Megaupload Shutdown: Should RapidShare and Dropbox Worry? 428
An anonymous reader sends in an article discussing whether other commonly used file storage sites are in danger of being shut down now that Megaupload has been closed. Quoting: "In the wake of the crackdown on the file-sharing website Megaupload, sites offering free content-sharing, file linking and digital locker services, such as RapidShare, SoundCloud and Dropbox, could be next in the crosshair of anti-piracy authorities. ... RapidShare and MediaFire are two of the biggest services left after Megaupload's exit. However, these sites have undergone a revamp, and now ... no longer host pirated content that could lead to a permanent ban. Others in the line of fire are DropBox, iCloud and Amazon S3, which support hosting any file a user uploads. Though their intention of supporting open file-sharing is legitimate, there is really no control over the type of content being uploaded."
It depends (Score:4, Insightful)
Rapidshare, yes. Dropbox, no.
Re:It depends (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No? (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyrighted materials as in almost any materials produced in the last several decades? Everything is copyrighted. Even your post might be copyrighted even though blindly copying words such as "copyrighted" should push it below the threshold of originality.
At least on dropbox (Score:4, Insightful)
Doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
Megaupload was the very blatant in it's disregard for copyright. I wonder why pirates don't post their stolen movies on youtube? Perhaps because Google is extremely diligent in removing copyrighted material and banning users who post it. If Megaupload did the same it would still be up.
Re:It depends (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Probably not (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. Evidence collected for megaupload include emails that specifically mentioned paying users that uploaded the most popular movie. Note it was not a "file", but specifically a "movie". Rapidshare and dropbox are safe as long as they dont explicitly support piracy (unlike megaupload). If all they care about are files and even if they pay users for uploading most popular files, the would get a free pass. Atleast under current laws.
Re:It depends (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, if you're going to fall back to that argument then *every single website in existence* is at risk. In which case the question is pointless.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No? (Score:5, Insightful)
Find three copies of Vanilla Ice's Song "Ice Ice Baby" on the site, and someone, somewhere will find a way to call that "willfiull infringement".... and have Dropbox shutdown. Why? Because the *AA's are criminal organizations, and copyright is and never will be a property right, but since we don't have the money to enforce the Constitution (we being the normal people)... corporations will assfuck us while the government holds us down.
Fuck 'em all. I don't give a shit about copyright anymore. I hate it all.
Safe Harbour (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure Dotcom is hoping to get other tech companies to support his case though. Dropbox, Amazon, even Google will be asking "First they came for the dodgy upload sites
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
last i checked, not only is it NOT illegal to pay for popular things, it's ALSO one of the fundamental principles behind the "free market".
this whole thing is troubling. especially since services like MegaUpload CAN serve as alternative distribution channels out of the control of old media. if old media can get these services shut down, it's not because of any criminality: it's because they're trying to eliminate competing business models.
Re:SOPA lovers would love to take them down. (Score:5, Insightful)
I support the core idea of SOPA while opposing the bill, and I suspect many others do too. If you don't read the damned thing, SOPA sounds like "let's reduce the rampant unchecked piracy online." Sure, that's great. There are many reasons why people should have to really look if they want a pirated copy of The Hangover 2.
BUT: it's all the details that make SOPA / ProIP terrible ideas. Taking down sites on suspicion without a proper day in court is a TERRIBLE idea. We already have examples of legitimate sites caught in the crossfire, who never had due process before being destroyed. Breaking our DNS is a TERRIBLE idea. Giving law enforcement powers to US Companies is a TERRIBLE idea. And all of this is to take power away from our courts, bypassing what they can already do anyway. Oh, let's not forget that the distinction between a "US" site and a "foreign" site is ill-defined.
I'm sure there are many intelligent people who support the idea of reducing online piracy. I just wish they had read the bill.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the issue isn't about storage of pirated files, it's about leveraging access to pirated content in order to make money.
The difference between MU and hard drive makers is that hard drive makers don't have revenue sharing schemes whereby they pay people who advertise and sell hard drives filled with pirated content. The more apt comparison would be a situation wherein Toshiba, Seagate, etc. are paying private individuals who possess pirated content to make that content available to the public in a scheme to drive hard drive sales.
Re:Safe Harbour (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when is it a crime to do the absolute minimum you can to comply with a law? Accountants get rich advising their wealthy clients and corporations on how to do exactly this.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
if the model is basically "we pay if your file is popular", but there is no checking of the actual file, whether the user has actual rights to the file or not, or encouragement of piracy specifically, all that's left is accusing MegaUpload of encouraging popular files.
