MPAA Ok With Allowing Users To Get Back Their Megaupload Files If 0% Infringement Can Be Guaranteed

from the and-no-access-for-megaupload dept

We've been covering the ongoing series of fights concerning what happens to to all the data that was stored on the Megaupload servers. The government has wanted it destroyed. Some users have wanted access to their legitimate content. Megaupload wants access for its own defense. The MPAA has wanted it preserved in case it can be used to sue others. Megaupload wants access for the sake of its defense. Carpathia -- the hosting company -- just wants to stop paying $9,000 per day to maintain the servers and data.

However, as TorrentFreak notes, the MPAA's latest filing in this debate offers a very, very, very slight backtrack, in which it says that it kinda sorta would be okay with letting users have access to download their own content... but if and only if there can be a guarantee that not a single bit of infringement occurs as a part of that process. Oh yeah, and also so long as the Megaupload defendants don't get access either (though, it says that's a separate discussion for a separate legal filing).
...the MPAA Members’ position continues to be that if the Court is willing to consider allowing access for users such as Mr. Goodwin to allow retrieval of files, it is essential that the mechanism include a procedure that ensures that any materials the users access and copy or download are not files that have been illegally uploaded to their accounts, given that MPAA Members and other rights holders are certain to own the copyrights in many of the files stored on the servers. In addition, in no event should any Megaupload defendants or their representatives—who have not generally appeared in this proceeding, and who are not subject to the control and supervision of the Court—be allowed to access the Mega Servers under such a mechanism designed for the benefit of third party Megaupload users. Whether and under what conditions the Mega defendants should have access to the servers (again, assuming they are subject to the control of the Court) is a separate issue.
Of course, this assumes it's even possible to prevent 100% of infringement. Which it's not. And that's probably the point. The MPAA gets to pretend that it's being "reasonable" by saying some access is okay... but immediately including an impossible caveat on top of that. It's a neat way to pretend to be open to compromise, while really sticking to an extreme position.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Sneeje (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:29am

    Handle this like DMCA notices...

    Since those that send DMCA notices only have to assert that the notice is factual and correct, why not let those users just simply assert that their downloads do not infringe?

    And since that requirement of the DMCA notices appears to be completely toothless, the same should be for these.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Nigel (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:30am

    Wait What?

    Can someone explain to me how the MPAA has any standing whatsoever to say shit about this?

    Nigel

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:41am

      Re: Wait What?

      When you pay for something like legislation or corrupt politicians or door-revolving bureaucrats and lawyers, you expect to have a say in how your interests are protected.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 12:54pm

      Re: Wait What?

      Maybe most of the material on Megaupload belongs to their members? Just a guess.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Designerfx (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 12:58pm

        Re: Re: Wait What?

        none of the material belongs to their members. Even copyright infringing materials don't belong to the members, it's simply copyright infringement.

        It's a digital product, so on a copy of a document there is truly no ownership. This is a part of digital people simply cannot understand.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        BeeAitch (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 1:34pm

        Re: Re: Wait What?

        You should stop guessing and look at facts instead.

        Your guess makes you look stupid.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Zos (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:36am

    "Megaupload wants access for its own defense. The MPAA has wanted it preserved in case it can be used to sue others. Megaupload wants access for the sake of its defense"


    you duped a sentence there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:50am

      Re:

      The duped part should be said more than just twice. Mega is being denied access to data for their own defense in a criminal proceeding - and the government wants it deleted.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:54am

        Re: Re:

        No, Mega has been denied access to USER data for their defense. They cannot come up with any legal justification to look at the private files of individual users.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          arcan, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 11:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          false. they are being denied access to ANY data stored on megauploads servers. and considering that if a service retains significant non-infringing uses it qualifies for DMCA safe harbor protections.

          so if they can prove that a large amount of data stored on their servers is non-infringing, then they would retain safe-harbor protections. this would mean that a lot of the government's case against them would be destroyed. they would have to prove that megaupload wilfully encouraged infringement on their site which would be much more difficult. so therefore Megaupload has every right to look through the data for their defence.

          logic'd

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 1:40pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            " if a service retains significant non-infringing uses it qualifies for DMCA safe harbor protections."

            Since that isn't the case here (some use doesn't mean significant use), the point is moot.

            Kim's best offensive was the military users, but even then, it's quite possible they were file sharing as well, so that didn't go over very well.

            "so if they can prove that a large amount of data stored on their servers is non-infringing, then they would retain safe-harbor protections."

            Incredibly unlikely. With a supposed 150 million users, but only 10% of them uploading, it's pretty clear what was going on here without even having to be very bright. One only needs a small sample of the data to see what is what.

