[powertower]

If you think MU is the victim here and that the FBI are the criminals, you’ve got it backwards.

They took down individual links only, while still keeping the infringing files on the server, and all the other un-reported links to that exact file (they also hashed each upload, so to detect duplicates, and complete the upload instantly and have 1 data file... a fingerprint system they never used to prevent re-uploads of copyrighted material that was reported).

Then they conspired (shown in leaked emails) to only follow DMCA requests coming from large US entities (while ignoring requests coming from Mexico, for example).

Their entire business revolved around tricking people into signing up for paid accounts so they could download copyrighted material. And made 175 million from it.

[ryoshu]

Say I've legally purchased an MP3 from Amazon and I decide to use my UberUpload to host the file so I can access it from any device. UberUpload decides to hash the file so it can depulicate the file and save disk space. Some other user downloads a pirated copy of the file TheArrrrrrBay and uploads it to UberUpload. The file hash is the same, so instead of storing the pirated version, UberUpload points to the legal copy.

Now we have a single file with the same hash, but two pointers, one legal and one illegal. If UberUpload deletes the file, it is deleting legal and illegal content. If it deletes the illegal pointer, the legal copy of the file still exists.

[cabalamat]

> Now we have a single file with the same hash, but two pointers, one legal and one illegal.

That's a good point. The legal principle that bits have colour[1] works -- or ought to work -- equally when it's against the MPAA as for them.

[1]: What Colour Are Your Bits? http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

[powertower]

> Say I've legally purchased an MP3 from Amazon and I decide to use my UberUpload to host the file so I can access it from any device.

Then you should use a service that:

1) Does not provide unauthenticated access or public links for anyone to use to your backed-up MP3s from Amazon.

2) Is not known as the internet’s hub of piracy.

3) Did not offer bounties for people to upload copyrighted material.

[anamax]

> Then you should use a service that:

> 1) Does not provide unauthenticated access or public links for anyone to use to your backed-up MP3s from Amazon.

UberUpload does not provide public links for "anyone to use your backed-up MP3s".

It provides links so material can be accessed but those links aren't public unless I make them so.

(Obama's direct phone number is private even though we know its format. The same principle applies here.)

[powertower]

Are we talking about MegaUpload or UberUpload? They seem to be quite different.

[Natsu]

MegaUpload links were not public unless the uploader published them somewhere.

[powertower]

> MegaUpload links were not public unless the uploader published them somewhere.

They were publically accessible (as in no authentication was required) regardless of how you want to spin it. But if that's not good enough for you...

It's my understanding that megaupload (and it's other sites) links were of the form: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XXXXXXXX

I could be wrong, but the links I've found so far all have 8 characters.

Notice it's a somewhat easily searchable space. You can enumerate all links starting from point1 to point2 (I think they assigned sequential numbers so no need to search the entire space).

Hence the slew of public MegaUpload-search websites that you could go to and search for every file in the index.

The point of the response was that if you needed private backups of your Amazon MP3 you should use a service that is a true lockerbox, and not a pseudo sharing site thats designed for sharing content. Otherwise, you need to take the blame for 1) losing access to your backups, and 2) knowingly sharing it even if you did not give the link out.

A lockerbox service that requires some authentication, or a very large GUID type link that can't be enumerated.

MegaUpload was designed for sharing.

The case of someone losing their legitimate Amazon MP3 upload is an edge-case that inconveniences one person, but takes down the sharing of hundreds, or thousands, of copies of illegitimate copies.

[Tangaroa]

"Say I've legally purchased an MP3 from Amazon and I decide to use my UberUpload to host the file so I can access it from any device."

You would be committing copyright infringement at that point. The rest is irrelevant.

[Locke1689]

This is highly unlikely. If this is the case then both Google Music and Amazon CloudDrive are both illegal. As of right now there are no lawsuits underway in this case. MP3.com has experienced some of these lawsuits but rulings so far point to this being legal. There is also the fact that emailing an MP3 to yourself would then constitute copyright infringement, which I find even less likely for courts to uphold.

If you have any concrete evidence that storing copyrighted files in non-local storage is copyright infringement I would be very interested in seeing the case law.