Note the IF. What you describe is not how MegaUpload operates. If the indictments are to be believed, the operators were caught numerous times encouraging the sharing of content that they knew to be pirated.
You're correct that a truly content-agnostic file storage and sharing site should have nothing to fear. DropBox is safe. The operators of MegaUpload, however, serve as a textbook example of purposely avoiding all the safe harbor opportunities. This isn't because they were stupid -- far from it -- but because this is their very business model.
The legal concept of mens rea -- latin for "guilty mind" -- applies here. The MegaUpload guys, through their actions, have been nailed fair and square. This is their choice. They took the lucrative, but risky, path, of actively courting piracy. Their business model is wholly different than that of DropBox.
Re:Safe Harbour (Score:4, Insightful)
Megaupload was targeted because they did the absolute minimum they could to comply with the DMCA and other US legislation. It's probably true that they quietly encouraged uploading digital copies, even when they knew that material was illegal, and they were slow in taking it down. Things such as having de-duplication in place, but only removing the one specific link to a file, not removing all the copies, when a takedown notice was sent. It's those actions that will mean they might lose in court unfortunately.
Did you even think before writing that nonsense?
I recently purchased Ronald Jenkee's "Disorganized Fun" in FLAC format. I stored it on Megaupload and (protected with password), since I wanted to have a backup.
Another guy now purchases the same album in FLAC format(from the same place, obviously), and decides to upload the whole album onto Megaupload, and share the links with the world.
So, why exactly do you think my copy should be deleted?
Re:Safe Harbour (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a crime to do the absolute minimum to comply with the law when it's disadvantageous to the rich or powerful. It's a civic duty and a responsibility to do the absolute minimum to comply with the law when it's advantageous to the rich or powerful. When doing the absolute minimum to comply with the law is advantageous to some of the rich or powerful (google) and disadvantageous to some of the rich or powerful (hollywood), it's called a "rivalry" and whoever has the most powerful lobbyists get to redefine the law to make the absolute minimum to comply with the law in their favor. That is the way of things.
Re:Safe Harbour (Score:4, Insightful)
Just curious how that works, the US DOJ closing down a company registered in Hong Kong.
Their logic was that the company had assets in the US (servers) and therefore that gave them jurisdiction over the whole operation. It remains to be seen whether or not this will hold up in court.
Re:It depends (Score:5, Insightful)
Media companies like cable and satellite TV systems because they are easy to deal with -- industrial operations (which is what copyright was intended to deal with) with legal teams, shareholders, and investments to protect. Individual computer users are impossible for a media company's legal team to deal with, and there is no way that they are going to negotiate contracts. Yet the Internet allows individual users to use their computers to effectively broadcast copyrighted entertainment -- not good news for an industry that carefully developed strategies for cable TV networks.
All the SOPA/PIPA/etc. lobbying is about attacking the P2P philosophy of the Internet, which the media companies hate. They want computers to be like set top boxes, just passive consumption devices that herd users into consumption-only lifestyles. General purpose computers should be industrial equipment in their world, only used by businesses that negotiate contracts with each other and focus on turning profits. The idea that individuals can have computers and that they can connect their computers to others is antithetical to the world that the MPAA/etc. want.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
You have made a couple assumptions in your post by relying solely on the indictment. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out in his article on the civil liberties issues at play here, http://www.salon.com/2012/01/21/two_lessons_from_the_megaupload_seizure/singleton/ [salon.com] :
What you have done is convict MegaUpload based on nothing more than an assertion by the government, likely at the prodding of *AAs. The story told in the indictment may or may not be true and it definitely presents only one side of the story. Its this sort of rush to judgment, that allows the government to exercise due process free detention and execution and barely anybody bats an eye. Glen says it better than me though:
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not a matter of intentions. All the companies listed above (hard drive manufacturers) and many others (computer manufacturers, broadband ISPs, component manufacturers, encryption providers, etc.), directly or indirectly benefit from piracy, because to a significant portion of their users, that's a main or sole reason for using their product/service. That does not mean they are responsible for the actions of their users, any more than the telephone company can be sued under anti-telemarketing laws even though they very well know some users are violating them.
Also, your naming bit fails to make sense. The site was called "MegaUpload". "Mega" is a very common prefix, and "Upload" is exactly what the site allowed its users to do. I fail to see how that connotes illegal activity. Nor do I see how the internal emails matter-I'm sure any site that allows user uploads discusses internally the likelihood that some of those are copyright violations and what to do about them. I imagine you'd find similar emails at Flickr or Youtube, and I know you'd find discussions of that sort on Wikipedia. It's an inevitability of running a user-generated content site.