            That the Mega people have been unable to come up with anything, even the slightest bit of data to support this argument pretty much seals the deal. Further that the fed's evidence apparently shows that the main players were more than aware of what was going on makes it an even bigger slam dunk.

            There is nothing in the law that would permit Mega to look at customer data. In fact, privacy laws might actually make that a big no-no.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              The eejit (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 1:54pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              ...Whoosh.

              SCOTUS has already established significant non-infringing uses of a service as a valid defense. IT does not matter about the rest.

              Moreover, why were the MPAA and the DOJ permitted to take what they needed as prosecution, but not Mega for defense purposes? That makes no fucking sense for justice to take place. People are permitted to cross-examine witnesses and "experts" in criminal trials. so why is it not permitted in this trial?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              arcan, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 2:36pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              you say the feds have evidence. this is the total amount of evidence i have heard the feds have on megaupload 1 email. between two LOW level employees.

              and here is a good question. also completely hypothetical. if all but 1 file on megaupload was legal. and that one file was downloaded 150 million times. would the legal uses still be insignificant?

              more reasonable question. if 1/3rd of megaupload was legal, 1/3rd was questionable, and 1/3rd was infringing. is there a significant non-infringing use?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Rabbit80, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 2:52pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Since that isn't the case here (some use doesn't mean significant use), the point is moot.


              Really? You can prove that without access to the data stored on those servers can you? I have personally downloaded hundreds of files from MegaUpload - and not a single one has been infringing. See forums such as XDA Developers, ModMyMobile etc for examples of large communities using these type of services for substantial non-infringing use.

              Incredibly unlikely. With a supposed 150 million users, but only 10% of them uploading, it's pretty clear what was going on here without even having to be very bright.


              Once again - just because 90% of users downloaded only does NOT mean that they were downloading without permission or that anyones rights were being infringed. This figure is completely meaningless! See above for examples of non-infringing substantial use.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              G Thompson (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:15pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You seem very sure of yourself AC, would you by any chance be a party or have a very close association/relationship with the parties to this matter?

              As for your hearsay about what others may or may not of infringed upon (jurisdictions where the MPAA have none apply too) that onus is up to the MPAA to prove and since they have no standing whatsoever to access the data, they have no standing in this CRIMINAL case either other than maybe as a witness and alleged victim though if that is the case they need to sit down and STFU and act accordingly or contempt sanctions, malic prosecution charges, Detinue, and other nice legal weapons WILL be initiated on them from a wide range of jurisdictions.

              Who knows if you are so well informed and acting in a manner unethical you too could be a party to sanctions as well.

              As far as looking at customer data, Megaupload themselves would not be looking at it. A third party authorised by the court that is unbiased and has qualified immunity via the court would instead look at the data. Counsel for MU also would have this ability, even in camera situation could be considered. Especially in relation to NZ jurisdiction where public access is not a given for all court matters, in fact the public have no ability to be informed other than of basic judgements in all criminal hearings. (Public hearings are only a US thing)

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 11:17pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "You seem very sure of yourself AC, would you by any chance be a party or have a very close association/relationship with the parties to this matter? "

                Let's start at the top: the criminal case has to do with the flow of money between the myriad of companies that Kim and his associates set up to profit from infringing material, and to move the money away from the center towards these external companies. There is no normal reason I can think of why one would use this sort of structure, except to move money from one place to another to avoid legal or tax issues. Considering Kim's past involvement with questionable business dealings, I tend to lean towards some sort of chicanery.

                I look at the same filings as you, read the same press released and stories, and listen to stuff coming out of the Mega people's mouths. I look at what was in Google when they were shut down, and I look at the extremes they went to in order to hide which files were actually the most downloaded.

                Is it unethical to read the news, poke around a little, and draw my own conclusion?

                NZ's jurisdiction in the case is very narrow, they case is not going to be tried in that country. Extradition leaves them very little room to move, the US indictments for money laundering and such reach the levels within treaty that lead to almost automatic extradition. There is no need for a third party of any sort in NZ to look at anything. It's just not how the legal system works.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  The eejit (profile), Jun 8th, 2012 @ 12:32am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  NZ's jurisdiction in the case is very narrow, they case is not going to be tried in that country.

                  Not the point. The MPAA shouldn't be involved in any criminal case, save as a possible witness, never mind having access to the data that MU isn't being permitted to access.

