150 Copyright Notices For Mega

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

150 Copyright Notices For Mega

Posted by timothy on Thursday January 31, 2013 @01:45AM from the well-that's-the-business-model dept.

Master Moose writes "Kim Dotcom's Mega file sharing site has been stung with 150 copyright warnings, according to an international report. Dotcom launched the new fire-sharing website on January 20 in a blaze of fireworks and publicity.Less than two weeks later and Computerworld.com is reporting the company removed content after receiving 150 copyright infringement notices." Raise your hand if you're shocked, simply shocked.

138 of 199 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hmm... by GiantMolecularCloud · 2013-01-31 01:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

I wonder how difficult it would be to upload copyrighted content and then file a complaint about it...
1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 02:16 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  That question got me thinking. If Sony uploads copyrighted material (stripping out all the copyright notices and warnings), how am I as a user supposed to differentiate between the copyrighted material and the non-copyrighted material? That would be like Spalding stripping off the price tags on it's basketballs, throwing them in a donation bin, and then prosecuting anyone that took one for theft.
2. Re:Hmm... by Zero__Kelvin · 2013-01-31 02:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Much easier than it would be to upload fire: "Dotcom launched the new fire-sharing website "
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
3. Re:Hmm... by Richard_at_work · 2013-01-31 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  You really think there's a need for such subterfuge?
4. Re:Hmm... by interkin3tic · 2013-01-31 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Given the encryption, how would they even know unless they did it themselves? Maybe this is setting the stage for big content lobbying to get pre-emptive complaints into law. "This is a notice that we own the content to these copyrights, if anyone puts them onto your site in the future, we get to sue you. What's that? This will destroy the internet if it's successful? Oh deary me, what a loss! You've been notified, we'll see you in court immediately after we upload our own stuff to your site."
5. Re:Hmm... by Zimluura · 2013-01-31 02:50 · Score: 2
  
  it's worse than that. nearly all material on the internet is copyrighted. even this post i am typing. how are you supposed to know if you have my permission to view it?
6. Re:Hmm... by BitZtream · 2013-01-31 02:51 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Because encrypted data that can't be unencrypted is useless.
  I don't think you understand the idea of sharing if you think handing someone a blob of randomness and saying 'its encrypted!' is what sharing is.
  Dotcom uses websites to profit from people sharing files that they shouldn't be sharing. If you still don't understand that, stop reading now, theres no way anything on this post or entire thread will make sense to you.
  In order for people to give a flying fuck about his website ... where he makes money off ads ... they have to be able to decrypt whatever is on the site. That information is more or less made public, in which case, its trivial for anyone to figure out whats on the site.
  Why is it so difficult to understand that other people kind find warez on the Internet just like you can?
  People that need to legitimately share things do it in a far less complicated way.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
7. Re:Hmm... by serviscope_minor · 2013-01-31 02:58 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  how are you supposed to know if you have my permission to view it?
  I am quite capable of forming my opinions on your posts without reading them.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
8. Re:Hmm... by Scoth · 2013-01-31 03:05 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Very much This. Keep in mind as well that the encryption was for *his* protection, not the users'. He wanted to be able to claim that he had no way of knowing what was uploaded or what its content was. That he's still getting copyright takedown notices should come as no surprise at all to anyone. The difference is he can at least try to claim that he had no idea it was copyrighted material. It'll be interesting arguments if it ever ends up in court or similar.
9. Re:Hmm... by poetmatt · 2013-01-31 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  150 times?
  incredibly easy, actually. Especially if you're the US government's copyright stasi.
10. Re:Hmm... by Terrasque · 2013-01-31 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Alternatively, they just scraped this..
  No need to overthink it.
  
  --
  It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
11. Re:Hmm... by Grizzley9 · 2013-01-31 03:18 · Score: 2
  
  I wonder how difficult it would be to upload copyrighted content and then file a complaint about it...
  Should have seen that coming and had a statement on the upload area to the effect that "any content uploaded to this site found to be from copyright holders, organizations or employees of those, relinquish any copyrights on said material in perpetuity."
12. Re:Hmm... by blueg3 · 2013-01-31 03:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Encryption isn't magic. If someone uses the site to share a file with the general public, they have to somehow enable the public to decrypt the data, right? The copyright owner can simply use the same method.
  Oddly, the DMCA actually protects against exactly the scheme you came up with. It places the operator of the website in the position where they simply need to take down offending material to protect themselves from liability. So Sony can't upload a video to the site and then sue them. They can upload a video to the site and give them a takedown notice, but if the material is taken down, then they have no ability to sue. (Despite its faults, one of the useful purposes of the DMCA was to make a clearly-defined legal framework in which the operator of a website can have immunity from liability for any copyrighted material uploaded to their website. Prior to that, it was ill-defined, which is a serious risk.)
13. Re:Hmm... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-01-31 03:22 · Score: 2
  
  This would be fraud on their part. Thought experiments are one thing, official and deliberate criminal activity is another.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
14. Re:Hmm... by alexo · 2013-01-31 03:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Exactly. You have no idea of knowing whether "distributing" something might lend you in jail or ruin you financially.
  Better be safe and all of your cultural sharing only via approved channels.
  After all, what's a small fee for the assurance that you won't be charged with supporting communist terrorist pedophiles?
15. Re:Hmm... by Gr8Apes · 2013-01-31 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yep - just setup a bittorrent client and add to one of the Linux distro clouds. Or all of them.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
16. Re:Hmm... by danomac · 2013-01-31 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  ...and got burned with 150 copyright notices!
17. Re:Hmm... by Stewie241 · 2013-01-31 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  So if I wrote code licensed under the GPL and posted it with a notice clearly indicating the license, you are suggested that I should have to relinquish copyrights and lose my right to enforce the GPL?
18. Re:Hmm... by gmuslera · 2013-01-31 03:47 · Score: 2
  
  Ok, lets infringe a bit of copyrights from around the world... think in the number pi. There, you have it, inside it probably are encrypted all the past, present and future movies, books, songs, images, genes, or whatever could be ever copyrighted in the most stupid copyright system of the history. Also you have the text of all national security documents, the passwords of all the servers and personal computers of the world, all the pins from all credit cards and detailed instructions on how to build any weapon, to name just a few things.
  So, as you have all that information (no matter if you can actually access to it or not), you get sued.
19. Re:Hmm... by cdrguru · 2013-01-31 04:01 · Score: 2
  
  Copyright doesn't affect anyone's right to view something, only to distribute it.
  So you can view anything, but you may not have the right to copy it and post it somewhere else. Especially if you claim to be the author of it.
  Obviously the only control you have over preventing people from viewing something is to restrict access or not post it to begin with.
20. Re:Hmm... by meerling · 2013-01-31 04:08 · Score: 2
  
  Not according to MPAA.
  Or in the case of RIAA, listening to it.
  
  Just read some of their public statements, and legal claims.
21. Re:Hmm... by Pieroxy · 2013-01-31 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  If you upload it to a website with such notice and that you are the copyright holder, then yes.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
22. Re:Hmm... by MacGyver2210 · 2013-01-31 04:12 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly this. The article basically outlines how the takedown notices are being used as intended. This isn't anything to fault Mega or the copyright holders over, and it certainly isn't big news.
  The headline and summary essentially comes out to "Mega got some copyright notices and took some stuff down". It's a non-issue, and clearly someone trying to be the first one to paint the new Mega service as a bad-willed haven for pirates and thieves. As long as they take stuff down when reported, there's no issue.
  Also, please note that Mega is in New Zealand, and thus is not subject to US copyright laws.
  
