[148715] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Megaupload.com seized
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Graydon)
Fri Jan 20 14:38:09 2012
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:37:16 -1000
From: Paul Graydon <paul@paulgraydon.co.uk>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <op.v8ecwqtntfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: paul@paulgraydon.co.uk
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 01/20/2012 09:11 AM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:34:33 -0500, Michael Painter
> <tvhawaii@shaka.com> wrote:
>> I quickly read through the indictment, but the gov't claims that when
>> given a takedown notice, MU would only remove the *link* and not the
>> file itself.
>
> That's actually a standard practice. It allows the uploader to file a
> counterclaim and have the content restored. One cannot "restore" what
> has already been deleted.
>
> However, never going back and cleaning up the undisputed content is a
> whole other mess of dead monkeys.
>
From what I understand about MegaUpload's approach, they created a hash
of every file that they stored. If they'd already got a copy of the
file that was to be uploaded they'd just put an appropriate link in a
users space, saving them storage space, and bandwidth for both parties.
Fairly straight forward. Whenever they received a DMCA take-down they
would remove the link, not the underlying file, so even though they knew
that a file was illegally hosted, they never actually removed it. That
comes up for some argument about the ways the company should be
practically enforcing a DMCA take-down notice, whether each take-down
should apply to just an individual user's link to a file or whether the
file itself should be removed. That could be different from
circumstance to circumstance.
Paul