                  Which, if you have been paying any attention, is in those same filings that you claim to have read.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2012 @ 2:57am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I think the NZ judge that is going over this indictment disagrees with you. Quite a bit, in fact. No extradition is likely to happen unless it can be proven that NZ laws were broken. They haven't been presented any evidence of such. You know, that stuff you think they don't need to look at? Evidence?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  G Thompson (profile), Jun 8th, 2012 @ 5:53am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  NZ's jurisdiction in this case is not as narrow as you think, Yes the extradition case has specificity that can not be gone outside of, though that too is currently changing into what the NZ judiciary expect instead of what the USG expect by whom they believed to be 'on their side" nothing could be further from the truth since it seems equality at law is not something the USJ is used too

                  If as you state you are only going by what is currently being made public then your allegations are just that allegations, and allegations based on hearsay and opinion are NOT even allegations, just wild speculation based on your lack of understanding of international jurisprudence. Being US-Centric is what has gotten the USJ into this mess in the first place, my advise to you is not to fall down into the same trap.

                  As for the rest of what I have stated below in further comments in relation to detinue, Malpros, etc this is why the MPAA need to be very very careful (and the USJ) into what they are doing.

                  Oh and the US indictments that came from a Grand Jury.. -which in itself makes the NZ Judiciary and any other judiciary of an English Law based nation look at it with a dubious eye - is basically lacking in merit based on all evidence before the courts.

                  There is no need for a third party of any sort in NZ to look at anything

                  Are you stating that the NZ courts are a third party to this? If so, you really need to go back to basic sovereignty law and think again. If not then the only other third party is the MPAA which means you have just totally made my argument for me.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:43am

    so how come the MPAA can give the ok to allow previous customers to retrieve files from Mega? i thought it would have been up to the court. how is it going to be decided which files are infringing and which ones are not? who is going to make that determination? how will the inspection of files be carried out and by whom, to ensure there is no bias?

    seems to me this is just a way for the MPAA to say they are trying to cooperate with prior customers but at the same time, knowing it will take forever and a day to sort the mess out, they will still be achieving the goal of the whole operation-to shut down and keep shut down a website they didn't/dont like for as long as possible.

    they weren't worried about sorting out which files were non-infringing when they forced the site to shut and seized the servers, they shouldn't be so concerned about releasing the servers now people want the their stuff back!! i hope the NZ court can see exactly what the MPAA are up to again here and take the necessary action. after all, the HDDs were removed to the US without court consent. i bet that didn't go down well!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Vincent Giannell, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:43am

    I have a feeling that Megaupload users are gonna sue MPAA for taking down the site once they get their files back.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 12:57pm

      Re:

      Interesting legal theory. Since it was the government that took the site down, how do you figure the MPAA has liability for the government's action?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        The eejit (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 1:55pm

        Re: Re:

        Because they claimed and provided "evidence" in order to push ahead with a criminal trial. So, theoretically, both can be sued.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 2:23pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Thanks for the faith-based assessment, Perry Mason. Care to cite an actual case for us?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            The eejit (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 3:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I said, "theoretically", and here's how. IF the MPAA made a knowingly false statement in order to obtain the warrants and federal court Writs required for the seizure, and then subsequently deliberately failed to maintain evidence which was later required in the court, after which the case was thrown out, the MPAA could be liable for damages to those who used MU for legitimate purpsoes.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 3:38pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I said, "theoretically", and here's how. IF the MPAA made a knowingly false statement in order to obtain the warrants and federal court Writs required for the seizure, and then subsequently deliberately failed to maintain evidence which was later required in the court, after which the case was thrown out, the MPAA could be liable for damages to those who used MU for legitimate purposes.

              Right. And theoretically, time travel is possible. Case law or statute are the underpinnings of legal theory. Yours is nothing more than a piracy apologist fantasy, not a theory.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Lauriel (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 6:34pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                An honest question, because I don't know much about the law here - but would anti-SLAPP cases, and cases such as Oracle's suit against Lodsys for being a patent troll, count as prior case law?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  G Thompson (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:06pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  As far as I understand the American Anti-SLAPP statutes which are designed to reduce Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) they are only for civil litigation and not for criminal since criminal is supposedly based on due process with the onus of proof placed on the prosecution (and not respondent/defendant) to prove all allegations. The way criminal statutes work 'should' instantly stop SLAP situations, though this does not mean malicious prosecutions do not happen, and there are avenues for that in New Zealand (not sure about US laws - one would hope an appropriate avenue is available)

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                G Thompson (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:24pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Look up Malicious Prosecution and Criminal Negligence under NZ law.. oops, PACER doesn't work hey? awww so sad!

                Whilst you are at it look up transferred malice which might also apply in this situation in which the USG themselves could be liable since no immunity under NZ (as well as the MPAA)

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                The eejit (profile), Jun 8th, 2012 @ 12:34am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Wow, I'm a piracy apologist now? No, I'm pointing out what's possible under current laws, in theory. In practice, well, life is atranger than fiction.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        G Thompson (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:19pm

        Re: Re:

        If the US Government and the US Courts allow the MPAA to have standing on this Criminal matter, since that is basically what the MPAA are stating here (in other words who's the prosecution actually working for) then Detinue charges (and others) could most definitely be levelled at the MPAA who have no qualified immunity since they are not a legal authority.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:45am

    So, lets gets this straight.

