FBI charges Megaupload operators with piracy crimes - Page 8

Shaggy · 01-20-2012, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azazel1024

For Megaupload. Well, they certainly complied with most of the safe harbor provisions of DMCA, but they can't really claim to be a truely legitimate business as their primary method of income was related to/because of copyright infringement even if they weren't directly violating copyrights and were pretty quick about take-downs.

That makes an interesting point.

Assuming they did comply with take-downs (I don't know in this case), then hypothetically, any site that allows user content and generates revenue directly or indirectly (for example the pirate bay was indirectly making revenue) based on that service is a potential candidate for the same treatment that MegaUpload got? Regardless of whether or not they make an attempt to comply with the DMCA?

If they really did comply with the DMCA, and the US shut them down anyway, doesn't that make safe harbor useless? Couldn't the US then go after any user generated content site that they wanted to? Is it OK as long as it only happens to sites that we don't like?

HarryT · 01-20-2012, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy

for example the pirate bay was indirectly making revenue

The owners of TPB were prosecuted for assisting people to infringe copyright, I believe. They didn't host any infringing material themselves.

azazel1024 · 01-20-2012, 04:59 PM

I think in this case, at least based on the bits and pieces I am hearing out of the inditement, the US gov't at least has a pretty good case that they fully knew of at least some of the infringing content and did nothing about it.

Also they were "throttling" how many take down notices they'd "serve" in a day. Initially at 2,500 in one case and then later upped it to 5,000 after the company founder decided that they were driving enough traffic that they could afford to "lose" more infringing material by doing more take downs in a day. Something to that effect.

Based on loser case law this time and on the DMCA, you have a resonable amount of time to respond to a DMCA take down notice. The question is, what is resonable...and I think in this case it is a little bit of "I know it when I see it". If you have an automated tool that can serve a take down with no input from your end (which Megaupload had), then an unlimited number of take downs can be serviced as soon as the system can actually process it through.

The limits were not imposed for system capacity reasons, but for driving foot traffic reasons (if they allowed too much copyright infringing material to be brought down faster than new stuff could be uploaded/re-linked then they would lose foot traffic).

It is not like they had a system capacity issue about the rapidity of take downs and it wasn't like they had to manually do them, they had 3 guys doing take downs and all those 3 humans could realistically do in a day were 2,500 take downs and they couldn't resonably afford to hire more employees simply to deal with take down notices.

Shaggy · 01-20-2012, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by murraypaul

If they have both independently come up with the same comment, nothing at all, why should it?

How do you prove it was independently created though? My understanding is that it could, theoretically, be a defense to infringement. But that the accused infringer would have to demonstrate that the work was independently created.

That's one thing (amongst many) that really bugs me about patent law though. Two people independently coming up with the same invention doesn't matter. The first to file gets ownership, the second is out of luck.

HarryT · 01-20-2012, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azazel1024

Also they were "throttling" how many take down notices they'd "serve" in a day. Initially at 2,500 in one case and then later upped it to 5,000 after the company founder decided that they were driving enough traffic that they could afford to "lose" more infringing material by doing more take downs in a day. Something to that effect.

2500 takedowns a day? It makes one wonder how much infringing material this site was hosting.

Fbone · 01-20-2012, 05:13 PM

They also confiscated shotguns from Mr Dotcom's home. Is possession of firearms legal in NZ by non-NZ citizens?

thebestjeter · 01-20-2012, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Actually, the person involved said something like "I download all my books from torrent sites". Somewhat different from "using the word book and torrent in the samer sentence", don't you think? It is, and remains, the official policy of MR not to encourage or assist such endeavours. Sorry if that offends you.

Is part of a moderator decision and MR politics to call a person "criminal" here in Mobileread?

Shaggy · 01-20-2012, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I don't see 'a lot' in there.

Neither do I see 'a little' in there.

In a lot of these instances, people assume that they know whether or not the majority of traffic on a site is legit, but most of the time that's just based off of reputation. Generally nobody really has any clue how much is or isn't infringing.

Shaggy · 01-20-2012, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I believe they were, yes.

That could be why the US is claiming jurisdiction then.

Shaggy · 01-20-2012, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Actually, the person involved said something like "I download all my books from torrent sites".

Did they say whether or not the books were copyrighted? I assume you have no problem with people downloading public domain books from torrent sites?

thebestjeter · 01-20-2012, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Did they say whether or not the books were copyrighted? I assume you have no problem with people downloading public domain books from torrent sites?

