Court Finds Megaupload Could Be Guilty Of Direct Infringement In Perfect 10 Case

from the say-what-now? dept

Mon, Aug 1st 2011 11:01am — Mike Masnick

Perfect 10 is probably a lot more famous for filing copyright infringement lawsuits than publishing any sort of images. And it seems to always lose. In the process, the company has helped set a variety of useful precedents, mainly in the area of fair use. Yet the company forges on, suing every third party it can find. Last year, we detailed RapidShare's fascinating response to Perfect 10, which finally lays out in great detail some of the company's practices -- such as allegations that it sends faulty or otherwise questionable takedown notices in the hopes that they're not taken down so the company can sue.

Earlier this year, we noted that its latest target was the well known file storage service, MegaUpload. Given the similarity with this case to many other Perfect 10 cases, we had hoped that the judge would make quick work of dismissing it. Tragically, that's not what happened. Embedded below is the unfortunate ruling from Judge Irma Gonzalez, who mostly ruled against MegaUpload in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit. You can read the whole thing, but the truly scary part for me is where the court says MegaUpload may be guilty of direct infringement.

This is crazy. Direct infringement charges are used against the actual party doing the infringing. Most service providers don't have to deal with that, but instead the focus is on third party liability, things like contributory infringement, vicarious infringement or inducement. Here, however, the judge actually says that MegaUpload is involved enough that it could be found guilty of direct infringement:

Drawing all reasonable inferences in Perfect 10's favor, Megaupload serves as more than a passive conduit, and more than a mere "file storage" company: it has created distinct websites, presumably in an effort to streamline users' access to different types of media (e.g., megaporn.com, megavideo.com)... it encourages and, in some cases pays, its users to upload vast amounts of popular media through its Rewards Programs.... it disseminates URLs for various files throughout the internet... it provides payouts to affiliate websites who maintain a catalogue of all available files... and last, at a minimum, it is plausibly aware of the ongoing rampant infringement taking place on its websites. Taken together, Perfect 10 has adequately alleged Megaupload has engaged in volitional conduct sufficient to hold it liable for direct infringement....

This still doesn't make any sense. Everything described seems relevant to indirect third party liability. None of it seems to involve direct infringement. Honestly, I'm just confused how the court made the leap here. While this was just to deny the motion to dismiss, this might not bode well for Megaupload... and Perfect 10 may finally score a big legal win.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, direct infringement
Companies: megaupload, perfect 10

135 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:13am

Oh great. Cue the "The free lunch is coming to an end" comment in 5...4...3...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:19pm
  
  Re:
  I've been telling you guys the party is over. The US legal system agrees with me. Freetards agree with you. Who do you think has more influence over the situation?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The US legal system agrees with me.
    
    Technologically clueless people agree with me.
    
    Freetards agree with you.
    
    Technically astute people agree with you.
    
    Now, who do you really think will control the situation?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The people that can throw you in jail or fine you hundreds of thousands of dollars, or the people who can yell loudly on a blog? Hrm, that's a tough one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - abc gum, 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The people that can throw you in jail or fine you hundreds of thousands of dollars,"
        
        Because of an accusation ... no trial, no evidence and no day in court - this is awesome
        
        How far we have come, rejoice this is progress.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 4:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't know if you noticed, but this post is about a trial.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 6:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't try to use logic with the idiot members of this site...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Brendan (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I like to picture a bunch of you copytards sitting around the lunchroom at Dying Publisher Inc. and laughing at these stories. You smile at each other as you post these "scathing" comments, and occasionally high five.
        
        Yet you fail to notice the day when your nice lunchroom table and chairs are replaced with white plastic lawn furniture. Or when Sally and Joe from accounting (the biggest department) just stop showing up to join in the laughs, mostly because they are no longer employed at the office.
        
        Your days are numbered, and the numbers are looking pretty small.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - techflaws.org (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 10:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Or the people who'll still get their stuff via darknets and sneakernets? Hrm, that's a tough one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 3 Aug 2011 @ 4:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The people that can throw you in jail or fine you hundreds of thousands of dollars,
        
        They might get away with doing that to a few people.
        
