Anonymous Goes on Megaupload Revenge Spree: DoJ, RIAA, MPAA, Universal Music and US Copyright Office
341 replies, posted
[QUOTE=garry;34304618]
Megaupload got taken down because they didn't repond to DMCA notices. The copyright holders were asking them to take down the pirated movies and tv shows and they didn't. They were making too much money out of it.[/QUOTE]
In the statement released by the FBI:
[quote]For example, when notified by a rights holder that a file contained infringing content, the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in place to make it seamlessly available to millions of users to access through any one of the many duplicate links available for that file.[/quote]
They took down the link they were notified about, but did not live up to the FBI's expectations. I don't think they have any obligation to remove links they aren't even aware of.
Sure, in hindsight they could have rigged up a system to ban MD5 hashes of files containing infringing content, I assume they did not. They probably didn't go out of their way to find the alternate links either, but unless they have some sort of admission of guilt that they deliberately went out of their way to leave infringing content untouched that is a totally bogus claim.
They're essentially saying they didn't do the job the copyright holders are obligated to do for them well enough, which depending on which side of the debate your on can still be a bad thing, but I don't think it's criminal.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;34305617]Source?[/QUOTE]
Oh for fuck's sake, it's in the indictment.
[QUOTE]20
Members of the Conspiracy have publicly stated that they operate the Mega Sites in compliance with the notice and takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), codified at Title 17, United States Code, Section 512, despite the fact that they are violating its provisions. Internet providers gain a safe harbor under the DMCA from civil copy right infringement suits in the United States if they meet certain criteria. The members of Mega Conspiracy do not meet these criteria because they are willfully infringing copyrights themselves on these systems; have actual knowledge that the materials on their systems are infringing (or alternatively know facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent); receive a financial benefit directly attributable to copyright-infringing activity where the provider can control that activity; and have not removed, or disabled access to, known copyright infringing material from servers they control.
21.
Members of the Mega Conspiracy negotiated the use of an “Abuse Tool” with some major U.S. copyright holders to purportedly remove copyright-infringing material from Mega Conspiracy-controlled servers. The Abuse Tool allowed copyright holders to enter specific URL links to copyright infringing content of which they were aware, and they were told by the Conspiracy that the Mega Conspiracy’s systems would then remove, or disable access to, the material from computer servers the Conspiracy controls. The Mega Conspiracy’s Abuse Tool did not actually function as a DMCA compliance tool as the copyright owners were led to believe.
22.
When a file is being uploaded to Megaupload.com, the Conspiracy’s automated system calculates a unique identifier for the file (called a “MD5 hash”) that is generated using a mathematical algorithm. If, after the MD5 hash calculation, the system determines that the uploading file already exists on a server controlled by the Mega Conspiracy, Megaupload.com does not reproduce a second copy of the file on that server. Instead, the system provides a new and unique URL link to the new user that is pointed to the original file already present on the server. If there is more than one URL link to a file, then any attempt by the copyright holder to terminate access to the file using the Abuse Tool or other DMCA takedown request will fail because the additional access links will continue to be available.
23.
The infringing copy of the copyrighted work, therefore, remains on the Conspiracy’s systems (and accessible to at least one member of the public) as long as a single link remains unknown to the copyright holder. The Conspiracy’s internal reference database tracks the links that have been generated by the system, but duplicative links to infringing materials are neither disclosed to copyright holders, nor are they automatically deleted when a copyright holder either uses the Abuse Tool or makes a standard DMCA copyright infringement takedown request. During the course of the Conspiracy, the Mega Conspiracy has received many millions of requests (through the Abuse Tool and otherwise) to remove infringing copies of copyrighted works and yet the Conspiracy has, at best, only deleted the particular URL of which the copyright holder complained, and purposefully left the actual infringing copy of the copyrighted work on the Mega Conspiracy-controlled server and any other access links completely intact.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=s0beit;34307000]I don't think they have any obligation to remove links they aren't even aware of.[/QUOTE]
The argument the fed is making is that they should have known better, since they have dupe detection, instead of doing copyright stuff on a link by link basis, they should have just nuked the file.