  --
  If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
23. Re:Hmm... by eth1 · 2013-01-31 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how difficult it would be to upload copyrighted content and then file a complaint about it...
  Should have seen that coming and had a statement on the upload area to the effect that "any content uploaded to this site found to be from copyright holders, organizations or employees of those, relinquish any copyrights on said material in perpetuity."
  Well, no one would use it for anything legitimate at all if that was the case. Better would be "by uploading content you hold the copyright to, you grant us a license to make copies as required for proper storage, and to distribute to anyone who can access it based on the permissions you set."
24. Re:Hmm... by Zimluura · 2013-01-31 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  you must cache it on your computer and that, in a technical sense, is duplication.
  still what you are saying is *probably* right (insofar as no wealthy copyright holder has yet forced the us courts to decide).
25. Re:Hmm... by suutar · 2013-01-31 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  which is probably a decent paraphrase of Mega's TOS.
26. Re:Hmm... by Runaway1956 · 2013-01-31 04:39 · Score: 2
  
  That made me laugh. I stopped chuckling when I realized that a gubbermint revenooer could say that with a perfectly straight face. Now, it's scary!
  Do you work for gubbermint?
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
27. Re:Hmm... by TFAFalcon · 2013-01-31 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  If that's what the site requires and it's clearly stated, sure. It would be just like publishing something in a journal that requires you to turn over copyright of anything you wish to publish.
28. Re:Hmm... by mjr167 · 2013-01-31 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Even in your fireplace? Everyone lights candles...
29. Re:Hmm... by IndustrialComplex · 2013-01-31 05:48 · Score: 2
  
  Oh sure, NOW it's easy. Why don't you ask the original fire-sharer Prometheus how that worked out for him?
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
30. Re:Hmm... by Kjella · 2013-01-31 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  So if a disgruntled Microsoft employee decided to upload the Windows source code to Mega, they'd lose all copyright on it? I don't think that's how the law works, no matter what the terms of service says he's not authorized to sign that away. And if you try going after only authorized attack dogs then worst case they'll turn on whatever cyber thugs they hired and claim they overstepped their bounds had no right to upload that to Mega, but as the copyright holder they're not going to sue for damages so all that leaves Mega with is a terms of service breach by the cyber thugs. It's a bit the same as GPL violation, you can ask for source as a settlement but you can never force them to release the source. You can sue them for statutory or actual damages, but then you "only" get cash.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
31. Re:Hmm... by AwesomeMcgee · 2013-01-31 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  You think they're above that? These are people after money, it would be extremely easy fraud to get away with as well when you consider mega has gone out of it's way to ensure the original uploaders may not be identified.
32. Re:Hmm... by EuclideanSilence · 2013-01-31 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  So how do you plan to view something without making a copy? You are making a copy from the server to your home disk, your home disk to ram, ram to your brain, or possibly all of the above and more.
33. Re:Hmm... by war4peace · 2013-01-31 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  You're thinking too deep. People WILL use file sharing websites for copyright-infringement purposes, they always will do. I'm actually shocked that the amount of detected infringements is ONLY of about 14 a day. That's probably 100 times LESS than Youtube gets on a daily basis.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
34. Re:Hmm... by bws111 · 2013-01-31 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Show a single case where any of those claims were made.
35. Re:Hmm... by MajroMax · 2013-01-31 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, lets infringe a bit of copyrights from around the world... think in the number pi. There, you have it, inside it probably are encrypted all the past, present and future movies, books, songs, images, genes, or whatever could be ever copyrighted in the most stupid copyright system of the history. Also you have the text of all national security documents, the passwords of all the servers and personal computers of the world, all the pins from all credit cards and detailed instructions on how to build any weapon, to name just a few things.
  So, as you have all that information (no matter if you can actually access to it or not), you get sued.
  Oh, the dictionary argument: since the dictionary contains all English words, no composition using strictly dictionary words should be copyrightable. Eh, eh? *wink wink*
  It's bull.
  When you have "the text of all national security documents" et cetera inside pi, it's all useless unless you have a key to actually specify and find the information you're looking for. By uniquely specifying a position and length within the digits of pi, you've just defined an encoding.
  You're precisely one step beyond "it can't be a movie, it's just a string of ones and zeroes!" It's juvenile and unoriginal.
  
  --
  "Evil company X is threatening to restrict our rights! Let's all get together to stop--OOOH! SHINEY!!!" -- AC
36. Re:Hmm... by gmuslera · 2013-01-31 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  The argument with pi is not about taking isolated digits of it joined in the movie order. Maybe from the digit 348e^140 to 1gb after you get the bytes of a digital movie. The movie would be stored there, if i tell you the position and the length (not very different from telling you the decryption key of a file) you can get it, in fact, check pifs.
  The copyright notices for Mega does basically this. For Mega is like, ok, I have pi, not the position/lenght, for me is just a lot of bytes, and i sue you because some person in the world have that position and lenght for a copyrighted work. Doesn't change the problem for this people that the movie was stored there since the creation of the universe, they just want money.
37. Re:Hmm... by Shagg · 2013-01-31 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright doesn't affect anyone's right to view something, only to distribute it.
  That's the common sense answer. But then you have others who claim that downloading something is copyright infringement.
  
  --
  Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
38. Re:Hmm... by dimeglio · 2013-01-31 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Hasn't YouTube figured it out? Sounds like Mega just needs a pseudo-copyright infringement tool to scan what's submitted.
  
  --
  Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
39. Re:Hmm... by cheater512 · 2013-01-31 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently it 'should be' illegal for me to watch a DVD on Linux.
  God forbid a Bluray.
40. Re:Hmm... by bws111 · 2013-01-31 08:32 · Score: 2
  
  Do you know what 'view' means? Here is a hint: it has nothing to do with computers. So again I say, cite a case where someone is accused of copyright infringement for viewing (that thing you do with your eyeballs) a movie, or listening (that thing you do with your ears) to a song.
41. Re:Hmm... by lennier · 2013-01-31 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, lets infringe a bit of copyrights from around the world... think in the number pi.
  
  Oh hi! It's Darren Aronofsky and Ang Lee at the door. They're having an argument about which one owns your number. Darren reckons he owns everything involving an electric drill, and Ang will settle for anything with a tiger in it.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
42. Re:Hmm... by hairyfeet · 2013-01-31 08:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Wrong several businesses have been sued because an employee merely had a radio playing while they worked to make the day a little more pleasant, that constituted a "public performance" and thus was illegal.
  I'm afraid the laws have been twisted so badly in the last 25 years that you just whistling a tune while you walk down the street could be copyright infringement, its that big of a fucked up maze of laws now.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
43. Re:Hmm... by TapeCutter · 2013-01-31 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Ang will settle for anything with a tiger in it.
  It's no secret that Ang's long term goal is to own cat videos.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
44. Re:Hmm... by EdZ · 2013-01-31 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright doesn't affect anyone's right to view something, only to distribute it.
  How do public showings of private copies (e.g. a store bought Blu Ray shown to a neighbourhood on a big projection screen) fall under this simplified view of copyright? You're not distributing it, but lots of people are viewing it.
45. Re:Hmm... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-01-31 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  That last bit might have a ring of truth to it. From what I've heard about lolita city (at least, if anonymous is correct) they share photos from each according to his ability to have access to children, to each according to his need without children, and sometimes the kids live in terror.
  So indeed you can fit those three words into the same sentence.
  
  --
  Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
46. Re:Hmm... by TangoMargarine · 2013-01-31 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  To be able to share the stuff, yes, they would need to have access to the keys. But as a strictly backup medium, there is no reason they need ever see them. Of course, this kills any chance of a user who lost their keys getting their files back, but...I would be willing to take that risk.
  But I assume Mega encrypts the stuff for you? You don't provide your own keys?
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
47. Re:Hmm... by MoaDweeb · 2013-01-31 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  The servers are located in Germany otherwise no-one would ever be able to access anything. NZ is at the end of 2 shitty cables.
  