        In the days of Henry VIII doing that to a few ringleaders generally worked. By the time of Charles I it didn't work. BY the late 18th century (American and French Revolutions) it really didn't work. As technology and education have progressed so this has worked less and less. Those who would control the masses have had to resort to subtler means. The suggestion you make of going back to such crude measures can only be a sign of desperation.
        
        Statistically the chance of being put in jail for doing something technical on the internet is insignificant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Alien Bard, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "I've been telling you guys the party is over. The [Nazi] legal system agrees with me. [The Jews] agree with you. Who do you think has more influence over the situation?"
    
    No wonder you prefer not to provide any potentially identifying information.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No wonder you prefer not to provide any potentially identifying information.
      
      Says the troll posting with a fake name.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So you think that illegal file sharing is the same as the Holocaust? When did the government start tattooing freetards? Putting them in concentration camps? Putting them in ovens and performing grotesque scientific experiments on them?
      
      Yeah, you're failing miserably. I'm sure that anyone that went through the Holocaust would love to hear how you're being persecuted in the same way. You're not doing anything for your cause by equating it with what was one of the most horrible acts in human history. This is why no one takes you seriously.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - abc gum, 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please - do not give them any ideas
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 5:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one is going to tattoo anyone or put someone in an oven for infringement. Anyone who thinks otherwise has serious delusions. If people learn to keep to the issues they won't make the whole of the 'freetard' (not my word) movement look like a joke.
        
        Remember, people tend to look at the loudest and most retarded arguments from the other side. Look at Christians for a good example. I am one, but I don't like being lumped in with the people who are starting wars, trying to get video games banned, claiming that the earth is flat, or that every kind of animal that ever existed exists now. That's how you turn people off to a movement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...Yet. No-one is going to tattoo anyone....yet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2011 @ 1:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one is going to tattoo anyone or put someone in an oven for infringement.
        
        So that's your yardstick? Well the Nazis didn't either, at first. I suppose you'd say everything they did up until the day they started that was just fine.
        
        You greedtards (not my word either) make me sick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2011 @ 5:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow. Just wow. You're really going to sit there and tell me that you're enduring the same hardships as the Jewish people in Nazi Germany because it's a civil offence to download the latest episode of the Gossip Girls?
        
        Masnick, you may wanna tell these folks to switch sides. While you have well reasoned arguments, you don't need people like this making all of you look like jackasses.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2011 @ 11:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow. Just wow. You're really going to sit there and tell me that you're enduring the same hardships as the Jewish people in Nazi Germany because it's a civil offence to download the latest episode of the Gossip Girls?
        
        Wow. Just wow. You're really going to sit there and claim that he said that and also deny that there are criminal copyright infringement laws? Talk about jackasses. You people make me sick, too.
        
        Abolish copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 4 Aug 2011 @ 2:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Remember, people tend to look at the loudest and most retarded arguments from the other side.
        
        Actually the argument is not that retarded. No-one is really claiming thatthe situation re copyright infringement is as bad as the holocaust, merely that it shares certain characteristics. What we are looking at in both cases is one side trying to get its own way by gerrymandering the law. The prediction is that this will not work in the long term and that those who work that way will end up looking bad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      utter fail
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The US legal system agrees with me.
    
    So far, this is the only case that has ruled that such things constitute direct infringement. For example, the Supreme Court did not rule that Napster, Grokster, etc. were directly infringing, even though they considered that option.
    
    If this case doesn't simply get settled, then either the judge will rule for contributory, vicarious, or inducing infringement, or it will be overturned on appeal. There's simply too much case law that contradicts a ruling of direct infringement.
    
    Of course, any of those things mean you can be fined the statutory rates, so it's not much better for Megaupload.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "If this case doesn't simply get settled, then either the judge will rule for contributory, vicarious, or inducing infringement, or it will be overturned on appeal. There's simply too much case law that contradicts a ruling of direct infringement."
      
      Without looking at the complaint, I'm not sure if that's true.
      
      It sounds like "volitional conduct" was the only matter argued, not whether MegaUpload was engaging in acts that would constitute direct infringement if "volitional."
      
      At the very least, you could uphold this ruling on the grounds that it is a reasonable inference that, from the facts alleged, MegaUpload engaged in conduct constituting direct infringement (e.g. made at least one copy of a work in the course of its operations).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It sounds like "volitional conduct" was the only matter argued, not whether MegaUpload was engaging in acts that would constitute direct infringement if "volitional."
        
