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.

42 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 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?
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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."
7. 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.)
8. 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.
9. 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?
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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
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
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...
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...
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
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.
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.
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
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!
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 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.
2. 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!
3. 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.
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.
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