  --
  New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
48. Re:Hmm... by sixsixtysix · 2013-01-31 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  this is why the technical aspects need to be very specific. if you can't be charged for listening to a pirate radio station, then you shouldn't be for any other broadcasting/streaming service.
  
  --
  ...
49. Re:Hmm... by tsa · 2013-01-31 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  Here in the Netherlands we have that too. Companies have to pay ridiculous amounts of money to BUMA/STEMRA (one of our RIAA-like organizations (yes, we have several!)) just to be 'allowed' to play music on site.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
50. Re:Hmm... by Rich0 · 2013-01-31 15:06 · Score: 2
  
  The one advantage of encryption is that it gives Mega plausible deniability with regard to what is on its site. Mega can't tell what is being stored, so they can't filter out mp3s, or check files against a blacklist, and so on. The only way for them to know what the files are is to go out on the various boards where the keys are being posted and do what the RIAA has to do, and I don't know that any judge is going to expect them to find and monitor every board in existence where this stuff happens.
  They do of course need to follow take-down notices, but their design keeps any removals after-the-fact, not before-the-fact. If content were not encrypted then they might be asked to police anything that fits certain criteria and do things like fingerprinting like youtube does.
51. Re:Hmm... by Eskarel · 2013-01-31 15:56 · Score: 2
  
  It's a little bit more nuanced than that.
  Kim DotCom created mega as a content sharing site which he intends to profit from. He's fully aware that said site will be used for copyright infringement at least in part and from a personal point of view he could care less. The point of the encryption on mega is not to secure the files, or to protect the users of said service(though it could perform said task at least in theory), the purpose is to cover Kim DotCom's gigantic read end.
  Mega, like MegaUpload complies with DMCA take down notices as it is legally obligated to do. The problem with MegaUpload that Mega tries to solve is that the copyright holders felt that Kim DotCom should have done more to actively filter what they believe to be illegitimate content. Now on the grounds that from all appearances Kim DotCom doesn't give a crap about copyright, wants as many users as possible and doesn't want spend the money to do this kind of filtering, this was sort of a problem. To deal with this, they put in default encryption and if you keep your keys secret it's not horrible encryption and should protect you from "the man". If you share links which contain the decryption keys to decrypt said data and the RIAA/MPAA or the feds(depending on what you're trying to hide) will issue a take down notice with which Mega will comply.
  The argument is that, unless the user provides those decryption keys, In theory, Mega cannot at any point determine what content is being stored on its servers(nor can anyone hosting a node for his distributed version of this system). Which should, at least by Kim's legal theorizing allow him to essentially sit on his rear end raking in the money and only act against content upon specific request. Personally I'd like to see this defense used successfully before I even contemplated being a node for something like this(or TOR for that matter).
  Under these circumstances DMCA take down notices are expected and will be complied with as they were on megaupload.
52. Re:Hmm... by Eskarel · 2013-01-31 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  Well leaving aside the "relinquish copyright" clause is stupid on the face of it, a disgruntled Microsoft employee probably doesn't actually have the right to relinquish said copyright and is not the copyright holder. There probably is someone(s) at Microsoft who can do that, and it would be interesting to see what the outcome of them doing such an upload might be from a legal perspective, but if they've gone rogue the company has bigger problems.
53. Re:Hmm... by jamstar7 · 2013-01-31 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  Point he was making is, playing a DVD on a computer is of questionable legality in that the computer itself is not a licensed dedicated DVD viewing device.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
54. Re:Hmm... by jamstar7 · 2013-01-31 16:14 · Score: 2
  
  Copyright doesn't affect anyone's right to view something, only to distribute it.
  How do public showings of private copies (e.g. a store bought Blu Ray shown to a neighbourhood on a big projection screen) fall under this simplified view of copyright? You're not distributing it, but lots of people are viewing it.
  Look at the licensing blurb at the beginning of the video. It clearly states it's for private viewing only.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
55. Re:Hmm... by jamstar7 · 2013-01-31 16:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'm surprised it was only 150 notices. That's what, 11 a day? Somebody is slipping there...
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
56. Re:Hmm... by AK+Marc · 2013-01-31 19:54 · Score: 2
  
  You can't help some confusion when the media all reports going after "downloaders" when the cases are all for "uploading". The constant lies about who is going after whom for what will confuse anyone listening. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for "downloading". Ever. It hasn't happened.
  
  And no ruling has come down that indicates it illegal, probably because it's never come up. There have been a few that make downloading explicitly legal, so long as no copy was made (in streaming cases where deep linking was allowed and viewers of the deep links were explicitly legalized - it was compared to reading a book in a book store - bad form, but legal in every sense).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
57. Re:Hmm... by AK+Marc · 2013-01-31 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  Speed in NZ is great. The cost is just too high for carriers to buy enough that you aren't heavily oversubscribed on your international traffic. The fibre is capable of carrying about 20 Tbps out of NZ, but is lit at under 1 Tbps last I looked because people aren't buying enough bandwidth for them to light up the next wavelength. There's no shortage of capacity, just shortage of willingness to pay for it. And, since most NZ traffic is download, an upload service wouldn't be that bad. When's Kim's new fibre getting installed?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
58. Re:Hmm... by poetmatt · 2013-02-01 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  these private enterprises are basically running under the auspices of our government, which is exactly what I meant.
59. Re:Hmm... by Eskarel · 2013-02-01 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  The point of a DMCA takedown notice is to provide a certain amount of legal cover to people who might be hosting copyrighted content on behalf of others. While Germany(NZ has realy crappy internet, Mega is not hosted there) does not have a DMCA, they do have copyright and DMCA or no, knowingly hosting copyrighted material is likely in violation of German law. The crappy parts of the DMCA relate to the circumvention of copy protection mechanisms even for legal purposes(this is where the "it's illegal to unlock your phone under contract" actually comes from a I understand it). The safe harbor provisions and takedown notices, while often abused by big content are actually good for content hosts (like Mega.com) in that they provide them a way to avoid liability. Kim DotCom is not the pirate bay, he is not trying to fight for you right to pirate content, he's fighting for his right to be paid by people who pirate content. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.
60. Re:Hmm... by mgcarley · 2013-02-01 21:11 · Score: 1
  
  You mean 1 shitty cable. Just because it's redundant, doesn't make it a separate system. We've had complete outages before.
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
61. Re:Hmm... by mgcarley · 2013-02-01 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  20Tbit/s? Really? Who on earth told you that? Even Wikipedia (the source for any possible exaggerations) doesn't claim that.
  Last time I looked it was going to be 12 - and even then only after the next phase of upgrades (100G) is complete, and that too I think is marketing fluff based on the assumption that nobody buys protected circuits... so really 6. Lit capacity was something like 2Tbit/s as of late last year. Perhaps ironically, now that I think about it this is a very similar amount of lit capacity across all the cables connecting India. ...have you got any citations on the 20?
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
62. Re:Hmm... by AK+Marc · 2013-02-01 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  A fibre is upgradable to 40 channels of 100 Gbps, 4 Tbps per pair, 4 pairs, 16 Gbps. (maybe 400 Gbps, but that's not been tested yet). "We maintain supply well beyond expected demand levels and if demand expands more quickly we can readily increase the size of the network through capacity upgrades.
  
  "There is plenty of capacity available for purchase at prices well below the retail cost of data."
  