    -MegaUpload has a bunch of property they let others pay to use.

    -The government takes MegaUpload's property away from them, and robs MegaUpload's customers of access to that property that they already paid for.

    -The MPAA says it would be fine let others continue to use MegaUpload's property, but NOT MegaUpload, who owns the property.

    Yeah, that makes sense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:45am

    You go first.

    We should agree to this as soon as the MPAA guarantees that no one will ever file an incorrect DMCA takedown notice again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:46am

    So how is this costing them $9000 per day to maintain them?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:50am

      Re:

      is costing the company $9,000 per day to maintain these servers and the 25 petabytes of data they contain.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:06am

      Re:

      25 petabytes of data stored on 1100+ servers isn't trivial.

      Carpathia most likely does not own the facilities where some or all of the servers are located, which means they are paying another company for rackspace, network connections, power, cooling, etc. If Carpathia owns the physical servers, those servers could be reprovisioned for other purposes and can't be used for income generating purposes.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Rabbit80, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 2:58pm

        Re: Re:

        AFAIK, Carpathia have now moved the servers into storage and they are no longer running. However they still have to pay storage costs, insurance and the servers which would normally be re-provisioned are losing value since they are sat gathering dust.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:55am

    Has the MPAA been deputized?

    Don't you just love how the MPAA is calling the shots? It's almost as if there is a new Sheriff in town.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    bob, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:01am

    The MPAA is doing the users a favor

    Those files contain proof of infringement, especially when the user cashed a check from Megaupload as the heavy users did. Only the clean users-- and I doubt there are many -- will come forward.

    And there's no reason to waste time wondering whether anyone infringed by mistake, perhaps by sticking copyrighted clipart in a Word document. The game was quite obvious at Megaupload. No one cares about incidental infringement, it's all about the massive infringement that made enough money to create that mansion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Lowestofthekeys (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:08am

      Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

      Megaupload cashing in is a completely separate issue from what the article outlines.

      The big problem here is the MPAA is now acting as the enforcer for content that's not even theirs, and they're still limiting people's access to their own creative content.

      Sorry Bob, but the MPAA is full of hypocrisy, even you can see that.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:12am

      Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

      No bob, the MPAA is not doing any favors is trying to cover their butts against PR disasters, they are starting to understand that there are real people being services that use those and not all of them are aware that they are pirates in any sense and if they do realize how ridiculous copyright really is, it is just another batch of people voting for the pirate party somewhere.

      Remember Germany, that has the most idiotic copyright laws on the face of the planet maybe behind only to Japan which has those laws more like window dressing since they enforce nothing and are very afraid of public scrutiny of those laws which they use very selectively to harm competitors that try to enter the market.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:21am

      Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

      Um, OK... since you "apparently" know that every file that is on those servers contain proof of infringement, then can you please show us that all of these files have that proof? I know for certain that there are legitimate files stored on those servers and are waiting judgment, but you can't... well, you could say whatever you want...

      Know what, screw it. You can say that I am wrong and say that, no matter if there are legitimate files, every file stored under Mega's name has some proof of infringement and others are going to present their case to say "you're wrong." All I'm here for (and really part of the reason why I got an account) is to ask this simple question: "where's your proof?" I myself may not have any evidence, but there's plenty of things out there that proves our point better than yours. If you can dig up anything that could save your behind and prove us wrong, then... well, I can't tell you to shut up. There's no point in telling someone like you to shut up, no matter how many people tell you too. I'm certain even the freaking president can't tell you to shut up! There's no way of keeping you silent, Bob.

      And now I'll do you a favor: I'll shut up (for the time being).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Cory of PC (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:23am

        Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

        And forgot to sign in... oh well, still got my point in.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 11:17am

        Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

        Cory, Bob didn't claim that EVERY file was infringing. But considering what the majority of Mega's traffic was about (infringing files), the MPAA is pretty much bang on here wanting some protection. They want the users who want the files to identify themselves, and claim their files are not infringing.

        As Bob said, it's unlikely to see that many takers, as most of what was going on with Mega wasn't exactly 100% above board, if you know what I mean.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          arcan, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 11:55am

          Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

          2 things

          1 citation needed. proof that MAJORITY of the traffic was infringing. (my bet is that you can't and never will be able to)

          2 even if it is a majority being downloaded as long as the site has SIGNIFICANT non-infringing uses it does not matter.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 1:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

            1 - see the US government's filings on the issue. Few users were actually uploading, the top downloaded files were hidden or disguised off the lists to make it appear that they were not the top files, and only one of the top 100 or so files was apparently a legal distribution of anything.