[Tangaroa]

Any copying of a work under copyright is a crime unless there is an exemption in law. It's deny by default. Google and Amazon probably pay license fees to the RIAA. MP3.com was shut down for making unlicensed copies of songs that the users already owned the CD for, so I don't see how you got from them being put out of business to "being legal".

The law is US Title 17

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Of the other sections from 107 through 122,

§ 108 allows libraries to reproduce "no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work".

§ 109 allows the owner of a physical copy to sell it, but forbids renting or lending software media (CDs etc) without a license.

§ 110 allows schools and churches to hold plays.

§ 111 allows the local loop of a network to repeat the network signal without obtaining an extra license for every single retransmission.

§ 112 allows TV stations to save a single copy of their transmission.

§ 113 prevents reproduction of a "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work"

§ 114 regulates music streaming services.

§ 115 forces the RIAA to allow anyone to license copies of "non-dramatic" music (ringtones) at royalty rates set in law.

§ 116 allows jukebox owners to form a union to negotiate licensing fees.

§ 117 allows you to let your computer make a copy of software from disk to ram to run programs.

§ 118 gives PBS extra powers in negotiating license fees.

§ 119 allows satellite TV to convert the satellite signal to a TV signal.

§ 120 allows people to photograph buildings.

§ 121 allows the government and nonprofits to make Braille copies of copyrighted works.

§ 122 forces the satellite TV networks to obtain an extra license again.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_1...

[Locke1689]

"Cloud Player is an application that lets customers manage and play their own music. It's like any number of existing media management applications. We do not need a license to make Cloud Player available."

Source: http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2011/03/amazon-on-cloud-pl...

In the following article[1], an intellectual property lawyer indicates that Amazon's move is on unclear legal ground.

[1] http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2011/03/music-industry-wil...

Your assertion that all copying is illegal is also false, as found in SCOTUS's refusal to hear the Cablevision case in 2009.

In addition, in the UMG vs. MP3.com decision the problem was that MP3.com was doing the copying. The judge made a clear distinction between what MP3.com was doing and time and space shifting, which are closer to what cloud storage services are doing.

[X-Istence]

So storing my music library on Dropbox is illegal?

[Tangaroa]

Yes, it would be illegal if you were to ever do something like that ;)

[epoxyhockey]

If a file resides on a server, but has no access to the outside world, does the file still exist? When you delete a file, it is still technically retrievable even though your OS leads you to believe otherwise. The whole discussion on hashing and fingerprinting is irrelevant. Youtube could do the same thing, but they don't either.

Also, those leaked emails, as you call them were actually emails that the feds obtained from MU's mail server, probably via warrant. Those emails were used as the foundation of the indictment that was later presented to a grand jury. So, there is a huge question as to what probable cause the feds had to search MU's mail server in the first place, given that MU was complying with the DMCA safe harbor provision. MU appeared to only honor DMCA requests that came from legitimate parties; the email snippit claiming that they ignored a request from Mexico does not state the name of the entity that made that request, probably because it was made by a guy named Jose from an aol.com account.

Anyway, this whole case is going to dissolve in front of the prosecutors' faces on Thursday when any trace of offending material is deleted do to discontinuation of service from Cogent & Carpathia. Dr. Evil appears to always get away with it.

[res0nat0r]

http://www.slashgear.com/megaupload-host-denies-data-delete-...

From a Carpathia rep: “In reference to the letter filed by the U.S. Department of Justice with the Eastern District of Virginia on Jan. 27, 2012, Carpathia Hosting does not have, and has never had, access to the content on MegaUpload servers and has no mechanism for returning any content residing on such servers to MegaUpload’s customers. The reference to the Feb. 2, 2012 date in the Department of Justice letter for the deletion of content is not based on any information provided by Carpathia to the U.S. Government. We would recommend that anyone who believes that they have content on MegaUpload servers contact MegaUpload. Please do not contact Carpathia Hosting”

[powertower]

> If a file resides on a server, but has no access to the outside world, does the file still exist?

When there are 100 more links to it? Yes. It exists.

> So, there is a huge question as to what probable cause the feds had to search MU's mail server in the first place, given that MU was complying with the DMCA safe harbor provision.