        The phrase "direct infringement" was used by the judge herself to refer to acts committed by third parties using Megaupload. She ruled that if Megaupload's conduct is "volitional," it can be directly infringing.
        
        What's interesting is that she quotes Arista v. Usenet and Capitol v. MP3Tunes. The Arista case ruled (from Playboy v. Hardenburgh) that the service provider must have some sort of active screening process in order to "transform Defendants from passive providers of a space in which infringing activities happened to occur to active participants in the process of copyright infringement." A screening process was not even alleged in this case.
        
        Capitol v. MP3Tunes is still ongoing, to my knowledge; the latest court document I could find was the ruling on jurisdiction and venue from August 2009. Neither that ruling, nor any other I've come across, suggest that MP3Tunes could possibly be guilty of direct infringement. (Likely she has access to a document that I don't.)
        
        What's also interesting is that she dismisses the "vicarious liability" claim, ruling (from Napster) that a service provider must operate in a "closed system" for vicarious liability to attach.
        
        This will definitely be an interesting one to watch, for the legal wonks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 3:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The phrase "direct infringement" was used by the judge herself to refer to acts committed by third parties using Megaupload. "
        
        Where?
        
        "She ruled that if Megaupload's conduct is "volitional," it can be directly infringing."
        
        That's not the same thing. "Volition" is necessary but not sufficient for direct infringement. You also have to actuall do something prohibited by 106. Here opinion sort of made it sound like there wasn't any debate whether the plaintiff alleged copying, etc., but only whether any such acts were volitional.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 4:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The phrase "direct infringement" was used by the judge herself to refer to acts committed by third parties using Megaupload. "
        
        Where?
        
        It's on Page 7:
        Taken together, Perfect 10 has adequately alleged Megaupload has engaged in volitional conduct sufficient to hold it liable for direct infringement.
        
        This, despite the fact that:
        Megaupload also notes that Perfect 10 does not allege Megaupload itself uploaded any Perfect 10 materials. The Court agrees. Perfect 10 does not plausibly allege Megaupload itself uploaded any Perfect 10 materials.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 5:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        uploading is not the only conduct that might be infringing, and that first quote does not refer to any specific conduct (third party or otherwise).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 6:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        uploading is not the only conduct that might be infringing, and that first quote does not refer to any specific conduct (third party or otherwise).
        
        That was my point: she appears to be saying that "volition" alone, even without conduct, is sufficient to prove direct infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 7:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "volition" alone, even without conduct, is sufficient to prove direct infringement.
        
        Let me clarify: she appears to be saying that "volition" is sufficient to prove direct infringement, even if Megaupload did not directly initiate any violation any of the rights in 17 USC 106.
        
        That is not the standard that was established in Napster, Grokster, Limewire, etc. - all of which were found guilty of indirect infringement (inducement, contributory, or vicarious), but not guilty of direct infringement.
        
        So, she appears to be ignoring case law and creating her own standard for direct infringement.
        
        Whether that is true going forward remains to be seen, of course. This is still an incredibly preliminary stage of the proceedings. Even if there is an eventual verdict of direct infringement, it's likely that will be overturned on appeal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2011 @ 11:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, she appears to be ignoring case law and creating her own standard for direct infringement.
        
        Just doing her part to keep the government's corporate partners happy, I guess.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, and this:
        
        e.g. made at least one copy of a work in the course of its operations
        
        ...was not even alleged, to my knowledge. That is, nobody at Megaupload was even alleged to have directly placed any material on their own servers. She seems to have ruled that "volition" alone is sufficient for direct infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 3:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, that's why I said it might be a reasonable inference from the facts alleged.
        
        Really, it's hard to know the meaning of this ruling without looking at the complaint. It might just be an incomplete or misleading description rather than a wrong ruling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 4:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, that's why I said it might be a reasonable inference from the facts alleged.
        
        I quoted it above, but in case you missed it, the judge outright rejected this inference.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 5:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No she did not.
        
        Uploading is not the only thing that might constitute direct infringement. That's quite a leap
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 7:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No she did not.
        
