Mega upload shut down

[Faqa]

The whole thing is mixed together with the fight against SOPA - MU's demise was seen as being a response to the internet blackout over SOPA, which Google was a part of. They ARE associated with the whole movement unless they try otherwise.

[Simon_Jester]

Russia's internet freedom is not coming from good legislation, though, rather from lack thereof. I dread to see what they'll do after the idiotic WTO ascension. I guess China and parts of Europe will remain the last great bastion of free filesharing. Which would be rather surprising given China's Great Firewall censorship thing. But awesome in a way.

The Chinese oligarchs rose through political means, so they can dominate politics without needing to dominate the economy to stay in power. American oligarchs rose through economic means, so they need to dominate both.

[bobalot]

Before anybody hops on the Internet nerd rage bandwagon, these guys look guilty.

But the government asserts that Megaupload merely wanted the veneer of legitimacy, while its employees knew full well that the site's main use was to distribute infringing content. Indeed, the government points to numerous internal e-mails and chat logs from employees showing that they were aware of copyrighted material on the site and even shared it with each other. Because of this, the government says that the site does not qualify for a “safe harbor” of the kind that protected YouTube from Viacom's $1 billion lawsuit.

For instance, the “abuse tool” allegedly does not remove the actual file being complained about by a rightsholder. Instead, it only removes a specific Web address linked to that file—but there might be hundreds of such addresses for popular content.

In addition, the government contends that everything about the site has been doctored to make it look more legitimate than it is. The “Top 100” download list does not “actually portray the most popular downloads,” say prosecutors, and they claim that Megaupload purposely offers no site-wide search engine as a way of concealing what people are storing and sharing through the site.

Megaupload employees apparently knew how the site was being used. When making payments through its “uploader rewards” program, employees sometimes looked through the material in those accounts first. "10+ Full popular DVD rips (split files), a few small porn movies, some software with keygenerators (warez)," said one of these notes. (The DMCA does not provide a "safe harbor" to sites who have actual knowledge of infringing material and do nothing about it.)

In a 2008 chat, one employee noted that "we have a funny business... modern days [sic] pirates ," to which the reply was, "we're not pirates, we're just providing shipping servies [sic] to pirates ."

Employees send each other e-mails saying things like, “can u pls get me some links to the series called ‘Seinfeld’ from MU [Megaupload]," since some employees did have access to a private internal search engine.

Employees even allegedly uploaded content themselves, such as a BBC Earth episode uploaded in 2008.

Employees also had access to analytics. One report showed that a specific linking site had “produce[d] 164,214 visits to Megaupload for a download of the copyrighted CD/DVD burning software package Nero Suite 10. The software package had the suggested retail price of $99.” The government's conclusion: Megaupload knew what was happening and did little to stop it.

[S.L.Acker]

Before anybody hops on the Internet nerd rage bandwagon, these guys look guilty.

But the government asserts that Megaupload merely wanted the veneer of legitimacy, while its employees knew full well that the site's main use was to distribute infringing content. Indeed, the government points to numerous internal e-mails and chat logs from employees showing that they were aware of copyrighted material on the site and even shared it with each other. Because of this, the government says that the site does not qualify for a “safe harbor” of the kind that protected YouTube from Viacom's $1 billion lawsuit.

For instance, the “abuse tool” allegedly does not remove the actual file being complained about by a rightsholder. Instead, it only removes a specific Web address linked to that file—but there might be hundreds of such addresses for popular content.

In addition, the government contends that everything about the site has been doctored to make it look more legitimate than it is. The “Top 100” download list does not “actually portray the most popular downloads,” say prosecutors, and they claim that Megaupload purposely offers no site-wide search engine as a way of concealing what people are storing and sharing through the site.

Megaupload employees apparently knew how the site was being used. When making payments through its “uploader rewards” program, employees sometimes looked through the material in those accounts first. "10+ Full popular DVD rips (split files), a few small porn movies, some software with keygenerators (warez)," said one of these notes. (The DMCA does not provide a "safe harbor" to sites who have actual knowledge of infringing material and do nothing about it.)

In a 2008 chat, one employee noted that "we have a funny business... modern days [sic] pirates ," to which the reply was, "we're not pirates, we're just providing shipping servies [sic] to pirates ."

