[148717] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Megaupload.com seized
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Fri Jan 20 15:03:09 2012
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:02:16 -0800
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4F19C26C.4010909@paulgraydon.co.uk>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--ew6BAiZeqk4r7MaW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:37:16AM -1000, Paul Graydon=
wrote:
> From what I understand about MegaUpload's approach, they created a hash=
=20
> of every file that they stored. If they'd already got a copy of the=20
> file that was to be uploaded they'd just put an appropriate link in a=20
> users space, saving them storage space, and bandwidth for both parties. =
=20
> Fairly straight forward. Whenever they received a DMCA take-down they=20
> would remove the link, not the underlying file, so even though they knew=
=20
> that a file was illegally hosted, they never actually removed it. That=
=20
> comes up for some argument about the ways the company should be=20
> practically enforcing a DMCA take-down notice, whether each take-down=20
> should apply to just an individual user's link to a file or whether the=
=20
> file itself should be removed. That could be different from=20
> circumstance to circumstance.
Note that with A DMCA take down the original uploader can issue a
counter-notice to get the content put back. Most sites don't
immediately delete the content but rather disable it in some way
so that should the file be counter noticed it can be put back up.
Also, when using a hashed file store, it's possible that some uses
are infringing and some are not. I might make a movie, put it on
Megaupload, and then give the links only to the 5 people who bought
it from them. One of them might turn around, upload it again to
Megaupload, and share it with the world, infringing on my content.
I would hope that when I issue a takedown notice they take down the
infringers copy (link), but leave mine in place.
None of this should be taken to mean I'm behind Megaupload. I have
a greater concern here wondering if law enforcement, the courts,
and most importantly the law makers understand the technolgy and
can craft and apply laws in a reasonable way. One major issue that
already came up is that a whole lot of people used Megaupload for
storing perfectly legal content. It's now offline, and there appears to
be no way for them to retrieve that data. At what percentage is that
reasonable? If 99% of your users are infringing? 50%? 1%? Could this
be used to take down your competitors? Buy some Amazon instances and
put a bunch of infringing content on them, and then watch the feds seize
all of Amazon's servers?
Lots of troubling questions, no good answers.
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
--ew6BAiZeqk4r7MaW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD)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=fH95
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--ew6BAiZeqk4r7MaW--
