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 JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 21 2017, @01:43AM
Living like a rock star in New Zealand while making tons of money off of assisting piracy of U.S. entertainment firms is a sure (and now proven) formula to get the law enforcement agencies to bust you first and let you talk to your lawyers later, if ever.
Being a huge, profitable corporate entity without a "Rock Star" head, engaged in multiple legitimate, popular, and business supporting enterprises, in addition to making tons of money off of assisting piracy of U.S. entertainment firms is a sure (and now proven) formula to get away with it. Have their lawyers call your lawyers and discuss the path forward of highest mutual benefit.
There doesn't have to be a difference at all in what's really happening (though, in this case, they at least make it a little harder to perform the one to millions sharing model) - it's mostly about the political/legal exposure profiles.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday February 21 2017, @04:28AM
I suspect it's also about establishing precedent. Attack Google, etc. directly, and they're fighting a losing battle on shifting ground. Find a good villain though, and you can get precedent established in your favor. No guarantee for a direct confrontation, but a potent weapon in your arsenal. And a nice bit of extra leverage at the bargaining table.
(Score: 1) by snmygos on Tuesday February 21 2017, @06:50AM
If I remind correctly, heavy users, mainly in Viet Nam, where paid to upload copyrighted contents, and made a lot of money. It was not just a storage service, but a well organized fraudulent activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @04:16PM
Indeed, only the recording industry can steal from artists via shady shenanigans.