Employees send each other e-mails saying things like, “can u pls get me some links to the series called ‘Seinfeld’ from MU [Megaupload]," since some employees did have access to a private internal search engine.

Employees even allegedly uploaded content themselves, such as a BBC Earth episode uploaded in 2008.

Employees also had access to analytics. One report showed that a specific linking site had “produce[d] 164,214 visits to Megaupload for a download of the copyrighted CD/DVD burning software package Nero Suite 10. The software package had the suggested retail price of $99.” The government's conclusion: Megaupload knew what was happening and did little to stop it.

It really doesn't matter, this whole thing is already meaningless as the site is back up and they didn't go after any other sites that do the exact same thing. You also have to wonder what semi-legal route they took to get this evidence.

[bobalot]

It really doesn't matter, this whole thing is already meaningless as the site is back up and they didn't go after any other sites that do the exact same thing.

The people that were arrested maybe actually guilty doesn't matter? Why?

You also have to wonder what semi-legal route they took to get this evidence.

Where did this speculation come from?

[S.L.Acker]

It really doesn't matter, this whole thing is already meaningless as the site is back up and they didn't go after any other sites that do the exact same thing.

The people that were arrested maybe actually guilty doesn't matter? Why?

Sure it matters to those people, it doesn't matter to the internet at large. It does nothing to stop companies from looking at this and saying, 'Hey, we'll just host in places where we can't get in shit for it.'

You also have to wonder what semi-legal route they took to get this evidence.

Where did this speculation come from?

The US is sort of known for doing scummy things to get evidence.

[bobalot]

It really doesn't matter, this whole thing is already meaningless as the site is back up and they didn't go after any other sites that do the exact same thing.

The people that were arrested maybe actually guilty doesn't matter? Why?

Sure it matters to those people, it doesn't matter to the internet at large. It does nothing to stop companies from looking at this and saying, 'Hey, we'll just host in places where we can't get in shit for it.'

So the fact that this company and it's staff maybe actually guilty is irrelevant because people can do illegal stuff elsewhere?

You also have to wonder what semi-legal route they took to get this evidence.

Where did this speculation come from?

The US is sort of known for doing scummy things to get evidence.

So you made it up?

[S.L.Acker]

So the fact that this company and it's staff maybe actually guilty is irrelevant because people can do illegal stuff elsewhere?

Pretty much, it's just like my take on the war on drugs. Catch one dealer, burn a single crop, or score a big bust, you wasted a lot of money on a very little gain.

So you made it up?

Where did I ever state that they did anything illegal? I merely pondered in text the idea that they may have. I'm hardly without reason in doing so.

[evilsoup]

I'm pretty sure the US has wiretapping laws that let the authorities intercept emails, so there's really nothing to suggest the government did anything illegal.

[S.L.Acker]

I'm pretty sure the US has wiretapping laws that let the authorities intercept emails, so there's really nothing to suggest the government did anything illegal.

Yeah, I guess. In the land of the free wiretapping/e-mail tapping is legal. I should be thankful for the little things like the fact that Canada doesn't seem to have gone this far just yet.

[Terralthra]

From the released e-mails, it certainly seems as if MegaUpload staff knew about infringing violations and not only didn't act to remove them, but actively took advantage of them. That's not just violating the safe harbor provisions, it's flouting the vilations and infringing copyright themselves. I'm all for reforming copyright law, but defending MegaUpload's staff in this case is really unconscionable.

[Simon_Jester]

Do you mean "flouting," or "flaunting?"

[Terralthra]

flout verb \ˈflau̇t\

Definition of FLOUT

transitive verb
: to treat with contemptuous disregard : scorn <flouting the rules>

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, you can flout rules, but how can you flout violations?

Whereas you can surely flaunt your violations: "Yes, I did it, and I'm going to get away with it too, copper!"

[MKSheppard]

I can't help but think that when this goes to court; the DoJ's case will suffer some biggish setbacks -- specifically their attempt to paint MU as some sort of grand...

MEGA CONSPIRACY

...because they use standard INTERNETS tactics to pay for the TUBES.

Even the hard 5,000 takedowns per day limit that Mega Upload instituted makes sense -- you have to verify each takedown request is indeed for copyrighted material, then write up a brief report to satisfy the lawyers, etc. That takes manpower.

In the end though, what will do in MU is the fact that they had an internal search engine for administrator use and they admitted to using it to find pirated material via emails.

