[joering1]

> The complaint says that when notified under DMCA of an infringing file, present at a link, say megaupload.com/dark-knight-video-rip.iso that MegaUpload WOULD in fact remove the link, but that they would NOT remove the file, or remove links at say, megaupload.com/dk-knight-dvd-rip_O_o.iso, even if no DMCA takedown notice occurred for that particular link.

it would be great to know if its possible they had an insider. how otherwise would they know that other links linked to the same content were linking to exact the same file that DMCA note was sent to take down. Otherwise it was unfair and thats the purpose why safe harbour exist -- it protects you a small company from millions of users uploading their content and being shorthand or not having boots to check each and single file whether it violates someones copyrights or not.

> Consider this totally legal (for me) scenario: I rip the Dark Knight DVD, and place it in Dropbox as a legal backup of my content. I share the link with nobody; it's just mine, all mine.

I am not sure if this is entirely legal.

First you say you didnt make a copy, but "rip". Its called ripping because DVDs content is locked with an encrypted key, so locked DVD with a movie is not just a folder with files you can copy over to your desktop. Years ago there was a movie when they forgot to lock the key and based off of it software developers were able to build a key decryptor for any encrypted DVD. Most DVD ripping software is illegal throughout the world, at least some software vendors got lawsuit over their software functionality.

Further, while I dont have a link handy, but I recall there was a discussion on HN that 9th circuit make it illegal for anyone to stream any copyrighted content, whether to themselves or a group of people. So uploading it into cloud and then getting it back out of it technically is illegal, AFAIK, but that was month ago when I saw this posting.

[defen]

>> Consider this totally legal (for me) scenario: I rip the Dark Knight DVD, and place it in Dropbox as a legal backup of my content. I share the link with nobody; it's just mine, all mine.

>I am not sure if this is entirely legal.

He didn't choose a good example, because that would probably be a copyright violation. A better example would be: I'm a small independent software vendor. I sell copies of my software (which I own the copyright to 100%) and distribute them via private MegaUpload links. Someone else decides to upload a copy and distribute the link freely, so I file a takedown notice. Should my original copy also be deleted?

[vessenes]

Hmm, MGM claimed that ripping a CD was legal to the SCOTUS, and I am certainly allowed to circumvent CSS on DVDs for non-infringing purposes, but I think my argument holds just fine if you substitute an ISO of Snow Leopard, a DVD I finally found in my basement recently.

I find the claim that I can't remotely backup the ISO over the internet surprising -- I have never even heard of such a stance.

[trotsky]

http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/MacOSX.htm

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time,and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. You may make one copy of the Apple Software (excluding the Boot ROM code) in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the original.

[vessenes]

This is my point, exactly. A backup to a private DropBox folder of the iso is clearly fine even by Apple's own terms, regardless of what the law says.

However, a backup to a public Dropbox folder with a known, distributed link is.

So far so good. The question is, does DMCA require both to be taken down for a given notice, because they hash to the same file in the Dropbox database?

[trotsky]

Copy #1: the installed version of the OS (permitted)

Copy #2 (backup): The .iso file in your local dropbox folder (permitted if on the same computer as #1)

Copy #3: The .iso file on dropbox's primary storage array (not permitted - second backup copy)

Copy #4: The .iso file on dropbox's high availability storage array (not permitted - third backup copy)

Copy #5: The .iso file as copied to any other of your subscribed dropbox clients (not permitted - forth backup copy)

Not to mention the fact that copies #3 and #4 seem to obviously qualify as "available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time"

While I understand that there may be some difference in interpretation about these clauses I think you should reconsider your working definition of the term "clearly".

[fluidcruft]

> "available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time"

To me, they're clearly describing a network boot setup. i.e. you only have one installed copy of the OS, and you have a bunch of (possibly diskless) client machines boot from that single copy via netboot or similar.

[nitrogen]

To me, they're clearly describing a network boot setup.

Both "to me" and "clearly" will get you into serious trouble when dealing with legal matters. The likely outcome is that, if Apple decided to file a civil suit, or a prosecutor found grounds for criminal copyright infringement prosecution, the prosecuting attorneys would use whatever interpretation is in their favor.

[nl]

That is a licence agreement, not the law. (I realize they uses OS-X for the example, but it was a bad example because the Apple license confuses things)

Apple could licence you to only use their operating system while wearing white robes and chanting to Steve Jobs, and if you agreed to the license that would have rights against you.

That doesn't mean anything for an arbitary ISO.

[dodedo]

This is not a question of license, which a user may or may not have agreed to participate in. By simply purchasing media I obtain all fair use rights -- I can make a backup of it without ever engaging in a license agreement.

[sliverstorm]

Oh, this is convoluted. Does "Apple Software existing on a computer" encompass both a computer on which it has been installed and a computer holding the iso? Is a copy of the iso on your hard-drive considered a machine-readable backup?

[mukyu]

The current DMCA exceptions granted by the Copyright Office[1] do allow you to circumvent CSS, but only for very specific educational or such use. Making a personal backup copy does not fit the criteria and thus is illegal, even though that is is normally allowed under just copyright.

[1] http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/

[Natsu]

There are other reasons to be careful and get legal advice if you have any reason to worry. They have said that they cannot exempt you from the "trafficking" provisions that cover the tools to circumvent things.

So it's pretty easy to hit a Catch-22 where you're "allowed" to do the act itself, but it's difficult or impossible to legally acquire the tools needed.

[mattmillr]

That's not why it's called ripping.

From the Jargon File: "Rip: 1. To extract the digital representation of a piece of music from an audio CD. Software that does this is often called a “CD ripper”." (http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/R/rip.html)

Audio CDs don't have encryption.

[molmalo]

I think there is a simple solution for this:

Just remove all the links to the file contained in public (shared) folders. If the file is in a private folder, maybe it's a private backup, so you should not delete it. You may even display an alert to the user when he logs in, asking to confirm if they hold rights over that file (yes/no). If they click on No, you delete that link too. If they click yes, well... you are not a cop, so you are not obliged to investigate if the user is telling the truth. Anyway, being in a private folder, the copyright owner will never know the file is there. And you can still mark that file (or hash) for never being able to be set as public again in the future.

[dedward]

we called it ripping when it was just audio cds with no drm whatsoever, if im not mistaken. the dmca makes it illegal for you to distribute drm-circumvention tools with some exceptions, but it does not make it illegal for an individual to make a personal copy of anything.

as for the hashing stuff, dropbox etc, that could be considered simply a form of optimization on their part. if its about removing infringing links from their site, and they do, then they have complied. why should they be under some legal obligation to remove links not identified in the takedown notice simply because they used a clever deduplication mechanism, when another site without such a mechanism would not be?

Lets make it even clearer... what if it is my original work, up on dropbox, and i find someone distributing it illegally on another link at dropbox, and serve dropbox with a takedown notice. It would be absolutely wrong to remove my content from my account.....

at some point were going to haveto distinguish between posession of data and distribution of data or this will just get ugly. if you want to make 800 copies of Windows and never use them or distribute them, there is no public or private harm done, though it would violate current copywright laws. time to have the law catch up with the future.