nanog mailing list archives

Re: Megaupload.com seized


From: Joly MacFie <joly () punkcast com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:06:35 -0500

aka "deduplication".

In Viacom vs. YouTube it was pretty successfully argued that there was no
way for YT to know that *every* instance of a work was illegally uploaded.
However they *were* able to produce 'smoking gun' evidence of Viacom agents
uploading material.

j

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Paul Graydon <paul () paulgraydon co uk>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.

Paul




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-


Current thread: