SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Megaupload's business model isn't too far off from what cloud hosting providers such as Google Drive, Box, Spideroak, Dropbox, and the others still do today. Yet they are the only ones singled out for legal attacks over their business model.
Five years ago the US Government launched a criminal case against Megaupload and several of its former employees. One of the main allegations in the indictment is that the site only deleted links to copyright-infringing material, not the actual files. Interestingly, this isn't too far off from what cloud hosting providers such as Google Drive and Dropbox still do today.
[...] One of the main arguments in the indictment is that Megaupload would only disable a URL when it received a takedown notice, not the underlying file. As a result of the deduplication technology it employed, this meant that the file could still be accessed under different URLs.
[...] The apparent 'failure' to block infringing content from being uploaded by other users isn't illegal by definition. In fact, neither Google Drive nor Dropbox does this today. So how is the Megaupload situation different?
The main difference appears to be that Megaupload only removed the links that were reported as infringing, while Dropbox and Drive also prevent others from publicly sharing links to the same file. All three services keep or kept the original files on their servers though.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday February 20 2017, @10:11PM
The legalese for that is easy: The copy you "buy" is rights for a given performance (typically inside your house only). The moment you share it with others publicly, the contract enabling your right to backup your own copy is void, allowing them to remove it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by vux984 on Monday February 20 2017, @10:58PM
You missed the point.
"A" didn't publicly share it with anybody.
Lets go over it again.
A loads a copy of a file to 'cloudservice'. He doesn't share it with anyone. He just access it himself from multiple locations.
B loads up a copy of the same file to the same service, the service rather than hosting 2 copies of it, notices it is the same file, and stores just one copy of it, and points both A and B to the same file when they access it. That's what De-duplication is.
B then shares a link to the file publicly, and it is reported as infringing. cloudservice disable's that one link to the file. This is how it 'should be'.
There is no reason for A to lose access to A's link to the same file. In fact it's entirely possible for A to be the actual copyright holder, and it could even have been A that reported B's link as infringing. It would be ludicrous to take down A's link or to delete the file itself...
(Score: 2, Disagree) by bob_super on Monday February 20 2017, @11:09PM
Both answers to my post fail in the same way: A legal copy of a copyrighted work is typically unique, based on how it was created.
Sure you can get the same file by doing the same legal steps on the same hardware and operating system and tool versions at the exact same second as some other guy, but what are the odds?
Put in some user-based DRM, and the probability drops to zero.
Since uploading your Private Copy of a DRMed work to a freely accessible file system online is not covered, you can't go cry when "the real owner" takes it away because you're unlucky enough that someone else did the same thing, but they shared their link...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @11:33PM
Put in some user-based DRM, and the probability drops to zero.
So you think the DRM is perfect, or what?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday February 21 2017, @12:20AM
While all DVDs are pressed the same (but you can't legally rip them, let alone post the result online), a legal DRM-protected download is unique, because it contains the unique identification stream that matches your authentication keys to use it. If you strip that, which is a breach of license, it might match some random Joe's de-authenticated file, but don't cry if the dedup causes it to get deleted. If you leave it in, why does random Joe have your unique file?
As far as having your own files on Megaupload, a heaven of file-sharing, and then complaining because others linking to copies of them and a dedup would delete your own ... that Conway-level of apprehension of reality would take a godlike amount of poker face to pull off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @01:20AM
a legal DRM-protected download is unique
Again, you're assuming that their DRM is perfect, when in fact a lot of times it just isn't. While there are likely such DRM schemes that do uniquely identify users, I'm sure there are also plenty that try and fail.
(Score: 5, Informative) by vux984 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @02:02AM
a legal DRM-protected download is unique, because it contains the unique identification stream that matches your authentication keys to use it.
There are lots of ways to get a download without it being a 'uniquely drm protected download'.
For example, I can record a video from TV or youtube using any number of software packages. Nothing illegal about that.
I can buy a music track from any number of 'drm free' sources; and drm free is becoming the default for music. And there are places you can buy certain videos DRM free too.
As far as having your own files on Megaupload, a heaven of file-sharing, and then complaining because others linking to copies of them and a dedup would delete your own ... that Conway-level of apprehension of reality would take a godlike amount of poker face to pull off.
Here's a pretty simple scenario.... I have installers for the enterprise Symantec Antivirus Enterprise Client, Cisco Firmware for our routers, VPN client, and various other s/w packages, tossed up on a cloud file host so i can access them easily from multiple locations. Cisco in particular is pretty anal ... they won't even let you download firmware upgrades without an active service agreement.
So if a person happened to share a copy of the same software items I've got on the cloud, it would not be shocking for Cisco to issue a takedown; why should my archives get deleted in the cross fire... im not doing anything even slightly wrong? I have a cisco agreement, and I'm entitled to download copies of the firmware to install on my routers.
That's far from 'conway levels of reality distortion'.
Video is a bit more problematic, but only a bit. The DMCA is a uniquely american law. There are lots of places where its still perfectly acceptable to strip the DRM of anything you bought for personal use as a fair use or fair dealing or fair whatever equivalent in the country you are in; and even in the USA prosecuting individuals for stripping the DRM off something for strictly non-commerical, non-sharing, non-public use... is widely accepted and hardly prosecuted... how can they : if you do it in your home, and don't share it with the public, they shouldn't even know about it. Many of us have elected to download a rip of a DVD we already own rather than bother to rip it ourselves. That's a grey area at WORST. And it is significant overreach for someone like dropbox or whatever to delete things that aren't shared publicly from my account; especially in a country where 'innocent until proven guilty' is a thing. Having corporations carry out enforcement on 'private' collections of files is pretty far over the line.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:19PM
The DMCA is a uniquely american law. There are lots of places where its still perfectly acceptable to strip the DRM of anything you bought for personal use
For one thing, Google and Dropbox are American companies and therefore must follow American law. For another, how many refugees from the American copyright regime are those countries willing to take?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @11:58PM
You're not listening yet. Suppose I (user A in GP's terms) write a book, myself. I and I alone hold the copyright; I didn't license it from big media, and there's no DRM involved. I push a copy of the file to Mega for backup, and don't share the link to anyone.
Then I distribute copies of that same file to my friends, without authorizing them to share it farther. One of them, user B, uploads it to Mega and posts the link to all his pirate friends; Mega dedups that with my copy, of course.
I see this, and send Mega a DCMA takedown; am I to expect them to trash my backup copy as well?!
Yes, GP and I know this isn't a likely scenario, but it illustrates why the assumption that one infringing copy means all copies are infringing is not universally valid.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday February 20 2017, @10:59PM
What part of "user A is the copyright holder" did you not understand?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.