that could have been done to stop copyright infringement.

You do not need any automated system and tns get past youtubes automated system. That means nothing, it is part problem and isn't part of the protection.

You don't have to stop it, youtube can't stop it, but YouTube and other sites do respond to takedown notices. That's why they are protected and megaupload isn't. They did not remove the files and left working links up to such files.

 

[RomanNose]

You don't have to stop it, youtube can't stop it, but YouTube and other sites do respond to takedown notices. That's why they are protected and megaupload isn't. They did not remove the files and left working links up to such files.

Well that's what is alleged. We will just have to wait and see. I think it is a bit over the top what has happened to him, having all these accusations of being a pirate when all he did was not respond to take downs. Maybe by accident or not, who knows.

 

[Glaucus]

How can you fail to resond by acciedent. What does he think removal of content is?
What do you think his expensive lawyers told him.

Then ontop of they supposedly have emails from employees sharing and discussing the illegal content.

He thought he was clever and was doing just enough to get away with it. He clearly wasn't according to the law.
If he gets extradited, it'll be interesting, otherwise nothing will happen. We need it to see the inside of a court. To find all the details/evidence.

It's organised crime worth hundreads of millions. It's little different to illegally importing duh free cigarets. See what happens to those who make hundreads of millions.

 

[RomanNose]

How can you fail to resond by acciedent. What does he think removal of content is?
What do you think his expensive lawyers told him.

It's organised crime worth hundreads of millions. It's little different to illegally importing duh free cigarets. See what happens to those who make hundreads of millions.

Because they got lost? They receive thousands a day, you can understand that they may forget about some. It's not organized crime, it's having a website that allows third parties to upload content. Would the FBI pursue a postal service or an email service? They have a large number of users, a large number of pirates just like many internet websites. Is an ISP liable for what it's customers do? What's the difference between an ISP and megaupload?

 

[Glaucus]

They didn't get lost, he took down the link tat was requested, rather than the content.

It very much is organised crime on a large scale.

If couriers had to do certain things by law to be protected by law, then yes police would go after them.

 

[RomanNose]

They didn't get lost, he took down the link tat was requested, rather than the content.

It very much is organised crime on a large scale.

What do you mean they didn't take down the content?
The architecture is not designed to delete, only write and read. It's the same with facebook and many cloud services, they often never delete.

 

[Glaucus]

What do you mean they didn't take down the content?

They didn't remove the content.

Takedown bodies, sends a take-down notice, going remove the content in this link.
Megaupload responded by taking down that link, not the actual file. So any other link pointing at that file still works.

Youtube on the other hand take down the actual file and so breaks any link pointing towards it and as such fullfill their duty and are protected. As the courts agreed that YouTube was protectd.


It's like where he says,

Dotcom told TorrentFreak that the indictment left out many key facts, not least that Megaupload users enter into a binding legal agreement when they sign up to the file-hoster which included promising not using the service to commit crimes or infringements

Whoppie do dah, read the law. That doesn't give you the protection. The protection he is trying to use as defence.

One of the safe harbour requirements is no knowledge.
If they get given takedown orders and don't remove content, then they have no defence to no. Knowledge as thy where warned. Combine that with the supposed emails and there's no way they can say they had no knowledge of the files outlined in the court order being on their systems.

 

[steve-h]

There's a lot to be said for not removing content and just giving the user a new link.

Lets say they deleted the offending file and added its checksum to a database - people then start to change the checksums of files (because it wasn't an issue before) making them 10x harder to detect and routinely remove while at the same time raping what could have been saved bandwidth.

 

[RomanNose]

They didn't remove the content.

Takedown bodies, sends a take-down notice, going remove the content in this link.
Megaupload responded by taking down that link, not the actual file. So any other link pointing at that file still works.

Youtube on the other hand take down the actual file and so breaks any link pointing towards it and as such fullfill their duty and are protected. As the courts agreed that YouTube was protectd.


It's like where he says, Whoppie do dah, read the law. That doesn't give you the protection. The protection he is trying to use as defence.

Have you got any links about if you have to remove content and not just links?
Also there is a problem with deleting the content and not link. That is because they might not know if the file was a backup or not.

 

[Glaucus]

Have you got any links about if you have to remove content and not just links?

One of the safe harbour requirements is no knowledge.
If they get given takedown orders and don't remove content, then they have no defence to no. Knowledge as thy where warned. Combine that with the supposed emails and there's no way they can say they had no knowledge of the files outlined in the court order being on their systems.

 

[Glaucus]

This is part of the 72 page charge sheet.

