Kim Dotcom's 'Mega' goes live

[SeaKing]

If Mega stores a file that is knows nothing about, that is fine.
However once that file is identified (and reported) as copyright protected, then Mega would have to take it down.

The point I guess is that Mega would be protected and the anonymous upload-er (if no IP was recorded) would be protected and eventually after who knows how many downloads, the copyright protector would be protected.

The down-loader would be protected if Mega doesn't keep track of IPs downloading any particular file, and there is no interception of data streams by IPS, the Govt., etc. identifying both the file and the IP of the downloader.

Yes the files could be encrypted, but somewhere there must be an index and a key and these must be distributed or the file is of no use.

Essentially the same as with data streaming using youtube as a kind of Mega.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

If Mega stores a file that is knows nothing about, that is fine.

I agree.

However once that file is identified (and reported) as copyright protected, then Mega would have to take it down.

I am sure they will; all filehosts allow such violations to be reported. That said, they would have to provide the key as well, so Mega can check, a simple file name would probably not be sufficient. (But yes, a published link and key in a public form, e.g., would probably suffice.)

The point I guess is that Mega would be protected and the anonymous upload-er (if no IP was recorded)

The uploader is not anonymous. Mega makes a point of telling you that they record your IP and other data and will hand them over to law enforcement if and when compelled to do so.

The down-loader would be protected if Mega doesn't keep track of IPs downloading any particular file

There is usually little action taken against downloaders. They are far too numerous, very difficult to track (unless they are uploading as well, as in the case of, say, bittorrent), only make one unauthorized copy (their own), and in many cases might not even be doing anything illegal (many European copyright acts grant the right to make a copy for private and personal use, regardless of the source). Oh, and it's bad PR, even more so than going after the small-time uploaders.

Yes the files could be encrypted, but somewhere there must be an index and a key and these must be distributed or the file is of no use.

Sure, but they could be distributed separately. It certainly will make automatic, URL and filename based takedown requests much harder.

[afv011]

Yet another security researcher is poking holes in the security of Mega, this time by pointing out that the confirmation messages e-mailed to new users can in many cases be cracked to reveal their password and take over their Mega accounts.

Source

[Teknikal]

I wouldn't be worried at all by all the security researchers trying to poke flaws in it, the amount of hitpieces I've read already are definitely pointing to a smear campaign which to be honest we all should have expected.

I don't see anything wrong with the site itself it's up to the individual if they upload something illegal, if anything from what I can see it would be very hard to use Mega for piracy as everyone downloading would need the key, I made an account myself as 50gb is too good to pass up on I'm not sure if I'll ever use it but it's certainly more than I have on dropbox etc

[Jessica Lares]

The key is just a password. It'll get passed around with the files like nothing. A lot of places that do post pirated software and the like do the password thing. It's to prevent scraping from idiots who will just put a survey/paywall on top of them on their sites.

I honestly would stay away from it. That guy didn't respect copyright to begin with, and it's not like it's not going to happen again.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Alexander are you saying that the individual user data is therefore very secure?

Or are you saying that the site owner could actually identify ways to get at the data stored?

As always, you need to ask yourself whether this is a reputable company run by a trustworthy person. The answer, for me, would be "no" to both questions; I would not personally choose to entrust the security of my data (or anything else, come to that) to a person with multiple criminal convictions for fraud and embezzlement.

[Josieb1]

I read fan fiction, whilst I don't upload anything I do download, its all legal, and I know that fandoms lost an awful lot of legal links when Megaupload was taken down.

[Teknikal]

Originally Posted by Jessica Lares

The key is just a password. It'll get passed around with the files like nothing. A lot of places that do post pirated software and the like do the password thing. It's to prevent scraping from idiots who will just put a survey/paywall on top of them on their sites.

I honestly would stay away from it. That guy didn't respect copyright to begin with, and it's not like it's not going to happen again.

I don't see that he did anything more wrong than dropbox or even google drive both let anyone upload files and share the link with anyone else, I don't dispute megaupload was swarmed with piracy but the same is true for a hundred different hosts still running. As far as I know all of them have legitimate uses and will remove copyright material if it's reported and Mega will presumeably do the same.

As for the difference between megaupload and them the hammer really seemed to drop when he suggested a future site that would let artists sell their music directly and put studios out of business for proof of that just search his name and megabox and also have a look at the dates I don't doubt for a second that's the real reason behind his raid.

As for the encryption being bad, if SSL is really that bad all online banks should be instantly pulled as that's what they use as well.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As always, you need to ask yourself whether this is a reputable company run by a trustworthy person. The answer, for me, would be "no" to both questions; I would not personally choose to entrust the security of my data (or anything else, come to that) to a person with multiple criminal convictions for fraud and embezzlement.

If people would follow this then they wouldn't use banks. (I'm talking about the not trustworthy part, not about the convictions.)

I think that it depends on what you use it for. I don't use the cloud, and I wouldn't suggest that people should upload documents that include important information to something started by Dotcom, but I also wouldn't suggest that people should upload documents that include important information to any cloud.

[Teknikal]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

If people would follow this then they wouldn't use banks. (I'm talking about the not trustworthy part, not about the convictions.)

I think that it depends on what you use it for. I don't use the cloud, and I wouldn't suggest that people should upload documents that include important information to something started by Dotcom, but I also wouldn't suggest that people should upload documents that include important information to any cloud.

Just for the record neither would I as far as I'm concerned the cloud is slow, wastes battery, wastes data, seeks to charge you for your own files and as megaupload showed, you can lose all your data in a flash. I do think it has legitimate uses though and Mega looks as good to me as any of them, better in fact because of the 50gb's.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

If people would follow this then they wouldn't use banks.

Bank deposits are guaranteed, as long as you are with a real bank, rather than a large man in a small suit.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Bank deposits are guaranteed, as long as you are with a real bank, rather than a large man in a small suit.

It looks like Dotcom is trying to guarantee that governments can't cut people off from their uploads.

[Billi]

I wouldn't exclude the possibility that the government is sitting in the boat.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Billi

I wouldn't exclude the possibility that the government is sitting in the boat.

[Jessica Lares]

Originally Posted by Teknikal

I don't see that he did anything more wrong than dropbox or even google drive both let anyone upload files and share the link with anyone else, I don't dispute megaupload was swarmed with piracy but the same is true for a hundred different hosts still running. As far as I know all of them have legitimate uses and will remove copyright material if it's reported and Mega will presumeably do the same.

As for the difference between megaupload and them the hammer really seemed to drop when he suggested a future site that would let artists sell their music directly and put studios out of business for proof of that just search his name and megabox and also have a look at the dates I don't doubt for a second that's the real reason behind his raid.

As for the encryption being bad, if SSL is really that bad all online banks should be instantly pulled as that's what they use as well.

The thing is that if you were to upload copyrighted material on Google's or Dropbox's servers, there would be a 100% chance that it wouldn't still be there in 24 hours if it was shared around. Megaupload was known for being the place you could easily get away with having something stay up for weeks. That is why a majority of websites used them to host pirated material. Rapidshare complied more often.

And there's a difference between SSL on a bank, vs on a file host.

Artists can already sell their music directly. Do they do it? No. Most wouldn't be able to handle that sort of approach on their own.