He didn't, but Harry assumed the books were copyrighted.

The only thing that the person said was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmasta

NO Epub comatibility and majority of books will initally be torrented

And I am not making a "public comment on a moderating decision". I'm just "commenting" the inappropriate use of the word "criminal".

HarryT · 01-20-2012, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Neither do I see 'a little' in there.

In a lot of these instances, people assume that they know whether or not the majority of traffic on a site is legit, but most of the time that's just based off of reputation. Generally nobody really has any clue how much is or isn't infringing.

Perhaps the authorities felt that the site was only paying lip service to discouraging piracy, rather than taking active measures to do anything about it.

fjtorres · 01-20-2012, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiwipippa

I never realised how big this thing was. Obviously huge money in piracy.

MSNBC has a partial bio on this hero of the internet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46076072...mall_business/
Keep some soap handy, you might want to shower any slime that splatters off the screen.

Never mind the piracy empire; he's got a history of insider trading, pump-n-dump fraud, embezzlement...

(With--sorry!--hints of bribery.)

Victoria · 01-20-2012, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by murraypaul

In almost all cases for comments people upload comments that are their own work.
In almost all cases for these file hosting sites people upload files that are other people's work.

Absolutely...and the argument is also groundless fear mongering. Accidently repeating a brief comment of another poster on a discussion forum has absolutely nothing to do with copyright infringement.

xg4bx · 01-20-2012, 05:53 PM

i won't post a link so i don't violate MR's terms but megaupload is back. they don't have a domain name just an IP address but they're back.

although if i were a pirate i'd be a tad gunshy at uploading anything to a site that is under a microscope.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anti-Piracy group wants to ban you from talking about piracy	Nate the great	News	39	06-06-2012 05:20 AM
(Development) What are these apparently-undefined python operators?	offby1	Calibre	5	06-26-2010 11:57 AM
New Feature Suggestion: MEGAUPLOAD / RAPIDSHARE direct download	zon9873	Calibre	2	03-18-2010 04:06 PM
Science Fiction Phillips, Mark: Queen's Own FBI Trilogy. v2, 9 Jun 2008	HarryT	Kindle Books (offline)	5	06-11-2008 02:30 PM

01-20-2012, 04:59 PM	#108
azazel1024 Groupie Posts: 182 Karma: 346596 Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Ellicott City, MD Device: Nook simple touch, iPad 2	I think in this case, at least based on the bits and pieces I am hearing out of the inditement, the US gov't at least has a pretty good case that they fully knew of at least some of the infringing content and did nothing about it. Also they were "throttling" how many take down notices they'd "serve" in a day. Initially at 2,500 in one case and then later upped it to 5,000 after the company founder decided that they were driving enough traffic that they could afford to "lose" more infringing material by doing more take downs in a day. Something to that effect. Based on loser case law this time and on the DMCA, you have a resonable amount of time to respond to a DMCA take down notice. The question is, what is resonable...and I think in this case it is a little bit of "I know it when I see it". If you have an automated tool that can serve a take down with no input from your end (which Megaupload had), then an unlimited number of take downs can be serviced as soon as the system can actually process it through. The limits were not imposed for system capacity reasons, but for driving foot traffic reasons (if they allowed too much copyright infringing material to be brought down faster than new stuff could be uploaded/re-linked then they would lose foot traffic). It is not like they had a system capacity issue about the rapidity of take downs and it wasn't like they had to manually do them, they had 3 guys doing take downs and all those 3 humans could realistically do in a day were 2,500 take downs and they couldn't resonably afford to hire more employees simply to deal with take down notices.

01-20-2012, 05:13 PM	#111
Fbone Is that a sandwich? Posts: 8,284 Karma: 101696762 Join Date: Jun 2010 Device: Nook Glowlight Plus	They also confiscated shotguns from Mr Dotcom's home. Is possession of firearms legal in NZ by non-NZ citizens?

01-20-2012, 05:53 PM	#120
xg4bx Are you gonna eat that? Posts: 1,633 Karma: 23215128 Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Phillipsburg, NJ Device: Kindle 3, Nook STG	i won't post a link so i don't violate MR's terms but megaupload is back. they don't have a domain name just an IP address but they're back. although if i were a pirate i'd be a tad gunshy at uploading anything to a site that is under a microscope.