…they are willfully infringing copyrights themselves on these systems; have actual knowledge that the materials on their systems are infringing (or alternatively know facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent); receive a financial benefit directly attributable to copyright-infringing activity where the provider can control that activity; and have not removed, or disabled access to, known copyright infringing material from servers they control.

Let’s cover the last point first – the apparent non-removal of known copyright material from MegaUpload’s servers. First, a little background on how MegaUpload’s user uploading system worked because this is absolutely crucial to the case against the site.

Mega had developed a system whereby files set to be uploaded by users were hashed in order to discover if a copy of the file already exists on the Mega servers. If a file existed, the user did not have to upload his copy and was simply given a unique URL in order to access the content in future. What this meant in practice is that there could be countless URLs ‘owned’ by various users but which all pointed to the same file.

Megaupload’s “Abuse Tool” to which major copyright holders were given access, enabled the removal of links to infringing works hosted on MegaUpload’s servers. However, the indictment claims that it “did not actually function as a DMCA compliance tool as the copyright owners were led to believe.” And here’s why.

The indictment claims that when a copyright holder issued a takedown notice for content referenced by its URL, only the URL was taken down, not the content to which it pointed. So although the URL in question would report that it had been removed and would no longer resolve to infringing material, URLs issued to others would remain operational.

http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-what-made-it-a-rogue-site-worthy-of-destruction-120120/
And it goes on, they were issued a charge years ago and didn't remove content. They knew content was uploaded and made money from it. They implemented a proper system to remove child porn, but did not implement it for copyright that would have actually removed the file and not one of the hundreds of URL links. If they had done that they would have been fully ported by law.

DMCA Safe Harbor

In the online world, the potentially infringing activities of individuals are stored and transmitted through the networks of third parties. Web site hosting services, Internet service providers, and search engines that link to materials on the Web are just some of the service providers that transmit materials created by others. Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) protects online service providers (OSPs) from liability for information posted or transmitted by subscribers if they quickly remove or disable access to material identified in a copyright holder's complaint.

In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, a service provider who hosts content must:

have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, infringing activity on its network
have a copyright policy and provide proper notification of that policy to its subscribers
list an agent to deal with copyright complaints
While the safe harbor provisions provide a way for individuals to object to the removal of their materials once taken down, they do not require service providers to notify those individuals before their allegedly infringing materials are removed. If the material on your site does not infringe the intellectual property rights of a copyright owner and it has been improperly removed from the Web, you can file a counter-notice with the service provider, who must transmit it to the person who made the complaint. If the copyright owner does not notify the service provider within 14 business days that it has filed a claim against you in court, your materials can be restored to the Internet.

It says material not URL. Why would you be allowed to keep the file with other links.


Iirc that 72 page document has been expanded since the takedown. Probably with more evidence they detained.

 

[PermaBanned]

It's been a while, remind me how we know that they just took down links?

 

[Glaucus]

It's been a while, remind me how we know that they just took down links?

If you asking what I think you are, you'll have to wait for him to be moed to America and see the inside of the court(if that happens). Untill then you can read the article

 

[PermaBanned]

If you asking what I think you are, you'll have to wait for him to be moed to America and see the inside of the court(if that happens). Untill then you can read the article

I'm not sure that i am...

 

[Kotu]

I would imagine the download stats for big hit games are quite high, but they may be nowhere near the stats presented on most websites. For torrents at least, they have a "completed" flag the client sends when it swaps from leeching to seeding, this only gets sent once. The problem comes when bad clients ignore the way torrents work, you sometimes get good features like superseeding (where a seeder sends out a complete copy before sending out whatever bits the other leechers request) but then you get issues like where the completed flag gets sent on every update after the client finishes leeching. This means the the website logs a full download every update the client does, this could be every 30 minutes, 15 minutes or even every second if a client is setup quite aggressively. The downloaded total could be thousands of times greater than it actually is due to a handful of bad clients connecting.

I'm not sure how this would effect sites like megaupload, but things like download managers which open 10+ connections to get a file faster might also count as the whole thing being downloaded for each one of those.

Obviously the content owner is still loosing out, but they can't just do something like:

sum of total downloads for all watched sites * full RRP = loss

 

[Glaucus]

I'm not sure that i am...

Then it's in the post above your first. The "prosecution document" or what ever it's called. Sys they didn't remove content.

…they are willfully infringing copyrights themselves on these systems; have actual knowledge that the materials on their systems are infringing (or alternatively know facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent); receive a financial benefit directly attributable to copyright-infringing activity where the provider can control that activity; and have not removed, or disabled access to, known copyright infringing material from servers they control.

 

[mmj_uk]

I still don't understand why Megaupload has been taken down whilst Youtube etc are all immune, the guy said in the video that all of the big media outlets had their own admin powers to delete any content which affected them.