        She specifically rejected the idea that Megaupload initiated any act that infringed on any of the 106 rights. That's what's so troubling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      the only case that has ruled
      
      ...Sorry, it's not a ruling on the case, so I shouldn't have used that phrase. It's simply a ruling on a motion to dismiss, meaning it's not part of case law. Apologies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "It's simply a ruling on a motion to dismiss, meaning it's not part of case law"
        
        What? Rulings on motions to dismiss certainly are considered "case law."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Rulings on motions to dismiss certainly are considered "case law."
        
        It might be relevant in another motion to dismiss. But if another case cited this one as proof that volitional conduct alone is sufficient to show a ruling of direct infringement, I seriously doubt any judge would go for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 3:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This opinon/order is a ruling. It is a ruling on a motion to dismiss. The defendant moved for dismissal, and the court ruled on that motion.
        
        I do not understand the distinctions you are trying to make, and I don't think they are based in the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - blaktron (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Napster settled, but probably would have been guilty of direct commercial infringement if the RIAA had really gone balls out on it. Unfortunately. It was also the most amazing thing that ever happened and had even one record label seen the massive opportunity it presented one of them would have built iTunes and I wouldn't be forced to learn MacOS at work.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws.org (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 10:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Who do you think has more influence over the situation?
    
    Given that piracy continues unabated, who do you think?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:18am

how much money was payed off for this one to happen ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:21am

2...1.... "The free lunch is coming to an end"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:22am

Well, that's why appeal courts exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re:
  To draw out the legal process so the lawyers can charge for more hours?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PrometheeFeu (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, to fix the mistakes of lower-level courts.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:23am

"tragically"

lol. Yes, what a tragedy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 10:20pm
  
  Re:
  Exactly. You'll come around to this way of thinking soon enough. When you sell scissors to someone who kills someone else with them and they're coming for you, for example.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
blaktron (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:24am

MegaUpload....
Now see, MegaUpload might be actually guilty of Direct Infringement because of this little thing it does (that no one else does afaik): They let users upload files to MegaUpload, and then they sift through them and offer them on their pay sites MegaVideo etc. So in a sense, if you ignore the first step of the process, then they house the infriging content AND distribute through 2 separate wings of their business. I dont necessarily agree with the ruling, but I can certainly understand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:39am
  
  Re: MegaUpload....
  Agree. If they are advertising for people to upload stuff, paying them to do it and then grouping it based on the type of content, they are contributing far more to the process than a "dumb" provider that receives uploads from the public and responds to takedown notices.
  
  I can certainly see why a judge wouldn't dismiss and actually want to hear the trial.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ComputerAddict (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:48am
  
  Re: MegaUpload....
  I havn't ever used MegaUpload (downloaded or uploaded) but if there is some sort of content recognition and sorting process they may lose their 3rd party protections.
  
  It will probably come down to how it is sorted (manually by users, manually by employee's, automated by file type / meta data vs something like YouTube pattern recognition).
  
  Too bad that providing a product that is useful to people may be their downfall.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:43pm
    
    Re: Re: MegaUpload....
    I've created a directory of crack dealers in my area.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ComputerAddict (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 6:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re: MegaUpload....
      Thats fine,
      The question is have you sampled their products and categorized them into Grade A crack vs Crack Whore Grade
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AnonymousMe, 2 Aug 2011 @ 6:02pm
  
  Re: MegaUpload....
  What doy ou mean they "sift" through the content? You mean they determine what type of content it is, then offer to put it in other arms of the Mega{Enterprise}??
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:35am

Typo?
If this is the only place where the 'direct' word is used could it possibly be something as simple as a typo or transcriptionist error?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:49pm
  
  Re: Typo?
  No. That's the heading of the section.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:37am

Irma Gonzalez
Why is it that I've noticed that female judges are far more likely to be like this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- blaktron (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:39am
  
  Re: Irma Gonzalez
  Because you're a sexist trying to fit bigotry into your world view?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:54am
    
    Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
    Trying? I think he's being successful at it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
      Trying? I think he's being successful at it.
      
      He? How do you know the commenter was male? You're a sexist bigot.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - blaktron (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
        Because someone bigoted against women doesn't have to be a man. Do you know how much faster and easier suffrage would have been if all the women were on the same page?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
        The problem (WAY off topic) is that there are too many schools of thought, and very few people to get behind. One school of thought is:
        
        We fought for equal rights, and if you don't do this then you are setting women back thousands of years!!!1!
        
