[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.

[dekz]

  > MegaUpload was designed for sharing.   

So it youtube, I don't see your point here.

  > Notice it's a somewhat easily searchable space.  

What is shady/illegal about this? 8 Characters are memorable and easily accessible. Just because someone puts their wallet in their handbag doesn't give me the right to take it if I can.

It would be nonsensical to store two copies of the same file as a service like MU or Dropbox. That file might legitimately be owned by user A and illegitimately owned by user B. Just because a DMCA takedown request was filed against user B's link doesn't mean user A should lose their legitimately owned file. This is analogous to someone storing stolen cash in a bank. Just because there was a stolen $20 in the vault, doesn't mean all $20 notes in the bank are stolen.

It will be interesting to see the outcomes of these events, it may make me lose all faith in humanity.

[Natsu]

Eight characters is about the length of an ordinary password. Exactly how far does blame extend, then? I've seen more than a few people who honestly believe that keeping a URL secret somehow protects the content.

I can understand if you're mad about copyright infringement, but why does that person who recorded all of their child's sports matches deserve this merely for using MU? They were sharing their own movies with the rest of the team, true, but that's all the more reason to use a site like that in the first place.

[anamax]

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

And all US phone numbers have 7 digits. (It's easy enough to figure out the relevant area code.)

Are you claiming that there are no private phone numbers in the US?

[lwat]

So you're arguing that MU was illegal because their file IDs are too short?

What the fuck.

[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 ;)