[unreal37]

Apparently they responded to DMCA requests to take down individual links. But they did nothing to stop the same file from being uploaded again with a new link.

I am not sure if that is required by the DMCA. I know youtube has this "fingerprinting" system that stops copyrighted uploads, but is that the law?

[vidarh]

The argument they will presumably make is that their system is a deduplicating file storage system. That one instance is infringing does NOT automatically mean another instance is infringing. For example, assuming the court agrees that personal backup copies can legally be kept, deleting the actual file instead of the links could delete legitimate backup copies. See the number of artists that were features as claiming to use Megaupload in their ads, for example...

Even other public links might be legitimate, and Megaupload would not have a way of determining that based merely on the presence of links.

Do I think they were aware that there were tons of illegal copies? Absolutely. But whether or not they could blanket delete content without in effect deleting content the people filing the DMCA takedown requests had no rights to request taken down is an entirely different matter.

[nooneelse]

Indeed, a fingerprinting system doesn't tell you what "legal color" the bits are (http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23). One copy of a file can be infringing while another, identical copy, is legit.

[bobds]

I believe Rapidshare went to court about this.

They won and they are not required to operate a fingerprinting system.

[muuh-gnu]

> I believe Rapidshare went to court about this.

In Germany/Switzerland.