  "We expect the potential of the network to reach more than 16 Tbps within 5 years"
  
  http://www.southerncrosscables.com/home/company/faq
  It's on there. And looking it up just confirms my suspicions. They light up capacity as people pay for it, and people don't pay for it. They can go to 16 Tbps with todays' tech, tested. And 64 Tbps if their network will work with 400 Gbps. But the big guys have around 10 Gbps of international traffic, so 100 Gbps (1/40th of one fiber, of which they have 4) takes care of Telecom, Vodafone and Telstra/Clear with room to spare. No idea how much Call Plus, Kordia, and the other smaller players move.
  
  One of the rumours I heard was that the price cut undercut a number of Australian carriers to help fill capacity with Australian traffic transiting NZ to get to the US.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
63. Re:Hmm... by EdZ · 2013-02-03 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Hence it is an example of copyright affecting someone's right to view something, not just someone's right to distribute it.
64. Re:Hmm... by mgcarley · 2013-02-03 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  For most of the route, the system is 3 pairs. Only Hawaii to continental USA is 4 pairs. So realistically, for NZ/Australia, you need to cut 25% off those calculations - so 12Tbit/s seems about right.
  Being that it was all built at a time when the US had reasonably good broadband compared to the rest of the world, I'm guessing that they kinda had to have the extra pair for HISJC so that that state alone could support the same services that the mainland has.
  As for how much traffic the providers have, only some of them publish their traffic levels - Kordia and Callplus don't, Orcon has a bit less than 10Gbit/s. I haven't checked others.
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
65. Re:Hmm... by AK+Marc · 2013-02-04 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  I don't recognize "slinghsot" or "Orcon" . There was a company named "Orcon" that was owned by Kordia, but Orcon is in the process of ceasing to exist as Kordia consolodates operations. Orcon will be no more than Gen-i is to Telecom, a marketing/sales name. Same with Slingshot being a marketing name of Callplus. Despite all the names out in the market, there really are only a few big operators. And we lost one when TelstraClear was bought by Voda. At least with Telecom around, they didn't think it would be a monopoly risk.
  
  I've been in Vodaphone's datacentres (France Street and Manakau, their two main ones while they are rebuilding Newmarket), and I've been to Telstra's main ones (Symond's street and Penrose). I don't need to see the published levels to know that all the carriers are not far off from each other, and all the big ones are around 10 Gbps (voda is closer to 20, but still a teen, so I round down. The only one considering an upgrade to 100Gbps connections into the international PoP is Telecom. And yes, even though Telecom owns half the Southern Cross, they are operationally separate, so they buy their handovers like everyone else.
  
  And I note from the published articles that Southern Cross is hopeful about 400 Gbps (putting the 3-pair capacity at 48 Gbps), but has not completed testing (well, nothing specifically indicates they've even started testing). Though they'd never operate at that in the short term. Historically, they light one up fully with the current tech, then, when the new generation is out, they light up a second. If all goes well, they install the new tech on the dark one, and leave it lit and unused for protection. They run at just over 1/3 capacity because of that. Congested fibres (try looking at Alaska's connections to the outside world if you want to know the wrong way to manage fibre) are run with different qualities of service. You buy protected, for about twice the price, or "regular". If a path goes down, all protected circuits stay up, and "regular" fight for the scraps. As SC hasn't looked into such things yet, I can only deduce that they aren't at (or near) capacity. The tech exists today to light up NZ to HI at about 100 Tbps, they are just choosing a cheaper and "safer" direction of keeping capacity low as they grow. The market is small and fixed.
  
  Though people assume there will be changes as UFB rollouts happen, but so much of the legal high-bandwidth services are illegal in NZ (yes, I'm grouping in Netlfix VPNs and the like as illegal, as they are illegal), it'll be interesting to see what happens.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
66. Re:Hmm... by mgcarley · 2013-02-07 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Whether *you* recognize Slingshot/Orcon or not is moot - those are the names most people know, even if Callplus and Kordia are the companies behind them and are more or less operationally the same entities.
  As I recall Vodafone has purchased numerous smaller ISPs over the last few years (they didn't even really exist outside of cellular until the late 2000's), and it's nice to see a bit of consolidation, as there were (are still?) somewhere around 30 ISPs in NZ, which is a pretty tiny market for them all to be competing for. Not that I would agree with a duopoly or triopoly - competition is healthy - but 30 providers for ~2 million subscribers may be too much.
  At least New Zealand has a reasonably healthy scenario when it comes to peering and backhaul - there are many things there that I'm trying to implement for myself in the hopes of improving the situation where I live - if it works, it may even benefit customers that aren't mine and set a precedent for some kind of quality standard. Which would be nice.
  As far as upgrades go, I think the reason most ISPs haven't upgraded to 100Gbit/s yet is because, individually, it's not really necessary because no one provider (excepting Telecom) is big enough and it's probably hard to justify the cost - they can do just fine with their multiples of 10Gbit/s, and for the time being, an upgrade would be wasted.
  Whether or not 400G works on Southern Cross, that system is basically half-way through it's projected life now, so if there's any time to think about building another cable, maybe now is it - it would probably be about 5 years from now until light-up anyway, by which time SxC would be beginning to show its age, and if not for the age thing, well, there needs to be some competition where there currently is none.
  The situation as it is now is that there's too much retail competition, decent enough domestic transit competition, and not enough international transit competition, so, if we can even all this out a bit, we might just have the kind of Internet utopia I left the country to find 8 years ago... and with the UFB rollouts and more zero-rating of certain content (like some of the ISPs currently do already) I genuinely hope that we can start to really utilize some of the high bandwidth services that *are* legal in NZ - as well as hopefully attract some of the international players like Netflix to that market (Sky pretty much has a monopoly on pay-TV content - it would be nice if this could change).
  Also, I seem to remember being offered both regular and redundant routes on SxC a couple of years ago - I don't recall if the situation was the same as you describe Alaska as being but I wouldn't be surprised if it was and an ISP was left in the lurch if a non-protected route went down.
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
67. Re:Hmm... by AK+Marc · 2013-02-07 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  The situation as it is now is that there's too much retail competition, decent enough domestic transit competition, and not enough international transit competition, so, if we can even all this out a bit, we might just have the kind of Internet utopia I left the country to find 8 years ago... and with the UFB rollouts and more zero-rating of certain content (like some of the ISPs currently do already) I genuinely hope that we can start to really utilize some of the high bandwidth services that *are* legal in NZ - as well as hopefully attract some of the international players like Netflix to that market (Sky pretty much has a monopoly on pay-TV content - it would be nice if this could change).
  That will take someone spending millions on a risky gamble to unseat Sky. Sky owns almost all the content for NZ. They even buy shows they have no intention of showing, because that prevents the others from having them. Especially sports. They have to be losing money on sports, give how much they spend on them and the advertising rates during them. But they do make sure nobody else shows them, except for the All Blacks, who are always sold to at least one free provider, even if with a delay. Quickflix and Igloo are bit players trying to get in. So far, mostly unsuccessfully. And zero rating doesn't mean that much. I considered Telecom's 500GB plan, but upgraded to the 150GB first, and tried but couldn't reach the cap without pointlessly downloading things I didn't want. I could watch on-demand from multiple providers all day every day and download all the game demos I could find, and still not get close. But if that's not enough for you, you can get more than 3 times the amount on the 500 GB plan. Telecom doesn't zero rate anything, but they have some of the largest caps of anyone.
  