The rest of your post is one assumption after the other, that goes against what is reasonable to assume based on everything we've witnessed in this case.

[epoxyhockey]

I guess I should have prefaced my last post by saying that I'm looking at the whole case from a legal perspective.

There is no question in my mind that MU thrived by appearing to comply with the DMCA, while encouraging illegal use of its service.

However, if the gov't wanted to really send these guys to jail for a long time, they appear to have screwed up the foundation of their case pretty well. If the initial search of the MU mail server was not found to be valid, the feds lose. If Cogent & Carpathia delete all of MU's data (i.e. evidence) and the feds can't prove in court that offending material existed, the feds lose. It's turned into a real mess from a prosecution standpoint. No wonder Kim pleaded not guilty instead of taking a plea bargain.

[jonknee]

Removing individual links makes sense--if someone filed a DMCA request with Dropbox for a song and it ended up getting removed from my Dropbox as well that would be ridiculous.

In the case of something that is always illegal (say child porn) there would be a duty to remove all instances of a file, but when it's a case by case basis of whether or not there is a copyright issue it does not make sense to take files down en masse. Remember that uploads to MU were private--you received a secret link.

[stfu]

Random question here: Let's say I keep a backup of my movie and music library on Megaupload. Is there anything wrong with it? Like is it my duty to password protect the files in order that nobody else can access it? i.e. what I am trying to say is, does just because there is copyrighted content on Megaupload it has to be automatically illegal?

[maratd]

> Removing individual links makes sense--if someone filed a DMCA request with Dropbox for a song and it ended up getting removed from my Dropbox as well that would be ridiculous.

Dropbox has a very clear concept of private files and public files. If a DMCA request was issued for a file you're storing in your public folder, I would certainly expect Dropbox to remove all instances of that file in all public folders on all accounts.

[dodedo]

You seem to be saying that if I write and record a song and put it on a dropbox public folder, then issue a DMCA takedown for another user who has copied my files, dropbox should delete my files as well.

That makes no sense, whatsoever.

[ddlatham]

What if the file in another public folder was held by the owner of the copyright, or someone else who had license to distribute it?

[awj]

...then that exceptionally rare person will be inconvenienced in the process of correctly dealing with the significantly more common case. In either case it should be relatively easy for them to reacquire the file, if needed.

[powertower]

> but when it's a case by case basis of whether or not there is a copyright issue it does not make sense to take files down en masse.

I disagree.

If you're hosting copyrighted material that I own, and I file a DMCA, I'd expect you to remove that material from the server / to stop hosting it.

You just don't get to keep the data file and hide it behind more links.

[sbov]

Hopefully they also remove the one they're hosting for you, the copyright holder.

If I had files in dropbox for personal use removed because someone filed a DMCA request against the same file someone else was sharing with everyone I'd be rather annoyed. Especially in the day of digital downloads.

Just because 1 upload is using it in an infringing manor doesn't mean all of them are.

[powertower]

In that case, I'd be hosting my download somewhere else.

[waitwhat]

You appear to be confusing how the law really is with how you wish it were.

You just don't get to keep the data file and hide it behind more links.

Why not? (A genuine question, btw. I'd be interested in any tested case law.)

[abscondment]

> Then they conspired (shown in leaked emails) to only follow DMCA requests coming from large US entities (while ignoring requests coming from Mexico, for example).

Color me ignorant, but this doesn't sit right with me. Does the DCMA have international scope? Does the FBI enforce Mexican law?

[powertower]

There are various international acts, treaties, and arrangements on copyright and intellectual property.

You're copyright and IP rights don't disappear the moment the data crosses into the USA.

[TylerE]

That's not being asked. The question is wether a Mexican entity has legal standing to take legal action using a US law against a US-based entity in a US court.

[te_chris]

They generally only cover the recognition of copyright, not enforcement of batshit crazy american law.

[PLejeck]

They didn't argue that MegaUpload was in the right, only that MegaUpload technically managed to not break any laws.

[OoTheNigerian]

As you have judged them guilty based on the charges brought against them, I wonder why we need the law courts.

[powertower]

I've made an assessment based on the evidence provided, and my own experience.

And MU will have their day in a US court of law, based on a system that's the worst in the world, except for all the others.