Raid video of Megaupload owner - Page 3 - Politics and Economics

heater · 08-11-2012, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyA

I thought the RIAA did sue operators on the grounds that they did not remove infringing copyright.

AFAIK the only thing the RIAA did was attempt to circumvent the legal system by trying to talk the credit card companies into not dealing with Megaupload. I've never seen anyone accuse Megaupload of not honoring a DMCA request.

JonnyA · 08-11-2012, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niceguyeddy

why aren't the youtube owners being raided as we speak? the amount of copyrighted stuff on youtube is huge. and these days you can just upload movies as one video, no need for parts. i get upset when i can't find the movie i want to watch in one vid on yt. i had to BUY the aliens movies this week (10£ for 4 movies, so a very fair deal - take note ****ing hollywood) , can you believe that ****? i just hope sigourney still gets a cut.

Because youtube actively cooperates with the copyright holders to remove infringing information. They also have software running searches for copyright information.

Yes, they don't catch everything (or immediately) but they do try. The law doesn't require you to be perfect in blocking copyrighted material, you just have to make a good faith effort.

ohead · 08-11-2012, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brad2002tj

I just find it amazing that a German/NZ national with no ties to the US can be extradited for violation of US law at all.

It's getting to be a dangerous standard set by the US, people are just straight up accepting it as something thats gonna happen.

So you just gotta adapt to your local countries laws and the laws of the US cause the US laws are apparently valid worldwide. Twice as valid if there's big money behind the complaint.

JonnyA · 08-11-2012, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heater

AFAIK the only thing the RIAA did was attempt to circumvent the legal system by trying to talk the credit card companies into not dealing with Megaupload. I've never seen anyone accuse Megaupload of not honoring a DMCA request.

If it is impractical for Magauplaud to check every file for copyright material, its no more practical for the RIAA to do so in order to make DMCA requests.

Compliance with DMCA is not a complete shield to liability - the suits tat the RIAA filed against operators weren't limited to just refusing to comply with DMCA.

SuperSwag · 08-11-2012, 02:02 PM

Megaupload at one point accounted for 4% of internet traffic. I'm assuming that's a big chunk. That is a lot of copyrighted content being hosted.

It came out in court though that the FBI's warrant was invalid or something so this case might not hold up in court. Dotcom has some good lawyers.

heater · 08-11-2012, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyA

If it is impractical for Magauplaud to check every file for copyright material, its no more practical for the RIAA to do so in order to make DMCA requests.

Again, it's not just impractical. Megaupload isn't allowed to check files for copyright material.

Quote:

Compliance with DMCA is not a complete shield to liability - the suits tat the RIAA filed against operators weren't limited to just refusing to comply with DMCA.

Could you link the suit? I can't find one.

JonnyA · 08-11-2012, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heater

Again, it's not just impractical. Megaupload isn't allowed to check files for copyright material.

Could you link the suit? I can't find one.

I haven't read it in a while, by my recollection was that the Usenet lawsuit/ruling was not limited to just whether Usenet was refusing to comply with DMCA requests.

As to your first point, is there a case that establishes that or is that just their defense. My recollection of US privacy laws is that its not clear what privacy protection you have when you use someone else's server to transmit your material.

niceguyeddy · 08-11-2012, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyA

Because youtube actively cooperates with the copyright holders to remove infringing information. They also have software running searches for copyright information.

Yes, they don't catch everything (or immediately) but they do try. The law doesn't require you to be perfect in blocking copyrighted material, you just have to make a good faith effort.

there are full yt movies that have been around for months and even years. megavideo had an option that the movie and music companies could use to directly delete anything that was theirs. they didn't even have to ask for permission, they had their own accounts they could use to get rid of the stuff. oh how many south park and seinfeld dead links i had to endure

so no ****ing excuse there. the only difference is that youtube is an american company AND owned by google on top of it all. that's why they don't have 80 swat team members descending on them as we speak. now, what should i watch next as a full one part copyrighted movie on yt that's been around for ages: the rock or armageddon? hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

heater · 08-11-2012, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyA

I haven't read it in a while, by my recollection was that the Usenet lawsuit/ruling was not limited to just whether Usenet was refusing to comply with DMCA requests.