[Skgoa]

Yeah but they still were very blatant. There is a qualitative difference between them and legit services like Youtube or Dropbox.

[mr friendly guy]

Other sharing sites I u.. I mean I know of are rapidshare, mediafire, filesonic, fileserve etc. Heck http://www.filestube.com/ searches on all those and more. Its a pity about megaupload, they were quite fast to download stuff. I guess I will be missing those Chinese series I was going to peruse, since for some reason uploaders like using megaupload over the other ones (most probably because it was faster).

[LaCroix]

Wait... DOTCOM? That's Kim Schmitz.

Good riddance to him.

[Skgoa]

As I said, they were really really blatantly helping people pirate stuff and profited massively from that. Kimble is the lowest of the low and should have landed in prison a long time ago.

[Simon_Jester]

So, anyone care to lay odds on the other file storage sites shutting down their file sharing capability? It's the only way to be sure you're not "abetting piracy..."

[mr friendly guy]

I have heard file sonic has done just that, albeit the source was from another website.

[mr friendly guy]

Addendum - I actually tried file sonic and this is the message.

All sharing functionality on FileSonic is now disabled. Our service can only be used to upload and retrieve files that you have uploaded personally.

If this file belongs to you, please login to download it directly from your file manager.

[Simon_Jester]

There are a few problems with that from the file storage site's point of view.

One is that the laws are in flux- even if SOPA/PIPA doesn't pass, something else will, within not all that much time- so changing policies now (and possibly freezing their transfers while they work out what the hell the new policies are going to be) can save them a lot of grief later, when their policies are complying with the new law ahead of time instead of needing three months to be adjusted, during which time they're in violation.

Another is that corporate legal decisions are risk-averse. They won't just want to be protected by a law, they'll want to be confident that no one has reasons to drag them into a costly legal battle where they have shallower pockets than, say, Sony. "The innocent-ish have nothing to fear" is not going to reassure them.

Finally, they have to know that their corporation is compliant, and that there is no evidence to the contrary, before they can proceed on their way. How are they supposed to do that without a major internal audit of e-mails, employee use of company resources, and possibly even a serious attempt by employees to comb through their file storage to see what copyright-breaching material might be in there? DMCA requires them to do a certain amount of work, work which is burdensome to a company with terabytes of content in storage. If they've been cutting any corners, even without active intent to aid piracy, they're vulnerable and will want to close that window of vulnerability.

[Simon_Jester]

The least risky thing is to just close their doors. But, then they won't have any profit at all.

Some firms may yet decide to do that- but that decision is made on longer timescales. This happened within a few days; large companies don't decide to quit doing business that fast, but they may decide to restrict their service and rearrange it in a hurry that fast.

I think Filesonic concerned that a precedent will be set by which they can be accused of bad faith. Or that their internal policing isn't strong enough for the executives to be sure how well they'd fare if their internal e-mail logs were examined: do they really know none of their employees are quietly encouraging piracy?

I don't think they'd do this without a reason, and I don't know just how zealous they'll choose to be as a way of ensuring that they have a defense against charges under DMCA or future copyright laws.

This is where chilling effects come from- knowledge that the law is in flux and that you may be in trouble with the law can intimidate people, even if the innocent have nothing to fear in theory. Here, there's a strong motive for file storage and sharing firms to try and vet the content that goes into their storage in advance, because being shut down by lawsuits and having your CEO arrested is bad news even if your name is cleared a year or two later.

[Simon_Jester]

Another thought: what happens to the people who stored lawful data on Megaupload in good faith? Will they get any kind of restitution out of this?

Suppose a storage warehouse rents spaces for people to put things. People with old furniture or random junk rent storage space. Now suppose the warehouse's owner is indicted for smuggling- someone alleges that he's part of a conspiracy to use parts of the warehouse to store contraband. What would we say if the police confiscated all the property in the warehouse, and refused to let anyone access any of it?

Because that's basically what's happening when the FBI grabs a Megaupload server and shuts down the site. If I stored something legal (like home movies I made myself, or the draft of a novel I'm writing, or a pile of scientific data) on Megaupload, I can't get at it, and the police are holding it. When, if ever, do I get my stuff back?

For that matter, what if there's personal information on the site? What if I stored something that could be used for identity theft? Do I get any assurances about how this seized information will be used, or when it will be back under my control?