Faking compliance with DMCA requests, on the other hand, is likely to land you in trouble-and is the only thing you list that should land you in trouble. I haven't seen anything about that though, could you please provide your source for that?
Re:SOPA lovers would love to take them down. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't read the damned thing, SOPA sounds like "let's reduce the rampant unchecked piracy online." Sure, that's great
That does not sound too great if you spend more than 10 seconds thinking about the situation. Let me make one think perfectly clear: most people never have and never will take copyrights seriously.
In life, there are laws which do not stem from the moral zeitgeist but which still affect everyone. I doubt that anyone seriously thinks it is morally questionable to park their car in the wrong place; it is illegal, sure, but not immoral. When people violate these sorts of laws, we write them a ticket and that is that -- because drawn out court proceedings over parking spaces not only sound absurd but are also a complete waste of judicial resources.
Unlike parking violations, copyright cases must be heard in court. A judge needs to decide if a particular use of a copyrighted work was illegal or protected by the fair use doctrine. This was once a perfectly reasonable way to handle things: only industrial operations could violate a copyright, and industrial operations can be expected to be rare enough and well funded enough to argue cases before a court. Lots of people have cars and therefore lots of people park illegally; before the mid seventies, very few people had copying equipment.
These days it is more common to own a computer, which can be turned into a rapid copying machine, than it is to own a car. The proper response would be to either change copyright law so that people receive tickets when the copy things illegally, or to throw copyrights out entirely and come up with a new system for promoting access to science and useful arts. For some reason, though, we are sitting here talking about how terrible it is that people are "stealing" movies.
Copyrights are not part of the moral zeitgeist and they never will be; whether or not a copyright is being violated is far too complex for it to ever be a moral issue (contrast with murder, which is usually easy to decide), and far to complex to expect people to think about in the course of living their day-to-day lives. The "Happy Birthday" song is copyrighted; practically everyone in America has sang it many times, without paying royalties and without bothering to check to see if there is a copyright on it. People still view copyright as an area law that relates to businesses and industrial operations, which is why supporters of SOPA have pointed to businesses rather than community-run forums and torrent trackers.
My view is that copyrights are dead; it is impossible to prevent copyright infringement or even curtail it without violating our civil rights. Copyright in the 21st century is simply not compatible with democracy or human rights. Attempts to save copyright will inevitably lead to censorship, police states, and the end of the justice system that protects us from government abuses. Some may disagree, but I say that rather than save an old, dying industry from going the way of the stagecoach driving business, we should be working on new ways to promote science and art.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
The MegaUpload guys, through their actions, have been nailed fair and square. This is their choice. They took the lucrative, but risky, path, of actively courting piracy. Their business model is wholly different than that of DropBox.
What blows my mind is that this Kim Dotcom guy could be THAT greedy. Obviously he has some minimal amount of required intelligence to get the infrastructure and technology in place to operate at the massive scale that MU was at. However, it seems to me that anyone in their right mind would bail from something so risky after reaping a few tens of millions of dollars. He could have stopped a year or two ago, after putting away millions of dollars, and claimed that although he tried to run a legitimate, legal online business, too many people were taking advantage of his site in ways he didn't intend or condone, but it would require too many resources to try and police all the uploaded files. So his only recourse was to shut down the sites and close up shop. He'd have almost certainly escaped any legal problems once everything was shut down, and he could've just quietly taken his money and lived high off the hog for the rest of his life.
But no, this guy was greedy. REALLY greedy. $4.9 million in cars alone at his main residence. $24 million dollar estate. $12,000 PER DAY rent for their office headquarters in Hong Kong. Money was his downfall, that's for sure.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/21/megaupload-founder-kim-dotcom-by-the-numbers/?iid=biz-main-mostpop2 [time.com]
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not a matter of intentions.
Look up "induced infringement." It absolutely is a matter of intention.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Who doesn't benefit from copyright infringement? Think about this: how many people would pay $50 or so for high speed internet every month if they couldn't download whatever they wanted? If you were restricted to only going to public domain sites, previewing one tenth of a song only before buying it, not allowed to download a movie and see it pixellated before going to theaters or buying the DVD, or couldn't download an ebook of a book to flip through before buying it, how much would that influence whether you even decided to keep an internet connection or not? Imagine if any of these actions which could lead to purchases resulted in an immediate arrest with no possibility of not getting caught (imagine a rigid system for this hypothetical situation). Would you still use the internet that much? What would the internet then become? A giant outlet for shopping, wikis, and social networks, and that's it?