  At least New Zealand has a reasonably healthy scenario when it comes to peering and backhaul - there are many things there that I'm trying to implement for myself in the hopes of improving the situation where I live - if it works, it may even benefit customers that aren't mine and set a precedent for some kind of quality standard. Which would be nice.
  Well, I always hear everyone bitching about Telecom not peering. But Telecom is about the size of everyone else combined, and they want Telecom to pay their hosting cost, peer for free, and they'd get free transit out of the deal, and Telecom gets higher cost and no benefit. So there is no national peer. Until Vodafone pays Telecom for hosting and aggregates all the Voda&T/C traffic, there won't be a national peer. And it'll never be in a "neutral space" The people demanding that are places like Maxnet who want to "peer" (read "free transit") and they want Telecom to meet in a "neutral" site, preferably owned by Maxnet, who will then make a killing on everyone who wants to host there to be in the PoP. Maxnet being a good example because their "main" datacentre, small as it is, isn't that far from the international PoP in Glenfield (and yes, I count the Takapuna exchange as being in Glenfield, even if it is essentially across the street from the Takapuna golf course). But there are plenty of data centres in the Rosedale area not far from there, any of them would love to be the domestic PoP. Skytower would be a natural place, but it's expensive to get in. So there is very little domestic peering going on because the sizes are so asymmetrical that it's always transit to someone.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
68. Re:Hmm... by mgcarley · 2013-02-08 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  That will take someone spending millions on a risky gamble to unseat Sky. Sky owns almost all the content for NZ. They even buy shows they have no intention of showing, because that prevents the others from having them. Especially sports. They have to be losing money on sports, give how much they spend on them and the advertising rates during them. But they do make sure nobody else shows them, except for the All Blacks, who are always sold to at least one free provider, even if with a delay. Quickflix and Igloo are bit players trying to get in. So far, mostly unsuccessfully.
  Of course it takes a lot of money to unseat a monopoly. That's a given. There are companies with the resources to do it if they just would.
  
  And zero rating doesn't mean that much. I considered Telecom's 500GB plan, but upgraded to the 150GB first, and tried but couldn't reach the cap without pointlessly downloading things I didn't want. I could watch on-demand from multiple providers all day every day and download all the game demos I could find, and still not get close. But if that's not enough for you, you can get more than 3 times the amount on the 500 GB plan. Telecom doesn't zero rate anything, but they have some of the largest caps of anyone.
  Yes and no. Zero Rating is beneficial for those who *don't* go ahead and spend the money on the higher plans but still want to consume a limited subset of content... the thinking behind this is something to the effect of "Why should I get the 150GB plan when I could survive on a 60GB plan if only it wasn't for iSky" or whatever... More to the point, "unlimited" could become a more feasible and/or cheaper option (as more providers are beginning to offer such plans anyway it could even become, dare I say, the norm).
  
  Well, I always hear everyone bitching about Telecom not peering. But Telecom is about the size of everyone else combined, and they want Telecom to pay their hosting cost, peer for free, and they'd get free transit out of the deal, and Telecom gets higher cost and no benefit. So there is no national peer. Until Vodafone pays Telecom for hosting and aggregates all the Voda&T/C traffic, there won't be a national peer. And it'll never be in a "neutral space" The people demanding that are places like Maxnet who want to "peer" (read "free transit") and they want Telecom to meet in a "neutral" site, preferably owned by Maxnet, who will then make a killing on everyone who wants to host there to be in the PoP. Maxnet being a good example because their "main" datacentre, small as it is, isn't that far from the international PoP in Glenfield (and yes, I count the Takapuna exchange as being in Glenfield, even if it is essentially across the street from the Takapuna golf course). But there are plenty of data centres in the Rosedale area not far from there, any of them would love to be the domestic PoP. Skytower would be a natural place, but it's expensive to get in. So there is very little domestic peering going on because the sizes are so asymmetrical that it's always transit to someone.
  I hear a lot about Telecom not peering as well, but generally speaking, peering agreements almost always prohibit the sending of transit traffic, that is to say if I peer with Maxnet, I can't use my peering links with Maxnet to reach Vocus - if I want to reach Vocus, I'd have to buy my transit from them. I don't think there's any way that I could *only* peer with a provider (say Telecom) and then use them to reach a provider like Hurricane Electric, and if I even tried I'd probably have my virtual ass virtually kicked in to next year.
  As for the facilities, that's what APE/WIX/CHIX/etc is for - Citylink runs a bunch of peering facilities around the country and it's not expensive - you buy a rated link or a dark fibre in to the facility, you pay a fixed monthly fee per gigabit to the peering exchange which covers the equipment, electricity etc and it's all done... I don't see wha
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
69. Re:Hmm... by AK+Marc · 2013-02-08 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  I hear a lot about Telecom not peering as well, but generally speaking, peering agreements almost always prohibit the sending of transit traffic, that is to say if I peer with Maxnet, I can't use my peering links with Maxnet to reach Vocus - if I want to reach Vocus, I'd have to buy my transit from them. I don't think there's any way that I could *only* peer with a provider (say Telecom) and then use them to reach a provider like Hurricane Electric, and if I even tried I'd probably have my virtual ass virtually kicked in to next year.
  I worked ISPs in the US back 10+ years ago. Peering was peering. You don't filter your peers. In fact, the peering agreements were so open that when evil accountants got a hold of AT&T, AT&T played "hot potato" with their data. They'd push customer traffic off their net as soon as practical. This resulted in peers carrying AT&T internal traffic. If someone in NY sent a packet to LA, there was a chance it would be pushed off AT&T in NY, travel across the country on someone else's network, then go back on AT&T in LA for the last leg. That was very broken, but it did happen, and it's proof that peering agreements were so open that. If you can't reach Vocus through Maxnet, then it wasn't a peer, it was a filtered Maxnet-only transit. Peering was initially making someone else's network an extension of your own.
  
  The Internet is a "network of networks" and the initial networks had 100% trust of all endpoints (they started as physically connected computers in the same room), and the Internet was a number of those trusted networks connected through private dedicated lines between trusted organizations in charge of those networks. The reason we have so many security issues is that we evolved from a mechanism of complete trust to one of the current reality. Original peering was based on accepting the other network into your own. Now, peering is a trustless link that has a filtered subset of routes advertised over it. If you were the size of the combined Voda/T/C, you'd be able to peer with Telecom and get to Maxnet. Because that means that Telecom can get to Vocus through you. Both win. Rather than a mesh of 9 interconnects, you only need 3 links and everyone can get to everyone else. Peering is a great idea, but the balance of traffic doesn't exist in NZ to have it make sense like it did in the US, or between national carriers in the EU. When everyone has national coverage, there isn't a reason to peer. Everyone is everywhere, and demand for local/regional peering wouldn't exist.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
70. Re:Hmm... by mgcarley · 2013-02-10 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  I worked ISPs in the US back 10+ years ago. Peering was peering. You don't filter your peers. In fact, the peering agreements were so open that when evil accountants got a hold of AT&T, AT&T played "hot potato" with their data. They'd push customer traffic off their net as soon as practical. This resulted in peers carrying AT&T internal traffic. If someone in NY sent a packet to LA, there was a chance it would be pushed off AT&T in NY, travel across the country on someone else's network, then go back on AT&T in LA for the last leg. That was very broken, but it did happen, and it's proof that peering agreements were so open that.
  Yeah, but based on people who've dealt with AT&T both on the consumer and wholesale fronts, AT&T are bastards. Not the most apt comparison compared to civilized countries with civilized policies - whether NZ or anywhere.
  
  If you can't reach Vocus through Maxnet, then it wasn't a peer, it was a filtered Maxnet-only transit. Peering was initially making someone else's network an extension of your own.
  I think it still is that way - but by peering with a network, doesn't mean I can use that network to reach yet another network. That is to say - if we continue using Maxnet as an example - if I peer with Maxnet, I can't use them to carry transit traffic unless we mutually agree to do so, which would involve some form of financial transaction and probably a separate link - whether I link with Maxnet's network at a neutral point such as APE (the most likely scenario being that I utilize a second port and private VLAN) or whether I have a dedicated circuit running from my DC to theirs (which I might also be inclined to do for the purpose of redundancy).
  
