[tptacek]

No, from the available information (including the indictment) it did not appear that Megaupload complied with DMCA laws. Specifically:

(1) They sought to rate-limit DMCA takedown requests

(2) They operated the service with red-flag knowledge of copyrighted content, such as when a user complained that the video quality of the Showtime show "Dexter" was poor, and Kim Schmitz mailed his team to work on improving the quality of that content.

(3) They themselves used the service to exchange copyright-encumbered material, such as the movie "Taken".

(4) They operated a paid incentive program to get users to upload copyrighted content, and in their itemized performance reports for the program acknowledged repeatedly that the content they were paying for was copyrighted.

[eliasmacpherson]

1) I don't have anything to disagree with here specifically: it would be easy to make a case that youtube were more responsive than megaupload. (though I don't know any of the details - I'm just assuming) I doubt megaupload had youtube's resources - another assumption.

2) 3) and 4) I think youtube staff were just as bad if not worse. From Google/Viacom - you can see email transcripts on page 7 onwards (numbers being at the bottom of the page)

(PDF warning) http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/...

4) further to above - I do think youtube channels make money - and copyright material can be a source of that (though it should not be by their rules). Youtube now have detectors in place - that wasn't always the case. Megaupload could have done similar.

I think what really swung it for Google was catching Viacom uploading their own material, and yet suing for it, but again I'm not 100%

Also youtube weren't dealing with an FBI sting and it went through the courts. (I think that is where the lobbying aspect comes in - wild speculation, sure, but there is a marked difference in treatment)

[tptacek]

Thanks for digging that up. It's instructive to read the evidence in the Viacom suit and compare it with the MegaUpload indictment. Again and again, the management of Youtube struggles with the copyright problem. Clear directives are given to remove full-length videos. The legality of clips from Comedy Central are constantly questioned. When Jawed Karim himself posts a copyrighted video, the rest of the team seems angry. And yes, repeatedly, the Youtube team is shown to be sensitive to the impact that copyright enforcement will have on their user stats.

There is no such conflict in the Mega emails. Kim Schmitz is show repeatedly to be concerned solely with maximizing the value of the content Mega stores to users. The operators of Megaupload are repeatedly shown to be aware of specific infringing content --- sometimes because they themselves used it, sometimes because their users pointed it out, and in some cases because they paid to have it put there.

Could there have been a criminal infringement charge leveled against Youtube? Based on this evidence, it looks like "maybe". But would DOJ have won the case? Almost certainly not. Read the judgements in the Viacom case. The founders are repeatedly found not to have had awareness of specific infringements. The DOJ doesn't bring cases it doesn't think it can win.

[eliasmacpherson]

> There is no such conflict in the Mega emails. Kim Schmitz is show repeatedly to be concerned solely with maximizing the value of the content Mega stores to users. The operators of Megaupload are repeatedly shown to be aware of specific infringing content --- sometimes because they themselves used it, sometimes because their users pointed it out, and in some cases because they paid to have it put there.

Agree with everything you wrote except the above. Basically the disagreement is on the source materials - one is a naive Viacom and the other is an indictment. So I think the indictment is cherrypicked "better" than Viacom managed.

If e.g. the FBI/DOJ were going after youtube I think they would have quoted more selectively than Viacom did.

Unless the full text of Mega's emails are out there - I can't be sure there's no conflict, I'm sure someone could dredge up him ordering something taken down.

Again with "repeatedly" and "specific" - the youtube emails, for all their conflict are repeated and specific, many times. There's also instances of youtube employee's grabbing stuff from other sites and putting it there themselves, which mega are accused of. I'm pretty sure with youtube's channel system, copyrighted content is paid to be put there in the same manner, though I'm not sure how youtube's early users were compensated.

I doubt the thought occured to them to bring a criminal case against youtube - that's one of the points I'm wildly speculating on - or if it was the case, lobbying stemmed it.

I'll have a read of the ruling: (PDF) http://www.legalbytes.com/uploads/file/Viacom-YouTube%20%28G...

[tptacek]

The full text of Mega emails are included in the indictment. If Viacom could have quoted anything of a similar magnitude, they absolutely would have. You should read the indictment. It's damning. And fun reading!

[eliasmacpherson]

I remember enjoying reading the indictment, but I don't recall all of Mega's emails being there, that's what I was getting at. Given a sufficiently large sample - I'm sure you could find exonerating material.

[tptacek]

How do you exonerate the guy who has one of his users complain that a pirated Dexter video has poor quality and then complains to his team about the low quality of the pirated Dexter videos on his site? He's been caught red handed.

The only argument I've ever heard that could exculpate Schmitz is that "perhaps the video uploads could have been authorized." But that beggars belief. No reasonable person on a jury would buy that Schmitz seriously entertained the idea that those videos were authorized uploads.