Slashdot Mirror
Megaupload Shutdown: Should RapidShare and Dropbox Worry?
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."
You're correct, and there's big difference between RapidShare and the likes of Dropbox. MegaUpload, RapidShare etc is clearly profiting from copyrighted content. They pay users to upload popular files, and in 99% of cases it is pirated content. In turn they profit when users want to access those files. It's a huge "industry", and there will most likely be many more arrests when the list of affiliates that directly made money by uploading copyrighted content without permission goes public.
So, for the sake of the argument, let's assume that 'pay for downloads' program is still running on Mega.
And decides to upload a new song that (s)he just made.
And 50 million people download it.
And (s)he gets paid by Mega.
Would you have any objections to that?
Program in itself is not a problem. Problem is that most popular downloads were those that infringed copyright and were uploaded by random people.
If you find the closure of Megaupload troubling, just read the indictment. I won't consider the legal matters here, but the emails cited in the indictment paint a pretty clear picture of intent. They show that:
A) In many cases, Megaupload employees knew that *specific* files on the site were in violation of copyright, but they took no action to remove the content
B) Knowing specific files were copyrighted, megaupload still paid out rewards to those files' uploaders
C) In a few instances, staff members shared links to copyrighted content with eachother and with the internet at large.
Those are just the most egregious points, which basically demolish their claim of safe-harbor. But there's more: The claim of conspiracy at first sounds ridiculous and overblown, but it begins to make sense when the indictment describes all the ways Megaupload is alleged to have actively worked to conceal piracy. Claims of DCMA compliance are shot to pieces by an allegation that certain links were the subject of takedown notices, but remained active for over a year. I could go on, but just read the thing yourself, it's actually pretty interesting for a while.
The guys at Megaupload sound hella guilty. The only other explanation is a massive conspiracy involving the FBI and the Justice Department, but I have trouble believing that.
It's not. But it might be a crime to do the absolute minimum you can to appear to be in compliance with the law, while actually failing to meet the minimum required to actually comply...
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I believe even rapidshare pays you for popular downloads (I believe most websites do it). The difference is the intent and the wording. Emails between megaupload staff/executives state that they were paying for most popular movies at that time. It means they acknowledge and explicitly supporting piracy, and failed to remove content that they knew were pirated. If they had worded it as most popular files, they would have been safe.
You are missing the most important (and most complex) point.
How can anyone know that account which uploaded the video does not actually hold copyright on it? Yes, question sounds silly, but it is extremely complex. Unless someone else claims the copyright ownership, you can only assume that whoever uploaded it is the copyright owner. Keep in mind, labels never provided Megaupload with any kind of tools/database that would make it easier to automate 'illegal content detection', like what YouTube does (and YouTube is worth much much more than Megaupload, and has much much more resources).
I also don't own copyright on any song that I purchased on a CD, but I do have a right to have a backup of it. And if I then share that backup with the rest of the world, it was me who actually did the wrong thing, not the service where I store the song. Or you think it was service provider's fault?
Biggest question of all is - are service providers expected to look at every single file in order to determine whether it is pirated or not (answer is 'no', just in case you wondered)? Yes, of course they were aware about piracy on the site, but what can you realistically do about that except taking down files when they appear in DMCA notice?
I also saw people complaining how Megaupload didn't take down some files, even if someone reported them as pirated content. However, only copyright owner is able to fill a proper DMCA notice. You can not, as a random citizen, submit a DMCA notice and expect the file to be taken down. Let alone just reporting a 'pirated file' via email.
There are so many things that need to be properly tested in court, this will certainly be a massive one.
I use uploaded.to to serve my 100% legal firmware files, and yesterday when I checked my account the service is now not offered in the USA. I'm guessing most of the other similar file sharing services will follow suit soon.
Here's the full list of Reddit comments relating to that topic:
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/onplj/feds_shut_down_megaupload/
God help us when people cite reddit as a source of truth.
As long as the government is able to shut your business down BEFORE going to trial, every business should worry. Especially businesses in the same industry as megaupload.
All I know is that it seems very likely to me that nothing in the cloud is private; that abrogation of privacy to chase terrorists (remember pre-9/11 when the excuse was always "child porn"? You don't hear it as much recently because they have the magic word "terrorist" to brut about now) has always been extended to snoop into other things, and that a site can be taken down on accusations alone, and for an indefinite time that may stretch into years, even if found innocent.
I just can't handle ANY cloud storage in that environment, unless the files are mere backup or otherwise not valuable. That still leaves a lot of business - at work, we store multiple Terabytes on a cloud service, because we have another copy and because they wouldn't be that "expensive" to lose. But anybody who imagines that "everything is moving to the cloud" feels to me like storing it at the NSA with a sign on the box saying "fishing expeditions encouraged!"
If my attitude bothers those who hope to be the next round of billionaires from the Great Move To The Clouds, they know where to lobby.
That's what we're reduced to, at this point - with no meaningful effect on political outcomes possible for individuals, we must plead for an industry lobby to be on our side.
When will the average American (or, perhaps more importantly, politicians) learn to distinguish punishment for illegal activity from prior restraint?
Hint: in general terms, it is not permissible in this country to prevent people from performing a certain act simply because some of them might commit a crime.
Laws exist to punish actual criminals, not to prevent people from committing innocent acts just because their neighbor might be a criminal. The former represents justice, the latter unconstitutional government oppression.
"Faking compliance with DMCA requests, on the other hand..."
Even the DMCA goes too far, however, by forcing acts based on mere accusations, before there can be any "due process".