[QUOTE=Swilly;34306508]Has anyone actually read the indictments?[/QUOTE]
don't try to reason the people here, i did, but there's no hope
Mega Conspiracy? Is that their new company title?
[QUOTE=TheJoey;34297603]1. fast and forceful action says the most. ex: FBI's response to blackouts across the internet in anti-SOPA protest, (wrongfully) busting megaupload, was an attempt at this[/QUOTE]
how was megaupload [B]wrongfully[/B] busted?
[img]http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/8862/screenshot2012012018012.png[/img]
I want MegaUpload to LIIIIVVVVVEEEEEEEEE!
The feds jacked their servers and raided everything. So sad.
Okay, there's no disputing that there was loads of illegal shit on Megaupload. But, like how SOPA wasn't the proper answer to anti-piracy legislation, taking down the entire site is NOT the answer to the problem of Megaupload being chock full of illegal shit.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;34308659]Okay, there's no disputing that there was loads of illegal shit on Megaupload. But, like how SOPA wasn't the proper answer to anti-piracy legislation, taking down the entire site is NOT the answer to the problem of Megaupload being chock full of illegal shit.[/QUOTE]
Megaupload followed requests to remove copyrighted material, every time. Therefore it's not illegal.
I want my porn back
[QUOTE=garychencool;34308690]Megaupload followed requests to remove copyrighted material, every time. Therefore it's not illegal.[/QUOTE]
actually they didn't. and when they did it was only link by link, when they could have used MD5 hashes to bring all the IDENTICAL copies down along with it
[QUOTE=Protocol7;34308659]Okay, there's no disputing that there was loads of illegal shit on Megaupload. But, like how SOPA wasn't the proper answer to anti-piracy legislation, taking down the entire site is NOT the answer to the problem of Megaupload being chock full of illegal shit.[/QUOTE]
Actually there is a lot of shit in there that is more related to the head honcho who was doing something shadey.
[QUOTE=Swilly;34308877]Actually there is a lot of shit in there that is more related to the head honcho who was doing something shadey.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. There's a bunch of illegal shit on Megaupload and it was clear the owner knew about that and participated in less-than-legal activites.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;34308904]Exactly. There's a bunch of illegal shit on Megaupload and it was clear the owner knew about that and participated in less-than-legal activites.[/QUOTE]
SO, the US government follows procedure, just like you would with a business, and took everything and closed up shop.
Am I right so far?
This is a by the book bitchslap, this is way you should fight piracy, through real legal means and actually getting people who are breaking the law.
As far as I'm reading. There's just a lot of backlash from people who, I assume, used Megaupload for their less than legal content and are just going "THIS IS THEIR ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING SOPA"
[QUOTE=Protocol7;34308930]As far as I'm reading. There's just a lot of backlash from people who, I assume, used Megaupload for their less than legal content and are just going "THIS IS THEIR ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING SOPA"[/QUOTE]
Or more like, 'SHIT SHIT SHIT I COULD GET ARRESTED!'
[QUOTE=Swilly;34308943]Or more like, 'SHIT SHIT SHIT I COULD GET ARRESTED!'[/QUOTE]
I haven't pirated anything in well over a year since I've had cash flow for over a year. I don't see anything wrong with Megaupload being taken down. I can only assume that there's so much backlash from the people who pirate, whom used Megaupload as a large source of their illegal content. So instead of addressing the fact that Megaupload did, in fact, store loads of illegal content and was owned by a shady guy, I'm seeing people go "The government is abusing power!" and start bitching about stupid shit and retaliating.
In all reality, Megaupload going down has done nothing to the piracy "industry" if you will. I don't see the cause for alarm.
Neither do I.
Here comes the dumb ratings from people who don't research before they come to conclusions.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;34308986]I haven't pirated anything in well over a year since I've had cash flow for over a year. I don't see anything wrong with Megaupload being taken down. I can only assume that there's so much backlash from the people who pirate, whom used Megaupload as a large source of their illegal content. So instead of addressing the fact that Megaupload did, in fact, store loads of illegal content and was owned by a shady guy, I'm seeing people go "The government is abusing power!" and start bitching about stupid shit and retaliating.