A good question is what percentage of the internet relies on piracy -- both services like Wordpress and paid storage like GoDaddy hosting? Are subscriptions to high speed internet contingent upon users being able to pirate every now and then even if it's not to a really huge degree? How much would 4Mbps versus 1Mbps matter if you literally couldn't download DVDs, MP3s, pdfs, etc. without knowing you'd get caught? If you were restricted to mostly non-media-rich sites, how much would you need those extra Mbps?
Then what about the recording industries? How many people would buy songs happily if they could only legally hear it on the radio or listen to a :30 second preview before buying it? How much buyers regret would be there? What about films? How many people were introduced to their favorite films by seeing them online through some pirated means? And after that, how many bits of merchandise did they buy? And books, how many people bought new books after downloading a .pdf and loving it?
The problem with piracy isn't that they simply lose money, it's that piracy both stimulates and hurts their profits and there's a happy medium that needs to be reached in order to keep both the industries and the users feeling satisfied. They can't happily say to pirate and yet if they got rid of all of it, imagine how fewer tv series, movies, books, and songs you'd be exposed to if you couldn't first experience some crappy version of it online before opting to buy it as well as merchandise from the company that released it.
Another issue is the fact that they're spending ridiculous amounts of money on combating piracy but not in a way that doesn't adversely affect the harmless user. Encryption that doesn't play well with every platform and causes the average user issues, DRM that's harmful or debilitating, lawsuit after lawsuit, them trying to infringe upon our digital freedoms, despirately grasping onto a few dollars. After seeing the RIAA's profit listings on their website pdfs, I'd put good money on the fact that they're losing insanely more money creating DRM and paying for lobbyists and lawyers to sue some kid in the boondocks for downloading a DVD because the economy is too dead for anyone to afford one than they'd actually lose if they didn't despirately grasp so hard at every last dollar. Meanwhile, there are a lot of users they don't think about who use piracy to expose themselves to new products that they then purchase...
Perhaps if they "unclench" a little and just accept losing a little money (who isn't doing terribly besides the gas companies in this economy), they'd have more profits than in their kicking-and-screaming method that's currently making them more enemies than friends... Think, now that they've DRMed us to death, sued a bunch of kids across the country who now have their lives and futures ruined from a non-violent crime (serious, serious shame), and spent more money on lobbying than most of us make in a few years just to pass laws that infringe upon our freedoms, how much do you want to buy a CD or DVD from them now? Or is this bad publicity just making people more cautious but resulting in the masses wanting to vindictively ream them a hell of a lot harder now...?
They need to reassess their strategy...it sucks.
Re:Doubt it (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder why pirates don't post their stolen movies on youtube?
Stolen? You mean copied. Copying is not the same thing as stealing. That's why we have a word for it: copying.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
I work for a fairly large web hosting company, and we used to police our selves - if during any routine investigation (as in if someone reported a problem with their account) and we found anything suspicious we would suspend if it was "seemingly" obvious, although two specific incidents changed our policy on that relatively quickly. The first had to do with a Microsoft Development edition of some sort - it turned out the customer was a reseller and had the full right to have that on his site for purchase/download. The second was with a small record label out of the UK, iirc, selling/offering their own goods. Both incidents highlighted the fact that we were not qualified to tell whether something was illegal or not - so we essentially backed completely off, and unless we get a DMCA notice or one sent to the customer - all we do IF we see something very, very suspicious and they are somehow in violation of our RUP/TOS - then we only send them a ticket, if they dont respond with in a given amount of time that is something else entirely.
The point being, is that just because something seems to be illegal - doesn't mean it is, you/we have NO idea if the customer in question has some kind of weird contract with the copyright holder and if they are in violation of it or not - THAT is up to a judge and/or contract attorney to decide, no one else. We see stuff all the time across our large fleet of servers, and the fact that internal communications between employees reflect this is only pointing out something interesting is all. Whether something is actually illegal or not, is a point of contract law - not mere speculation of someone NOT well versed in this.
The flip side of this issue is that the Internet is a VERY large place, and it's simply next to impossible to check every nook and cranny for your various IP'd material - which where logically the rights holders would try and force the providers to police them self, which as noted above is impossible as well.
Conclusion - simply trying to fit a square block (brick and mortar business model) into a round hole (cyber space) just does not fit