  The Internet is a "network of networks" and the initial networks had 100% trust of all endpoints (they started as physically connected computers in the same room), and the Internet was a number of those trusted networks connected through private dedicated lines between trusted organizations in charge of those networks. The reason we have so many security issues is that we evolved from a mechanism of complete trust to one of the current reality. Original peering was based on accepting the other network into your own. Now, peering is a trustless link that has a filtered subset of routes advertised over it.
  In part because of the sheer number of routes... but also for geographical scope. An ISP in NZ isn't going to know how to get to an ISP in, for example, Ghana - and it would probably be wasteful for the ISP to know that unless for some reason there was a significant amount of traffic heading there - but as it is, it doesn't really *need* to. HOWEVER, in the circumstance where such a route might be required, said ISP is going to know how to get to an ISP in the US or Europe that in turn knows how to get to Ghana.
  15 or more years ago, the Internet was still in a relatively fledgling state, so ISPs only really had to deal with the basics: LA, NY/NJ, London, Frankfurt, HK, Singapore, Tokyo - and maybe a few others, so you could pretty much have these trusted links. You also didn't have grossly disproportionate traffic levels due to the content and services available these days burdening peering links which really should have been transit links, which is why some peering agreements now only allow for a maximum in/out ratios of 5:1.
  
  If you were the size of the combined Voda/T/C, you'd be able to peer with Telecom and get to Maxnet. Because that means that Telecom can get to Vocus through you. Both win. Rather than a mesh of 9 interconnects, you only need 3 links and everyone can get to everyone else.
  Perhaps, but then peering might be the wrong term to use here. Telecom (historically) hasn't been so good with the peering, nor has TelstraClear. Where I could peer with practically every other ISP in the country at a facility like APE for the low low price o
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
71. Re:Hmm... by AK+Marc · 2013-02-10 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  Although it's slowly getting a little better, the current option is still *extremely* cost prohibitive - especially compared to European or other Asian counterparts - so much so that it's cheaper to peer in Singapore and route traffic from India to Singapore and back... so there is little incentive to actually peer. If that isn't messed up, I don't know what is.
  In the US, Level 3, MCI, GTE, and others were relatively even in traffic, up and down. They'd peer, and they'd so so such that the peer traffic would be transit most of the time, but it worked because it was transit from them as much as to them, so it was even. That'll never likely be the case in NZ, so Telecom won't try to peer because peer can't happen with it, it would always be transit.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
72. Re:Hmm... by mgcarley · 2013-02-13 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  In the US, Level 3, MCI, GTE, and others were relatively even in traffic, up and down. They'd peer, and they'd so so such that the peer traffic would be transit most of the time, but it worked because it was transit from them as much as to them, so it was even. That'll never likely be the case in NZ, so Telecom won't try to peer because peer can't happen with it, it would always be transit.
  ...I don't know about that - even if a provider only sends/receives 20% as much traffic as Telecom sends/receives to it, that would still fit within the scope of your average peering agreement (5:1 ratio)... or, if Telecom peered only once at a neutral peering point, then there would be a group of providers sending/receiving traffic to the singular peering connection which would end up maybe roughly evening out the traffic flows.
  Some of the smaller providers do a lot of telehousing, too - I think Telecom does "big business" but the likes of Orcon, Maxnet etc have got a bunch of retail hosting providers co-located in their DCs which could help contribute to a more-even-than-you-might-expect traffic flow.
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
73. Re:Hmm... by AK+Marc · 2013-02-14 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  if Telecom peered only once at a neutral peering point, then there would be a group of providers sending/receiving traffic to the singular peering connection which would end up maybe roughly evening out the traffic flows.
  Telecom has offered that at Telecom facilities and nobody has ever taken them up on it. Telecom offered to meet elsewhere, so long as it cost them nothing in hosting, but anyone pushing "peering" also owns the "neutral" peering point (and so far, every offer I've seen charges Telecom much more than Telecom offered to charge anyone for the same services). The fact that they offer it up but refuse to take the same offer returned to them, indicates to me that they know their offer is unfair and made solely to falsely slander Telecom in the news to try to pressure Telecom into a poor business decision. Everyone wants Telecom to provide free transit, and do so by Telecom spending millions to meet them at their datacentre. I've not seen much of offers that didn't hint at that.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
what? by liamevo · 2013-01-31 01:50 · Score: 1

Your shocked sarcasm loses me... what point are you trying to make?
1. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Only 150?
2. Re:what? by tooyoung · 2013-01-31 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm shocked the submitter submitted a story to slashdot that even they thought wasn't newsworthy.
  
  Well, actually....
3. Re:what? by sirlark · 2013-01-31 03:37 · Score: 2
  
  Indeed! Only 150 requests compared to 500,000 memebership within 14 hours of going live. Clearly this site exists substantially for piracy purposes, after all 0.003% of users (assuming those requests each targeted a unique user) are known infiringers!
4. Re:what? by Nethemas+the+Great · 2013-01-31 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'm shocked this attempt at making hay made it to the front page. I know that it's typical for crap to float to the top only to bury nerdworthy content but this one reaches a whole new level.
  Take down notices are an ordinary part of modern life for a hosting service. Timothy are you asleep at the wheel or do you need to rejigger your rubber stamp bot?
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Stung? Really? by 0xdeadbeef · 2013-01-31 01:52 · Score: 1

He is Dotcom! You are like the buzzing of flies to him!
Sounds like a great success. by jtownatpunk.net · 2013-01-31 01:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

150 complaints out of the millions of accounts they claim is pretty darn good.
1. Re:Sounds like a great success. by EasyTarget · 2013-01-31 02:43 · Score: 2
  
  Indeed; Interesting how the article does not point out how many items are currently shared on Mega either, which will already be in the millions.
  
  --
  "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
2. Re:Sounds like a great success. by GIL_Dude · 2013-01-31 03:19 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Well since the files are encrypted, these 150 files are simply ones where the user shared the link and the key in the URL. This can also be done via mega-search.me. In fact, according to Ars Technica http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/01/wait-for-it-select-files-from-mega-now-indexed-on-third-party-site/, several people have shared copyrighted material using Mega as storage and mega-search.me as the locator. These files can easily be checked by the copyright holder.
3. Re:Sounds like a great success. by Bob9113 · 2013-01-31 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  150 complaints out of the millions of accounts they claim is pretty darn good.
  Indeed. Here's a quick thumbnail check against YouTube:
  More than 120 million videos have been claimed by Content ID
  If 150 notices is getting "stung", what does 120 million count as?
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
4. Re:Sounds like a great success. by SuricouRaven · 2013-01-31 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Including one of mine, for the music in a silent movie made so long ago the copyright had actually expired. I looked up the date of the producer's death and checked very throughly. Bug Vaudeville.
  I can only theorise that while the producer/animator had died then, the composer managed to live on into his nineties - and with the US term of life plus seventy years, the music may still in copyright. The content ID notice claimed to come from a 'collecting society.' I can't verify this theory, as I have no idea who the composer was, and youtube's appeal system is just a joke - none of my attempts to contact them got so much as a response. It's quite possible that the music actually did expire in copyright years ago, and the collecting society merely 'neglected' to remove it from their list seventy years after the composer's death.
  So I moved the video to my own site.
  http://birds-are-nice.me/video/bug.ogv
Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 01:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Megaupload had the same policy of removing copyrighted content. Even providing special access for rights holders to flag content themselves.
It's not like Doctom wanted Mega to be a Pirate Bay...
1. Re:Why is this news? by Jawnn · 2013-01-31 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  Megaupload had the same policy of removing copyrighted content. Even providing special access for rights holders to flag content themselves.
  It's not like Doctom wanted Mega to be a Pirate Bay...
  Quite right. But then if I'm Megaupload, I'm not going to cry about all this hub-bub. It's free publicity.
Re:Only 150? by Zappy · 2013-01-31 01:59 · Score: 4, Funny