In all reality, Megaupload going down has done nothing to the piracy "industry" if you will. I don't see the cause for alarm.[/QUOTE]
Why would pirates be pissed? There's a lot of alternative file hosts just like MU. Pirates are people who adapt damn well and move on. Hence why you can't stop them.
Sure there was a lot of pirated stuff on mu, but at the same time there was quite a lot of legit content that sadly is now gone.
Remove pirated content from one site, they will upload it to another one.
Remove original content, it's pretty much gone.
Other than the piracy fiasco MU was quite a good host for legit stuff, being fast and easy to use.
Well nothing can be done now, hopefully people learned something and will upload to more than one place.
[editline]20th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Protocol7;34309096]Here comes the dumb ratings from people who don't research before they come to conclusions.[/QUOTE]
Oh god the 16x16 icons, run for your lives.
Who cares.
[QUOTE=Max of S2D;34308728]actually they didn't. and when they did it was only link by link, when they could have used MD5 hashes to bring all the IDENTICAL copies down along with it[/QUOTE]
To make you understand, I'm going to take a DMCA request, remove any identifying information and edit it into this post.
[quote]Notice ID: Notice Number
Notice Date: Date/Time
OrgName
Dear Sir or Madam:
OrgName, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "OrgName") swears under penalty of perjury that CopyrightHolder has authorized OrgName to act as its non-exclusive agent for copyright infringement notification. OrgName's search of the protocol listed below has detected infringements of CopyrightHolder's copyright interests on your IP addresses as detailed in the below report.
OrgName has reasonable good faith belief that CopyrightHolder, its agents, or the law does not authorize use of the material in the manner complained of in the below report. The information provided herein is accurate to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, this letter is an official notification to effect removal of the detected infringement listed in the below report. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the Universal Copyright Convention, as well as bilateral treaties with other countries allow for protection of client's copyrighted work even beyond U.S. borders. The below documentation specifies the exact location of the infringement.
We hereby request that you immediately remove or block access to the infringing material, as specified in the copyright laws, and insure the user refrains from using or sharing with others CopyrightHolder materials in the future.
Further, we believe that the entire Internet community benefits when these matters are resolved cooperatively. We urge you to take immediate action to stop this infringing activity. We appreciate your efforts toward this common goal.
Please send us a prompt response indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this matter, making sure to reference the Notice ID number above in your response. mailto:CopyrightHolder@dmca-sender.com?subject= some complaince link
If you do not wish to reply by email, please use our Web Interface by clicking on the following link: [url]http://some.website/?etc[/url]
Note: If your email program has inserted line breaks into either the email or web links above, you can copy and paste the entire link into your email program, or favorite web browser, respectively.
Nothing in this letter shall serve as a waiver of any rights or remedies of CopyrightHolder with respect to the alleged infringement, all of which are expressly reserved. Should you need to contact me, I may be reached at the below address.
Regards,
Person
In-House Counsel
Copyright Agent
Address
Phone/Fax
[email]CopyrightHolder@dmca-sender.com[/email] <mailto:CopyrightHolder@dmca-sender.com>
*pgp public key is available on the key server at [url]http://key[/url] server
Note: The information transmitted in this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, reproduction, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers.
This infringement notice contains an XML tag that can be used to automate the processing of this data. If you would like more information on how to use this tag please contact OrgName.
