nanog mailing list archives
Re: Megaupload.com seized
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:02:16 -0800
In a message written on Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:37:16AM -1000, Paul Graydon wrote:
From what I understand about MegaUpload's approach, they created a hash of every file that they stored. If they'd already got a copy of the file that was to be uploaded they'd just put an appropriate link in a users space, saving them storage space, and bandwidth for both parties. Fairly straight forward. Whenever they received a DMCA take-down they would remove the link, not the underlying file, so even though they knew that a file was illegally hosted, they never actually removed it. That comes up for some argument about the ways the company should be practically enforcing a DMCA take-down notice, whether each take-down should apply to just an individual user's link to a file or whether the file itself should be removed. That could be different from circumstance to circumstance.
Note that with A DMCA take down the original uploader can issue a counter-notice to get the content put back. Most sites don't immediately delete the content but rather disable it in some way so that should the file be counter noticed it can be put back up. Also, when using a hashed file store, it's possible that some uses are infringing and some are not. I might make a movie, put it on Megaupload, and then give the links only to the 5 people who bought it from them. One of them might turn around, upload it again to Megaupload, and share it with the world, infringing on my content. I would hope that when I issue a takedown notice they take down the infringers copy (link), but leave mine in place. None of this should be taken to mean I'm behind Megaupload. I have a greater concern here wondering if law enforcement, the courts, and most importantly the law makers understand the technolgy and can craft and apply laws in a reasonable way. One major issue that already came up is that a whole lot of people used Megaupload for storing perfectly legal content. It's now offline, and there appears to be no way for them to retrieve that data. At what percentage is that reasonable? If 99% of your users are infringing? 50%? 1%? Could this be used to take down your competitors? Buy some Amazon instances and put a bunch of infringing content on them, and then watch the feds seize all of Amazon's servers? Lots of troubling questions, no good answers. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: "Illegal content" (Re: Megaupload.com seized), (continued)
- Re: "Illegal content" (Re: Megaupload.com seized) Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 20)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Owen DeLong (Jan 20)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized bmanning (Jan 20)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Vadim Antonov (Jan 20)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Jay Ashworth (Jan 20)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Jeroen van Aart (Jan 31)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Michael Painter (Jan 19)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Ricky Beam (Jan 20)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Paul Graydon (Jan 20)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Tony McCrory (Jan 20)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Leo Bicknell (Jan 20)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Roland Perry (Jan 20)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Marshall Eubanks (Jan 20)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Administrator (Jan 20)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Ricky Beam (Jan 20)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Jay Ashworth (Jan 20)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Joly MacFie (Jan 20)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Jay Ashworth (Jan 21)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Rich Kulawiec (Jan 21)
- Re: Megaupload.com seized Roland Perry (Jan 21)
- RE: Megaupload.com seized George Bonser (Jan 21)