So, the upload is working now?
Filesharing sites are pointless when YouTube... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 02:01 · Score: 2, Informative

... is around. You can find almost any song on YT and a ton of full-length movies, all for free. You can attach "listento" after www. in YT's URL and download an MP3 of a video, for example. There's many other sites like that. And with iTunes Match around, you can convert any mp3 to a really nice 256kbps AAC file.
Movies are a little bit trickier but if you get creative with your google searching, you'll find sites with embedded YT private videos fairly easily.
I used to download a lot and was a "quality snob" and only used to download 320kbps files or FLAC files but now I just don't care.
So while these filesharing sites are getting all this flak from the RIAA/MPAA etc, the best way to "share" is just a click away on YT.
1. Re:Filesharing sites are pointless when YouTube... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 02:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This video is not available in your country...
2. Re:Filesharing sites are pointless when YouTube... by cpghost · 2013-01-31 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  How do you share e-books via YouTube? By displaying every page in a video for a couple of minutes (or milliseconds)?
  
  --
  cpghost at Cordula's Web.
3. Re:Filesharing sites are pointless when YouTube... by Hatta · 2013-01-31 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'd rather gouge my ears out.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
4. Re:Filesharing sites are pointless when YouTube... by j00r0m4nc3r · 2013-01-31 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe not like that, but it's conceivable that you could steganographically hide files inside the coded video stream, like how they embed digital watermarks. An interesting idea.
5. Re:Filesharing sites are pointless when YouTube... by mTor · 2013-01-31 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Have you tried ProxMate for Firefox? I use to to unblock when I want to watch some UK shows. I'm sure it works the other way around (i.e. for foreigners who want to watch American-only programming).
  Proxmate just loads the page through a proxy and the video is streamed through your connection so there's no slowdown due to a use of a slow proxy.
6. Re:Filesharing sites are pointless when YouTube... by Stewie241 · 2013-01-31 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  I would be surprised if Youtube didn't recode your files at least somewhat, which would likely cause the loss of any encoded data.
7. Re:Filesharing sites are pointless when YouTube... by Hamsterdan · 2013-01-31 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Won't install on Firefox 16
  
  --
  I've got better things to do tonight than die.
8. Re:Filesharing sites are pointless when YouTube... by SolitaryMan · 2013-01-31 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  Your definition of the word "any" is very different from mine.
  
  --
  May Peace Prevail On Earth
zzzzzz by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-01-31 02:07 · Score: 1

zzzzzzzz
1. Re:zzzzzz by larppaxyz · 2013-01-31 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, what makes whole Mega thing interesting? Free storage? History of Mr. Dot? I would never upload anything to that service.
150 is significant? by BLKMGK · 2013-01-31 02:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

He supposedly got a million subscribers on the first day, including myself. 150 takedown notices is significant in light of this? Google probably process that many in a half day and no one says a thing. That this new service has so few should probably be the news rather than the other way around. This seems pretty trivial to me, especially in light of the fact that his previous service handled so many takedowns that they granted the content folks special access like YouTube does. Bet he doesn't do that again...

--
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
1. Re:150 is significant? by GrahamJ · 2013-01-31 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  The other way around IS the news. TFA is clearly tongue-in-cheek.
2. Re:150 is significant? by RandomUsername99 · 2013-01-31 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, compared to YouTube, I'm quite sure this is peanuts.
On another news by fredprado · 2013-01-31 02:13 · Score: 1

Youtube received 150 take down notices this week.
1. Re:On another news by angelbar · 2013-01-31 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  I wil not be surprised if Youtube get 150 takedowns in half a day.
  
  --
  -no sig today-
2. Re:On another news by Stewie241 · 2013-01-31 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  According to http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/ (for google):
  13 million requests received in the last month to remove links from Google. That equates to over 430,000 in one day or roughly 150 requests every 30 seconds.
  Youtube may not be on quite the same scale, but I would still be surprised if it took more than an hour to reach 150 requests.
But... But.. by Greyfox · 2013-01-31 02:13 · Score: 3, Funny

Encryption! Der!
Seems he learned his lesson at least, and actually removed the content. You know what would be funny? If the FBI asked him to keep the files to help with an on-going investigation.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Re:But... But.. by j00r0m4nc3r · 2013-01-31 02:50 · Score: 2
  
  Fool me once, shame on you, fool me.... you can't get fooled again.
2. Re:But... But.. by Issarlk · 2013-01-31 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  FB what ? There's a reason he refuses to host anything in the USA anymore. So he can tell the FBI to GTFO.
Re:fire sharing huh? by khr · 2013-01-31 02:14 · Score: 1

Didn't learn from Prometheus, huh?
150? by Mr_Silver · 2013-01-31 02:16 · Score: 2

Raise your hand if you're shocked, simply shocked.
Honestly? I'm surprised they didn't have more than 150.

--
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Re:Huh?? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 02:17 · Score: 1

The uploader probably posted they key on a public forum so other people can download the content.
So the problem for filesharers is "how can I share my key with lots of anonymous downloader types whilst not letting the content owners find it".
FIRE! by shemyazaz · 2013-01-31 02:21 · Score: 1

"fire-sharing" I am intrigued by your idea and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
The real question: incentives to pirate... by nweaver · 2013-01-31 02:23 · Score: 2

The big reason that MegaUpload got into huge trouble is they structured things to create an incentive for piracy: those who uploaded "popular" files would earn $$$, and the "takedown" implemented by MegaUpload was deliberately defective: only taking down single URLs when, behind the scene, they kept the files available with different URLs. Thus the old MegaUpload deliberately created a structure to encourage and benefit from piracy.
If the new Mega drops this incentive structure, and their encryption eliminates the deduplication, they should be in much more solid shape.

--
Test your net with Netalyzr
1. Re:The real question: incentives to pirate... by SuricouRaven · 2013-02-01 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  It'd have made little difference. Pirates would just have started uploading rar archives encrypted with different passowords or single-byte changes in the .nfo file. The piracy continues, and megaupload's costs increase significantly.
wat by JustOK · 2013-01-31 02:52 · Score: 1

rased ad bt t aes t ard t te tgs

--
rewriting history since 2109
Sure I learned from Prometheus by Trashcan+Romeo · 2013-01-31 03:11 · Score: 1

Never see another Ridley Scott science fiction movie again.
1. Re:Sure I learned from Prometheus by progician · 2013-01-31 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  I missed out on that one, what happened with Prometheus?
Compress and rename by CoolCalmChris · 2013-01-31 03:12 · Score: 1

Anyone that thinks "fullalbumname.zip" is an acceptable title for something linked on a public blog or site needs a check up from the neck up.
1. Re:Compress and rename by jedidiah · 2013-01-31 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  You're the one that needs a check up.
  You really have 0.0 imagination.
  in a lot of cases could mean any number of things. Words and phrases are exclusive property of the RIAA.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Mega knows what the uploaded files contained? by MisterZimbu · 2013-01-31 03:16 · Score: 1

My understanding is that that's pretty much SOP for any hosting provider (and possibly even the required action by the DMCA) and that it's illegal to DMCA something that you don't own the copyright to, or something that doesn't violate the copyright.
Of course, we're dealing with large companies and rich people here, who as we all know are immune to laws.
I guess the "Mega" business model is working. by OneSmartFellow · 2013-01-31 04:00 · Score: 1

When I read the details about the circumstances under which one would need to pay to access the site, it struck me that Kim had hit upon a truly novel idea; to wit, make the copyright holder pay in order to access his own copyrighted material - in order to verify of course !