            2 - what do you consider significant? 1%? 5%? Would you say that a crack house should be left alone if 1% of the time people are NOT dealing drugs? Significant for me would suggest "mostly" or "almost always", and that just doesn't add up here. You can look at the ripples through all the file sharing chat boards and stuff to know just how much infringing material was taken down this way. It's shocking that you can't see it.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              The eejit (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 1:58pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

              1) So it did have a non-infringing use. And not all of the files were infringing. Which contradicts the DoJ filings.

              2) Significant is beyond the margins of error. Moreover, digital crack and physical crack are two completely different things: one is an MMORPG, and the other is a highly addictive drug.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              arcan, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 2:41pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

              stop conflating issues that are completely non-related. the fact is being in the same room as a filesharer is not a crime. standing in a room with a guy who is actively dealing drugs kinda is. especially if you don't report it.

              and another thing. lets say 49% of files are not infringing. suddenly it is not significant. plus you think this stopped any serious file-sharer for more than a single day? best this did was stop a casual sharer for at best a week til he migrated elsewhere. hell all this has done for copyright is piss people off at it. and you think otherwise you are clearly delusional.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 4:49pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

              So you are fine with every public service making sure there is no drug users among their clients by forcing everybody to take a test right?

              Oh that is right you can't do that.
              Why should you be able to do that in cyberspace is a wonder though.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2012 @ 3:01am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

              'Significant' in this context is not a numbers game. It means 'important.' I'm getting a little tired of this numbers game that people try to play when what we are talking about is the importance of sharing data/information/programs/entertainment that is being put there by the creators for the edification of the public at large. When you insist on a numbers game you lose.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 12:15pm

          Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

          "They want the users who want the files to identify themselves, and claim their files are not infringing."

          All at their own expense, of course, including independent musicians and filmmakers they would love to see fail and/or be indentured to their own distribution methods.

          "As Bob said, it's unlikely to see that many takers, as most of what was going on with Mega wasn't exactly 100% above board,"

          Only via innuendo and bullshit assumptions like "since most of the users downloaded without uploading, they must have been infringing". Utter ass water. The actual proof of what was and wasn't infringing is, conveniently enough, hosted in the very servers at question here...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 1:47pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

            Hi Paul, lick any good boots today?

            For the claiming process, if you have material at, say, a storage locker company that goes bankrupt, you would be required to prove that the contents of a given locker is yours. Yes, it would be at your expense. Why would it be different here? It's even more fun here, considering the anonymous factor, which means that people will not only have to prove it's theirs, but prove that they have account access. At their expense, yes. Why would it be any different online from the real world?

            "Only via innuendo and bullshit assumptions like "since most of the users downloaded without uploading, they must have been infringing". Utter ass water. "

            Paul, the only ass water is what is rolling out of your mouth today. You only have to look at the incredible ripples through the file sharing communities online as mega got shut down. Chat boards with tens of thousands of posts all pointing to infringing material, suddenly rendered useless. Tons of traffic being fed to mega from pirate sites, all so that people could get paid for downloads. It's all there, you only have to open your eyes and step back from licking Mike's boots long enough and you might actually see it.

            Oh wait, you don't WANT to see it. That's different.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              The eejit (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 2:00pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

              That might have been in part because of what's commonly referred to as a "chilling effect", because, in spite of being fully legal services, they did not want to be branded falsely as criminals. For a legitimate business, that's usually very bad news.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              PaulT (profile), Jun 8th, 2012 @ 1:55am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

              "Why would it be any different online from the real world?"

              Because it is different, as are all logistics online vs. offline. I'm sorry that you can't apply cheap analogies to this case. All your physical analogies do tend to fail, maybe you should stop doing so where they don't apply.

              Also, I'm sorry if you don't want your RIAA masters to have to pay the bills to claim their stuff and allow MU a reasonable defence, and pass all the costs on to innocent 3rd parties. Why do you want independents to go under just so your corporations get paid? Why do you attack the rights of innocent artists?

              "Tons of traffic being fed to mega from pirate sites, all so that people could get paid for downloads."

              ...and tons of traffic was being driven there for perfectly legitimate uses. Why do you ignore them?

              "Oh wait, you don't WANT to see it. That's different."

              Look in a mirror, dumbass, you're the only one who's choosing to remain ignorant.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          DogBreath, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 12:24pm

          Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

          But considering what the majority of Mega's traffic was about (infringing files), the MPAA is pretty much bang on here wanting some protection.

          It's a little too late to try and get protection long after getting into bed with Congress. The MPAA should have used a legal condom long before it got to this point, but instead kept going around screwing every customer on two legs and is now rushing to the doctor to get the cure no matter what it costs anyone else.


          As Bob said, it's unlikely to see that many takers, as most of what was going on with Mega wasn't exactly 100% above board, if you know what I mean.