Yeah, I meant an RIAA suit against Megaupload. That's the thing. I don't believe they had ever been sued by a single content owner because nobody felt they actually had the grounds. That's why the RIAA and MPAA tried to get the CC companies to cut off payments to Megaupload.

Quote:

As to your first point, is there a case that establishes that or is that just their defense. My recollection of US privacy laws is that its not clear what privacy protection you have when you use someone else's server to transmit your material.

I don't know, honestly.

I looked at some stuff from the indictment on wikipedia.

Quote:

The indictment[1][67] alleged that Megaupload differed from other online file storage businesses.

Media reports covering the case highlighted a number of points from the indictment used to support claims of illegal activity. The indictment provided a number of 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 not downloaded 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 maximising 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" (item 55–56)

An incentivising 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)

Safe harbor provisions

The US Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides safe harbor for sites that promptly take down infringing content. Safe harbor does not exist if the site has actual knowledge and does nothing about it.[68]

In Megaupload's case, the indictment alleges DMCA provisions were used for the appearance of legitimacy – the actual material was not removed, only some links to it were, takedowns agreement was approved based on business growth rather than infringement, and the parties themselves openly discussed their infringing activities. The indictment claims that Megaupload executives:

"... are willfully infringing copyrights themselves on these systems; have actual knowledge that the materials on their systems are infringing (or alternatively know facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent); receive a financial benefit directly attributable to copyright-infringing activity where the provider can control that activity; and have not removed, or disabled access to, known copyright infringing material from servers they control."[69]

Prosecutors claimed in the indictment that Megaupload was not DMCA compliant, and cited the example of an alleged infringer on the site known as "VV." Over six years, VV had allegedly uploaded nearly 17,000 files to Megavideo.com, resulting in more than 334 million views. According to prosecutors, although numerous takedown e-mails had been sent, none of the files had been deleted.[70]

In a television interview with 3 News, Kim Dotcom denied being a "piracy king", and claimed that Megaupload had applied the provisions of the DMCA and went beyond it, by giving copyright holders direct rights to delete links. He also claimed that the indictment relied on a malicious interpretation of technical issues to construe its claim of criminal intent, and that there was significant legal use of Megaupload.[71]

I don't know what to think about a lot of this. I used Megaupload pretty extensively and, "Continued storage is dependent upon regular downloads of the file occurring. Files not downloaded are rapidly removed in most cases, whereas popular downloaded files are retained" was completely untrue in my experience.

Paul D · 08-11-2012, 05:22 PM

I like the irony of how the ZOMGTHEGOVERNMENTSTEALSFROMUS people are in here defending the guy who pretty much used theft as a business model.

74Offsuit · 08-11-2012, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul D

I like the irony of how the ZOMGTHEGOVERNMENTSTEALSFROMUS people are in here defending the guy who pretty much used theft as a business model.

A lot of libertarian folk don't believe in any protection for intellectual property. And people like free stuff of course.

Don't particularly want to go to bat for Mr Dotcom, but I can see that the legal situation is more complex than I implied in my earlier post ITT.

spike420211 · 08-11-2012, 06:07 PM

Quote:

It's getting to be a dangerous standard set by the US

Ummm, yeah, this guy's crib is 80 miles outside Auckland,
Ima assume out in Bumf***istan... and the dude is too rich NOT to have guns there, jfc.

Also... still, this guy's last name is Dotcom?LOLOLOL

Paul D · 08-11-2012, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 74Offsuit

A lot of libertarian folk don't believe in any protection for intellectual property. And people like free stuff of course.

You're not saying Libertarians are self-serving are you?

**Dids** · 08-11-2012, 06:14 PM

I like the logic that suggests "it isn't profitable to run the business in a legal" is a defense.

Without understanding enough about the law to be meaningful- it seems odd that the US can yank a guy out of another country for an internet crime- but pretending like Megaupload was anything but an ostensibly criminal venture is just flatly dishonest.

maxtower · 08-11-2012, 08:37 PM

Seems that if Megaupload is criminal then google/youtube is also.