Genius Kim, pure genius !
Re:Hmm...; Money better spent buying a politician. by meerling · 2013-01-31 04:10 · Score: 1

How will they become tired when so many of the copyright take-down notices are being sent by poorly automated software-bots?
Re:Only 150? by TheP4st · 2013-01-31 04:24 · Score: 1

It is, downloading on the other hand.... meh!

--
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
DMCA Takedown Notice - I got one by Subgenius · 2013-01-31 04:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

Mega cannot see the contents of files. The DMCA notices are simply based on the filenames when linked through search engines.
I created an 80 byte text file that contained the words "star" and "wars" in the FILE NAME, with the actual content being "This is a text file..." with no internal links or other content. Using the mega-&&&.me search engine, I posted the link NAME.
Not surprisingly, I received a DMCA notice within 10 hours of uploading, SOLEY based on the file name.
No big surprise here. I expected the result from the test.

--
Toil is Stupid. Don't be Stupid.
1. Re:DMCA Takedown Notice - I got one by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  counter claim it and hope they sue you. then keep doing it over and over again. Eventually they will stop or you will own the mpaa.
2. Re:DMCA Takedown Notice - I got one by Subgenius · 2013-01-31 05:13 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I've already filed a counter. I'm waiting to see what happens next.
  
  --
  Toil is Stupid. Don't be Stupid.
3. Re:DMCA Takedown Notice - I got one by Dr.+Spork · 2013-01-31 05:21 · Score: 2
  
  That's a pretty brave test to run. It's like smearing blood on plastic fish, and holding it in front of a shark to see if it bites down on it.
  I mean, your innocence is obvious and should be trivially easy to prove. My first reaction - "I'd never try that with the sort of prosecutors and dirty legal practices of today" - maybe indicates that I've lost a lot of faith in our justice system, and adopted the policy of keeping my head down to avoid trouble. But we all know that a population with this sort of attitude is most susceptible to tyranny, so kudos to you, for waving that bloody fish in front of the hungry shark!
4. Re:DMCA Takedown Notice - I got one by Princeofcups · 2013-01-31 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Mega cannot see the contents of files. The DMCA notices are simply based on the filenames when linked through search engines.
  I created an 80 byte text file that contained the words "star" and "wars" in the FILE NAME, with the actual content being "This is a text file..." with no internal links or other content. Using the mega-&&&.me search engine, I posted the link NAME.
  Not surprisingly, I received a DMCA notice within 10 hours of uploading, SOLEY based on the file name.
  No big surprise here. I expected the result from the test.
  So are we going back to the age of search engine misspellings, for those who actually remember the pre-web FTP based internet? Ah, pron, gfi, those were the days.
  
  --
  The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
5. Re:DMCA Takedown Notice - I got one by periol · 2013-01-31 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  appreciate you doing this. if enough people were like you, we could have some fun overwhelming the DMCA system.
6. Re:DMCA Takedown Notice - I got one by Master+Moose · 2013-01-31 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Interested in Knowing:
  How long is it going to take to get action on your counter-claim. If they can respond to your "wrong-doings" in such a quick time. I would like to know how quick they are to accept their own over zealous mistakes
  
  --
  . . .gone when the morning comes
7. Re:DMCA Takedown Notice - I got one by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  File a report with the police. Your file obviously was not violating anyone's copyright. Anyone who looks at it for 2 seconds simply can not make that mistake.
  That means someone filed the DMCA complaint fully knowing that they did not own the copyright on it.
  That is perjury and that is a criminal offense. You now have knowledge of a crime that has been committed and as a good citizen it is your duty to report it.
  Yes, I know some claim it may have been an automated process. But:
  1. You do not know that. Actually, it seems unlikely that anyone would setup a really dumb automated process that could very easily commit crimes, on a massive scale. That is not something a reasonable person would do.
  2. It does not make a difference, the crime still has been committed.
  3. It is not your duty to investigate the details anyway, your only duty is to report the crime.
  Be a good citizen !
8. Re:DMCA Takedown Notice - I got one by Subgenius · 2013-01-31 09:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  FYI, this is what their notices look like (cut/paste, left the speling errers in place)
  ---CUT---
  We are in receipt of a takedown notice affecting the following public link in your account:
  (link removed)
  Please be reminded that MEGA respects the copyrights of others and requires that users of the MEGA cloud service comply with the laws of copyright. You are strictly prohibited from using the MEGA cloud service to infringe copyrights. You may not upload, download, store, share, display, stream, distribute, e-mail, link to, transmit or otherwise make available any files, data, or content that infringes any copyright or other proprietary rights of any person or entity.
  Furthermore, please be reminded that, pursuant to our Terms of Service, accounts found to be repeat infringers are subject to termination.
  For further enquiries or to file a counter notice, please do not hestitate to contact us by replying to this e-mail.
  Best regards,
  Team MEGA
  ---CUT---
  I sent the reply to their message at 7:00pm last night (Pacific, GMT-8) but as of 1:00pm pacific today, have not heard anything back.
  (watching for replies, black helicopters...)
  
  --
  Toil is Stupid. Don't be Stupid.
9. Re:DMCA Takedown Notice - I got one by Rich0 · 2013-01-31 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  Agree that this is perjury, but good luck getting anybody to prosecute it. EVERYBODY violates the law every day. The reason that not everybody is in jail is that prosecutors get to pick who they go after. They can go after anybody they want to since everybody is a lawbreaker, but they focus their attention where self-interest and ideology demand.
short sighted response by dutchwhizzman · 2013-01-31 05:11 · Score: 1

People share lots of files that are not on youtube. Linux Distributions, high quality audio and video (yes, those aren't on youtube) and content that may be illegal to display on youtube, depending on which country you are visiting from or due to youtubes rules. Thinking that some regulated video site with ads can replace people's wish to share whatever they wish to share is very short sighted.

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Why so serious? by Tmann72 · 2013-01-31 06:33 · Score: 2

"Raise your hand if you're shocked, simply shocked." Shocked that users would upload illegal content? Nope. Shocked that yet more articles come out trying to make Mega look bad, but all it says is that they are following the law? Nope again. I don't know if they were complacent or not when MegaUpload was taken down, but I constantly get the feeling the media is always wording the discussion in such a way that demonizes Mega on the assumption that they were guilty. What ever happened to fair neutral reporting? It's such a shame.
1. Re:Why so serious? by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2013-01-31 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  The people behind the mainstream media is the same people behind **AA. It is a monolithic force.
  
  --
  New Economic Perspectives
You missed the point by DrJimbo · 2013-01-31 08:41 · Score: 2

Hasn't YouTube figured it out? Sounds like Mega just needs a pseudo-copyright infringement tool to scan what's submitted.
All the content on the new Mega site is encrypted and the site owners don't have the decryption keys to the encrypted content. Without the keys they can't do automated scanning like YouTube does.
Other site(s) are publishing links to Mega content with decryption keys embedded. I assume these are what are used for the take-down notices. Since each take-down notice includes the decryption key, it allows Mega to see the content and verify that it should be taken down.
The whole point of Mega is that they don't have to automatically scan all the content.

--
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Re:Huh?? by MadMaverick9 · 2013-01-31 17:27 · Score: 1

cool site ... but it doesn't work ...
I get this very informative error message:

En raison d'un script dÃ©veloppÃ© par Mega pour supprimer l'intÃ©gralitÃ© des fichiers indexÃ©s sur Mega-search, le moteur est momentanÃ©ment indisponible. Une solution pour palier Ã ce problÃme sera apportÃ©e d'ici peu.
And slashdot still can not handle anything but 7-bit ascii. Ever heard about utf8?