          Many takers that had legitimate legal (their own) data uploaded to Megaupload will not ever need to retrieve anything as it was not their only backup of said data and have already moved on to other storage sites. Some do not have that luxury, but all users have been treated as if they were infringing without the benefit of a doubt, or even a simple look.

          Welcome to the new Crusades: For the holiness that is copyright, none shall be spared. Off with their websites!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rapnel (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:23am

      Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

      What the fuck bob? Anybody using this platform for infringement has already fucking replaced whatever it was they were infringing that they "cared" to see/hear/read more than twice. That is: no infringer really fucking cares about what happened to MU. Stop being stupid and aggravating. The c-o-p-i-e-s are e-v-e-r-y-w-h-e-r-e. Nobody (not-a-single-one) needs MU to infringe. That's pathetic if that's your understanding of a digital copy.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      RD, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 12:24pm

      Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

      "No one cares about incidental infringement, it's all about the massive infringement that made enough money to create that mansion."

      And apparently, no one, and especially you b0B, cares about the rights or property of either the incidental infringers, or especially the ones who want their legally copyright protected property back that was illegally stolen from them and they were essentially accused (assumed) of copyright violations ON THEIR OWN WORK.

      Thanks, b0B, for letting us know exactly what kind of human being you are.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 1:03pm

        Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

        And apparently, no one, and especially you b0B, cares about the rights or property of either the incidental infringers, or especially the ones who want their legally copyright protected property back that was illegally stolen from them and they were essentially accused (assumed) of copyright violations ON THEIR OWN WORK.

        Try applying your lofty moral standards to the intellectual property of those whose works are illegally stolen from them in the first place.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          BeeAitch (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 1:41pm

          Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

          Infringement != stealing just because YOUR "lofty morals" say so.

          If you use correct terminology, one MIGHT take you more seriously.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          RD, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 1:47pm

          Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

          "And apparently, no one, and especially you b0B, cares about the rights or property of either the incidental infringers, or especially the ones who want their legally copyright protected property back that was illegally stolen from them and they were essentially accused (assumed) of copyright violations ON THEIR OWN WORK.

          Try applying your lofty moral standards to the intellectual property of those whose works are illegally stolen from them in the first place."

          I just did. There are people who's work was on MU that is now stolen and inaccessible to them, illegally. OR, are you saying that copyright laws only apply to "big media" and not the little guy? Remember, the 1976 Copyright revisions added an "automatic copyright" to ALL works by ANYONE, and that was at the insistence of YOUR beloved industry. So unless we have a high court/low court dichotomy happening here, these laws apply equally to all.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 2:04pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

            I just did. There are people who's work was on MU that is now stolen and inaccessible to them, illegally.

            Well maybe they should have CwF + RtB or information wants to be free or they need to stop clinging to the past and use better storage solutions. How's it feel, asswipe?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              The eejit (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 3:04pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

              And what if that work was done because you wanted to share your work? That's what a decent number of smartphone ROM and RUU makers did.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 8:09pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

                Pray tell, what sort of moron(s) sole source of backup was Megaupload?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  The eejit (profile), Jun 8th, 2012 @ 12:36am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

                  It wasn't: however, it's a huge pain in the ass to transfer your files to Rapidshare, for example, when you are using a sergvfice for its stated purpose.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 6:28pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

              It'd actually make people feel something if your anti-Masnick rant even made sense in its application.

              CwF + RtB: Which was what people wanted to do with their own backups/material they put online; put it somewhere where people could get it.

              Information wants to be free: So what the fuck's the point with suddenly locking it all down?

              Stop clinging to the past: This is as good as crashing someone's car and resisting charges for reckless driving and saying it's all in the past. If the RIAA declared all storage media illegal and seized it, it's somehow the fault of the users?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 8:04pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

                It was a joke dummy. Spouting of the same stupid platitudes creators and rights holders have to endure when their output is looted by self-entitled freeloaders.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:38pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

                  Except that the "platitudes" make sense because half the backlash against "creators and rightsholders" is for treating everyone like a thief. Your joke is only justified if by some ironic twist the "platitudes" applied in the other direction. Hint: They don't.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              techflaws (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:01pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

              How's it feel, asswipe

              Weak, cause your puny argument doesn't hold any water. Try harder.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 2:50pm

        Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

        What's the difference of streaming a video and loaning your neighbor a tool?

        Both could be a sale lost, but it's far more likely the loaning of the tool made someone lose a sale.

        Stop being a fucking hypocrite.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 8:07pm

          Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

          Ummm, the law? Not that it would matter to a freeloader. Then theres the issue of it not being a single tool but billions of tools. As speaking of tools.......

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      BeeAitch (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 1:38pm

      Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

      Those files contain proof of infringement, especially when the user cashed a check from Megaupload as the heavy users did. Only the clean users-- and I doubt there are many -- will come forward.


