[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.

[powertower]

> What is shady/illegal about this?

In of itself? Nothing.

In combination with all other factors. Everything.

> Just because a DMCA takedown request was filed against user B's link doesn't mean user A should lose their legitimately owned file.

As a copyright holder, that's not my problem that 1 in a million decided to upload some questionable copy of my work to a publicly accessible pseudo-sharing site that violates my copyright over and over and over again.

If you upload it to MU, then cry to someone else when that same criminal enterprise gets shut down and you lose the one copy you had.

Your right weren’t violated. Mine were.

Anyone crying about this is just playing a victim card here after making a bad decision. Or can't come to grips with reality after assuming that since copyright infringement is so easy to do, it must not be a bad thing to do, and it must be part of your entitlement.

[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.

[powertower]

All my premises have been that 1) MU was one of the top piracy sites on the net, 2) profited from piracy, and 3) was designed for spreading piracy.

Instead of edge-cases, how about a common one? Or does that not count?

So yes, if any of the above is true, what happened to MU was good.

And as far as that loaded question about the person losing his child's sports matches... You can frame it however you want, it does not change the facts we know about MU. MU was most likely a criminal enterprise.

[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?

[powertower]

You are grasping at unrelated analogies and contexts.

[lwat]

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

What the fuck.