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.

15 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 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
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.)
5. 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?
6. 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.
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 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.
Re:Only 150? by Zappy · 2013-01-31 01:59 · Score: 4, Funny

So, the upload is working now?
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?
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 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.