      Repeating this doesn't make it true.

      Citations or STFU.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      G Thompson (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:29pm

      Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor

      For yourself to actually imply that the money Mega made created that Mansion shows how much you actually know.

      Here's a clue: The mansion was RENTED!

      Therefore like I have said before Bob suits you as a name since it really means discomBOBulation

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:04am

    District Court Judge

    The judge presiding over the case in the extradition indictments threatened to throw the case out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:06am

    Sometimes when I read these articles I just want to laugh. Don't know why, it's not funny but it is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 12:27pm

      Re:

      That's just due to your brain temporarily seizing up to cope with a sudden massive dose of stupid, it's not a problem as long as it's only temporary.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:06am

    The court should just pretend that it guaranteed 100% compliance and say to the MPAA to go pound sand LoL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Simon, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:14am

    MPAA what?

    I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that the MPAA somehow carries any weight in Megaupload getting it's hardware back so users can get their data. Wasn't this entire shitstorm a huge mistake that's currently backfiring on the US? Lets see, they issue an arrest in the wrong country, seize property based on bad filings, destroy an entirely legitimate company, secretly pirate a copy of DotCom's hard drives and fedex them to the US.

    The fact that the MPAA seems to be dictating terms on behalf of the US gvmt really freaks me out. These bozos will be the first to leave the room when the courts side with DotCom over the botched operation and MegaUpload sues.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:15am

    i'm surprised the Mega legal team haven't already responded to this ridiculous 'compromise'. i will be equally surprised if the court goes along with such stupid terms and expectations, particularly when there appears to be no input from the US prosecutors. makes you wonder who is running this case, doesn't it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    DogBreath, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:19am

    The boilerplate MPAA form for requesting your own legally owned data:

    Please circle your answers with a #2 pencil

    1. Do your files contain binary data with any 1's? YES / NO

    2. Do your files contain binary data with any 0's? YES / NO



    NOTE: If you answered YES to either question 1 or 2, you will not be receiving your files. We will automatically suspect you of copyright infringement and will use your circling as an indication of willful infringement and acknowledgment of your guilt, which we will use in court to prove same, and be expecting a check in the amount of $250,000 for each file you have uploaded on Megaupload.

    If you answered NO to both questions, then we will still suspect you of copyright infringement but will be willing to settle out of court for a slightly smaller fee (not to include our lawyers fees, they cost wayyy too much, our movies never make money, bla, bla, bla).

    P.S. By the way, if your files did not contain any binary 1's or 0's, then your files contained nothing, which means you already have them. Have a nice day.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Cory of PC (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:26am

      Re: The boilerplate MPAA form for requesting your own legally owned data:

      ... *raises hand* My files had a "2" somewhere in there. Does that mean those files are useless to use even if you're going to use them to sue me if you can't look up the information?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        DogBreath, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 11:10am

        Re: Re: The boilerplate MPAA form for requesting your own legally owned data:

        If you have figured out a way to put a "2" in a binary file (only capable of containing 1's and 0's), then I hope you have an active patent because your going to need the money earned from it to pay the legal fees.

        Now, if you have stored your files in Trinary on Megaupload, it will be a simple enough process to sue you for the 1's and 0's it still contains (Not to mention the possible violation of Megauploads TOS for storing your data in an unapproved format - the courts frown highly upon TOS violators these days). The files may not be capable of being directly checked for copyright violations, but the fact that you were using the unapproved Trinary numbering system on a clearly Binary file system is proof that you are trying to hide evidence of your illicit activities, just like everyone who uses encrypted communications, and those who shield the ATM keypad with their hand when entering their PIN code at the bank.

        If your not doing anything illegal, you should hide nothing.
        Just look at example the governments of the world are setting with ACTA... oops, bad example.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          G Thompson (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 9:39pm

          Re: Re: Re: The boilerplate MPAA form for requesting your own legally owned data:

          What if mine was a file based on the Quantum entanglement of 1's and 0's?

          The possibilities are endless ;)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            DogBreath, Jun 8th, 2012 @ 11:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The boilerplate MPAA form for requesting your own legally owned data:

            Sorry, this will not keep the MPAA from suing you for violating their sacred copyrights. Even if you could get a judge to agree that this was just another typical case of "Spooky action at a distance", it cannot be considered "Fair Use" as Universal Constants are not part of the four-factor balancing test.