Evidentiary Information:
Notice ID: Notice ID
Asset: Copyrighted data
Protocol: BitTorrent
IP Address: IP address
DNS: Reverse DNS of IP address
File Name: Copyrighted Data file
File Size: File Size
Timestamp: Date/time
Last Seen Date/Time
Username (if available):
Port ID: 55732
Bay ID: BayID hash|number
XML,PGP signature[/quote]
As you can see, there is no MD5 hash given. Why should they go out of their way when the copyright holder won't? If there were an MD5 hash listed in the DMCA request, proof that the DMCA submitter is the copyright holder, and they specifically asked for the MD5 hash to be blocked from being downloaded; then megaupload should have done it. But expecting them to when they aren't given that information is plain stupid.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;34308986]I haven't pirated anything in well over a year since I've had cash flow for over a year. I don't see anything wrong with Megaupload being taken down. I can only assume that there's so much backlash from the people who pirate, whom used Megaupload as a large source of their illegal content. So instead of addressing the fact that Megaupload did, in fact, store loads of illegal content and was owned by a shady guy, I'm seeing people go "The government is abusing power!" and start bitching about stupid shit and retaliating.
In all reality, Megaupload going down has done nothing to the piracy "industry" if you will. I don't see the cause for alarm.[/QUOTE]
I'm kind of pissed, it was a pretty good service for sharing or keeping large files, and I used it quite a lot for larger files for school projects and the like.
But I don't see a massive problem with it being taken down, MU was terrible for following DMCA rules, as many URLs could link to the same file, and they would only take down the URL that was found out, not the file itself. And it's owners pretty much knew of the massive amounts of pirated stuff, even sending links to each other for pirated files.
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34309364]As you can see, there is no MD5 hash given. Why should they go out of their way when the copyright holder won't? If there were an MD5 hash listed in the DMCA request, proof that the DMCA submitter is the copyright holder, and they specifically asked for the MD5 hash to be blocked from being downloaded; then megaupload should have done it. But expecting them to when they aren't given that information is plain stupid.[/QUOTE]
There was no presented method for removing content in any way other than on a link by link basis, this is stated in the indictment.
Also:
[QUOTE=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Knowledge_of_Infringing_Material]To qualify for the § 512(c) safe harbor, the OSP must not have actual knowledge that it is hosting infringing material or be aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent. It is clear from the statute and legislative history that an OSP has no duty to monitor its service or affirmatively seek infringing material on its system.[12] However, the statute describes two ways in which an OSP can be put on notice of infringing material on its system: 1) notice from the copyright owner, and 2) the existence of “red flags.”
...
The "red flag" test stems from the language in the statute that requires that an OSP not be “aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent.”[18]
...
The "red flag" test contains both a subjective and an objective element. Objectively, the OSP must have knowledge that the material resides on its system. Subjectively, the "infringing activity would have been apparent to a reasonable person operating under the same or similar circumstances."[12][/QUOTE]
Honestly, dropbox or bust for legit files.
I'm starting to hope that i'm a chief of a USA's national grid company.
Then i would take the whole national electric grid down to protest that shit.
That would screw many things...
[QUOTE=oskutin;34309828]I'm starting to hope that i'm a chief of a USA's national grid company.
Then i would take the whole national electric grid down to protest that shit.
That would screw many things...[/QUOTE]
Uh, I don't think MU being shut down for pretty valid reasons would be woth taking power away from Hospitals and other vital services.
Vital services can hold some months with their auxiliary powersources. Also USA's electric grid is in so bad condition that it could easily come down.
[QUOTE=Swilly;34309822]Honestly, dropbox or bust for legit files.[/QUOTE]
doesnt work if you want to distribute large files to thousands of people
[QUOTE=oskutin;34309975]Vital services can hold some months with their auxiliary powersources. Also USA's electric grid is in so bad condition that it could easily come down.[/QUOTE]
That assumes that the auxiliary sources are ready to provide power instantly after it goes out. It could still fuck with life support machines and ventilators and the like.
[QUOTE=Chubbs;34310108]That assumes that the auxiliary sources are ready to provide power instantly after it goes out. It could still fuck with life support machines and ventilators and the like.[/QUOTE]
In something like a hospital you'd assume they would start instantly.
[QUOTE=Chubbs;34310108]That assumes that the auxiliary sources are ready to provide power instantly after it goes out. It could still fuck with life support machines and ventilators and the like.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;34310207]In something like a hospital you'd assume they would start instantly.[/QUOTE]
8 years ago I was in a hospital that lost power during a hurricane, the backup power took ~15-20 seconds to start, which could be bad
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.