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: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday February 20 2017, @09:38PM
1. Mega was early to the party. Cloud storage was not yet common. To sell the service, Mega was pretty explicit about using their service to share copyrighted material.
2. They don't have the deep pockets of today's big cloud players. Also not the political connections.
3. Kim Doctor is a thoroughly dislikable excuse for a human being. As such, he makes a good villain.
Oh, and the government attorneys have hitched their careers to this wagon. Admitting a mistake would be too difficult.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(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.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by KiloByte on Monday February 20 2017, @09:40PM
Assume user A is the copyright holder. User B uploads a copy of the file. MAFIAA reports B's URL. Why would A's copy be removed?
Sorry bozos, but this can't work the way you want. Now please stop wasting my oxygen and die.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(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.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:30AM
Sigh, if you think this is the real issue? I have some bridges you might be interested in. The reason they went after Megaupload is the same reason they went after Limewire which is their ads were focused on selling piracy with tons of talk about first run movies and big name artists.
There is a difference between "playing the game" and pretending to give a shit about copyright holders (which is what the big boys do now) and Kimdotcom dropping his pants and giving the *.A.As a supersized Goatse while flipping them the double bird, and its that "Go fuck yourselves you can't do shit nah nah ni nah nah" attitude that got his ass busted. The moral of the story? If you are doing something that is seriously on the fence legally? Don't be a douchebag and flip the bird to the world, that kind of attitude tends to blow up in your face.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @10:38AM
The moral of the story: US dreams itself the world police.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @07:46PM
In civilized societies, merely being a dick isn't actually a crime though, and focusing on people who do that is considered a waste of police resources.
In fact, even in the USA, you can literally flip the bird at a police officer and it's illegal for him to even stop you for it. See Swartz v. Insogna. You actually have a right to be a dick, and targeting dicks for prosecution is therefore a violation of their rights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @07:15AM
The problem with that line of thinking is that you assume that you are a law abiding citizen. You aren't.
The average person commits three felonies a day. Not because they are a bad person, but because there are so many laws on the books with such broad wording that it is impossible to NOT do something illegal. So if you decide to piss off that cop "because you can" then you better pray that he doesn't know some obscure law or statute that he can see you breaking. If he does, then you're gonna be kissing concrete due to your "unruly and confrontational behavior" warranting an aggressive response.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday February 27 2017, @07:54AM
You missed the point mate, if ALL you are doing is being an asshole? That is 100% fine and dandy, hell YouTube is filled with grade a megapricks and nobody does shit, its when you are doing illegal or borderline illegal shit that being a dick on TOP of the illegal shit? Bites you right in the ass.
Again what was Kim doing that Google and the rest weren't? Being a prick on top of hosting illegal content, simple as that. Google and the rest play the game and PRETEND to give a flipping fuck about the *.A.A (in reality? They don't care) but Kim was not only doing the same illegal copyright shit he was flying two birds while screaming "suck my big hairy nuts big media companies!" and THAT is what got him fucked.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @03:13PM
I think you've missed MY point, actually.
The fact that Kim is a dick doesn't matter in terms of the law.
Except in this case, it apparently does.
That's a problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:31AM
Not just that. If I upload a copy of a file that I've bought to a cloud service and keep any and all links to myself, why should I have my copy deleted because somebody with a completely different and unrelated account shared the link or failed to properly secure it?
The ultimate resolution of this is probably going to be for cloud services to get a lot more expensive as they're going to have issues retaining customers when their files get randomly deleted every time a company complains about somebody elses copy being distributed without appropriate permission.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @09:46PM
The difference is the depth of their pockets... and who these pockets buy.
Also remember Kim Dotcom threatened the music industry with building a distribution platform to legally distribute music that would've shortcircuited dead the current labels?
Then the MAFIAA didn't even hesitate to DCMA his own song taking it down.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @10:06PM
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload: [wikipedia.org]
The indictment[1][72] alleged that Megaupload differed from other online file storage businesses.
Media reports covering the case highlighted several points from the indictment used to support claims of illegal activity. The indictment provided instances alleged to show criminal behaviour, as well as indicating design points of Megaupload's operating model as being evidence of criminal intent:[1]
* In practice, the "vast majority" of users do not have any significant long term private storage capability. Continued storage is dependent upon regular downloads of the file occurring. Files that are infrequently accessed are rapidly removed in most cases, whereas popular downloaded files are retained. (items 7–8)
* Because only a small portion of users pay for storage, the business is dependent upon advertising. Adverts are primarily viewed when files are downloaded and the business model is therefore not based upon storage but upon maximizing downloads. (items 7–8)
* Persons indicted have "instructed individual users how to locate links to infringing content on the Mega Sites ... [and] ... have also shared with each other comments from Mega Site users demonstrating that they have used or are attempting to use the Mega Sites to get infringing copies of copyrighted content." (item 13)
* Persons indicted, unlike the public, are not reliant upon links to stored files, but can search the internal database directly. It is claimed they have "searched the internal database for their associates and themselves so that they may directly access copyright-infringing content". (item 14)
* A comprehensive takedown method is in use to identify child pornography, but not deployed to remove infringing content. (item 24)
* Infringing users did not have their accounts terminated, and the defendants "made no significant effort to identify users who were using the Mega Sites or services to infringe copyrights, to prevent the uploading of infringing copies of copyrighted materials, or to identify infringing copies of copyrighted works" (items 55–56)
* An incentive program was adopted encouraging the upload of "popular" files in return for payments to successful uploaders. (item 69e et al.)
* Defendants explicitly discussed evasion and infringement issues, including an attempt to copy and upload the entire content of YouTube. (items 69i-l. YouTube: items 69 i,j,l,s)
Counter arguments advanced
....
Legal commentators point out that while the indictment may be correct and Megaupload might have acted as a criminal conspiracy as claimed... [article goes on with legitimate concerns.]
Google Drive, Box, Spideroak, Dropbox, and the others do not seem to share the above characteristics. Nor has anyone found evidence among them that their principals were aware and actively encouraged infringement to occur. (i.e. the others do not seem to be criminal conspiracies. Megaupload, allegedly, does.)
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Tuesday February 21 2017, @02:20AM
That was pretty much what I was going to say — I've used Dropbox, Spider Oak, Google Drive, etc. and as far as I'm aware, none of them have ever offered incentive schemes based on how many people accessed the files. Even beyond that, all of those services have advertised themselves as a place to back up personal files and added on limited sharing later, while MegaUpload advertised itself as a file distribution/sharing service from the get-go (which is why the front page featured popular artists, IIRC).
(Score: 5, Informative) by nobu_the_bard on Monday February 20 2017, @10:20PM
For those that didn't notice, or didn't RTFA, note that the title of the original article is actually phrased as a question: "Is Megaupload’s ‘Crime’ a Common Cloud Hosting Practice?"
There's also an interesting link I didn't have time to read someone posted on the comment thread here: Megaupload, the Copyright Lobby, and the Future of Digital Rights: The United States v. You (and Kim Dotcom) [torrentfreak.com]
Aside from wanting to provide this information I don't know enough about the topic to otherwise comment. I didn't appreciate the shift from question to flat statement that the summary made, however, and wanted to mention it.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday February 20 2017, @11:03PM
So I guess we have to invoke Betteridge's Law here.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.