            It does not matter that this is an immutable law of physics, you are still in direct violation of the QMCA (Quantum Millennium Copyright Act, passed in the year 3000 AD - which has set the notable legal precedent as applying to the future as well as the past). In that future time, the MPAA has perfected the Heisenberg Compensator from Sun Microsystems to measure your data without affecting the either the position or momentum of the subatomic particles in your original file, and will use said future quantum evidence in court against you in their past - or our present.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        [citation needed or GTFO], Jun 7th, 2012 @ 11:22am

        Re: Re: The boilerplate MPAA form for requesting your own legally owned data:

        I believe the MPAA managed to create their own "2s" and deposited them in the nearest porcelain thrones.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Joe Public, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:34am

    Message to the MPAA, RIAA and the rest of the Copyright Cartel:

    You're a bunch of vile disgusting dying dinosaurs heading for a well-deserved eternity in Hell and nothing else.

    You’re nothing.

    Fuck off and keep dying you evil greedy lowlife assholes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    william (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 10:36am

    Since MPAA claims to be the expert, if not the only authority, in what's copyrighted and what's not, AND that they requested this process to be put in.

    They should pay for it.

    It's only fair.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    hfbs (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 11:04am

    Yeah, the 'stop all online infringement' thing worked perfectly for them in the first place, bound to work again now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Digitari, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 11:04am

    Re: files

    so I guess my hundred gigs of cat videos (with NO SOUND) are infringing WHAT exactly (by the way my cat passed away 2 years ago and I cannot replace them) I wonder how much I can sue for........

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 12:36pm

    Seems to me...

    That the only way they could be sure that no files were infringing, would be for them to go over them all beforehand.

    Also, didn't they say not too long ago that they wanted the data intact so they could use it to sue people?

    But hey, I'm sure these two points are completely disconnected from each other...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Brent (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 12:54pm

    Dur, of course they're ok with returning the legal files. They are starting to realize that they (they being the Police who apparently work directly for the MPAA) had no legal right to confiscate the files in the first place and that their court case will be dismissed in short order for lack of evidence due to Police/Courts not following proper procedure in obtaining said files. Once this happens, the MPAA and/or government agencies will be inundated with lawsuits from the people who used the service in an unquestionably legal manner and whose property was therefore illegally confiscated to their personal and/or professional detriment. I will be so happy when this happens. Politicians will be outraged though b/c their campaign contributions will be cut in half when the MPAA can't afford to contribute.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 1:01pm

    Right, they've themselsves acknowledged that they perhaps, may have, accidently taken down legitimate files, soooo, anyone in the process of suing, might want to add this to their case

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Pjerky (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 1:02pm

    Unless I am missing something...

    Unless I am missing something, I see a very simple solution. Get some third party web developers that are neutral to this to go into the megaupload system and re-enable login access to the site users, but don't allow files to be shared nor accessed by those accounts that didn't upload the files.

    Since I know nothing of the setup nor complexity of the Megaupload system I cannot attest to the difficulty of such a task. But if they have a decent permissions system in place it shouldn't be too difficult. I'm a web developer and I have done stuff like that before, given only a user access to their own content.

    If the person who uploaded the files is the only one to access them then how is it infringement? How can their possibly be any infringement?

    It would be safe to assume that if they uploaded it in the first place and it is infringing material then they probably still have another way to get it (either through backups or other sites). So I don't see the difficulty here.

    There should, however, be concerns that such developer access could pose a threat to data security for the MegaUpload defense team. But beyond that this seems very doable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 1:19pm

      Re: Unless I am missing something...

      Simple, MPAA would freak out and claim users are sharing their account names and passwords.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rabbit80, Jun 7th, 2012 @ 3:10pm

      Re: Unless I am missing something...

      One small point you missed there... If you allow the original uploaders to access their files, they could still be infringing copyright - If I uploaded a movie then deleted it off my hard disk, re-downloading it from MUs servers would mean another infringement had occurred.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Brad Hubbard (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 1:15pm

    That's a fair request. I, as a member of the public, am OK with MPAA seizing huge amounts of data only if 0% is non-infringing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    hmm (profile), Jun 7th, 2012 @ 7:36pm

    Actually

    Since theres so much non-infringing stuff that the MPAA would like to steal, they want people to come forward for "valuable" data, so they can look at it first, steal what they want and then "return" the data to the owner.

    Apparently thats FAR more efficient than trying to rifle through the entire megaupload system looking for things to illegally take.

    and the MPAA has been known to 'steal' data and intellectual property in this way before....there are entire film scripts that were sold under the counter that have been taken from websites....songs...you name it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    cgibinladen (profile), Jun 12th, 2012 @ 11:01am

    Infringing?

    OK, so if I wanted to store my iTunes-bought movies on megaupload to keep an offsite backup (not sure if MU allowed this as I never used it), how would MPAA classify those? They surely can't be infringing if I own the originals and am using MegaUpload. Again, I assume files could be protected to prevent anyone downloading). Isn't infringement a mechanical process rather than an electronically stored copy? How can files themselves be infringing?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This