        The opposite school of thought (I've seen many grandmothers with this, and a few of the younger generation in the south):
        
        Women should be in the home or doing a small number of jobs designated 'for women' (nurse, teacher, secretary). If you're doing anything else then you are upsetting the natural order of things!!!1!11!!!
        
        The moderate school of thought has no-one leading the charge, but is incredibly sensible:
        
        Someone fought for me to have equal rights. I should be able to work in any job that I'm qualified for if I choose without being berated by women who are bigots. If I choose not to work, I shouldn't be berated by the other group of women bigots.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:35pm
    
    Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
    Hold on one sec...
    
    He might have a point since Judge Beryll Howell allowed the bittorrent lawsuits.
    
    It was also Judge Nagle Hunt(?) that allowed the first domain seizures.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:42pm
    
    Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
    Because you're a sexist trying to fit bigotry into your world view?
    
    I thought the commenter was a feminist complimenting women on their fine judicial skills. How's that sexist?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - blaktron (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
      Because it lumps a large and diverse group of people under a uniform heading of 'women' and applies individual positive and negative traits of some of the group members to the entire group.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
        Because it lumps a large and diverse group of people under a uniform heading of 'women' and applies individual positive and negative traits of some of the group members to the entire group.
        
        Two points. First, it is only considered "sexist" if it disparages someone based on their gender. The OP didn't do that. Second, the OP didn't refer to all "women" as a group, only the ones who are judges and making rulings such as this one.
        
        Epic fail for you on both points trying to play the sexist card.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
        "First, it is only considered "sexist" if it disparages someone based on their gender."
        
        Says who?
        
        Also, lumping a large and diverse group of people under the heading "women judges" is no better than lumping a large and diverse group of people under the heading "women."
        
        Lol at you with your "epic fail" post.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
        Says who?
        
        I think most people recognize that as the general usage of the term. But I suppose that by *your* rules, any mention of gender is an excuse to play the sexist card. But then, by your rules, guess what that makes you: Sexist! You fail miserably both ways.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
        As long as "most people" doesn't include Wikipedia or Merriam-Webster, you're right!
        
        "Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the application of the belief or attitude that there are characteristics implicit to one's gender that indirectly affect one's abilities in unrelated areas." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism
        
        "1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
        
        2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
        What part of "prejudice or discrimination" don't you understand? Oh, the parts that you're obviously trying to ignore. Thanks for your support.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 3:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
        prejudice and discrimination =/= disparagement.
        
        This demonstrates your level of English comprehension, so I'm not going to worry about it anymore.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2011 @ 12:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
        This demonstrates your level of English comprehension, so I'm not going to worry about it anymore.
        
        Care to provide an example of a prejudicial or discriminatory remark that isn't disparaging?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2011 @ 1:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irma Gonzalez
        Wait a minute, I think I agree with him. For example, there's a Women's Health Center just down the road from me. That's clearly a sexist name for the place. Then there's the BET network, or Black Entertainment Television. Another obviously racist organization. And don't even get me started on the Jewish Defense League.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:39am

No, guess not. Should have finished reading the entire doc before firing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:42am

Megaupload IS "more than a passive conduit".
I can't imagine reaching any other conclusion. They knowingly host content which at a glance is copyrighted, and charge money for access. I believe that they operate out of Germany, and the loose rules there are the only factor that has protected them thus far. -- As I've mentioned, soon as these cases get to court where an absolute yes/no is forced, the copyright side will undoubtedly "win".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:45am
  
  Re: Megaupload IS "more than a passive conduit".
  A glance does not infringement make.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Megaupload IS "more than a passive conduit".
    Yes it is. If someone sees something of theirs on that site that is copyrighted and there without permission, boom: that's infringement.
    
    You guys need to get your head out of the sand. Your willful blindness approach is an epic fail every time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Megaupload IS "more than a passive conduit".
      Yes it is. If someone sees something of theirs on that site that is copyrighted and there without permission, boom: that's infringement.
      
      But by whoever put it there, not necessarily the site in question. Big difference.
      
      You guys need to get your head out of the sand. Your willful blindness approach is an epic fail every time.
      
      People really need to get their out of the sand and realize what the copyright industry is trying to do. Otherwise, their blindness will result in an epic fail.
      
      FTFY
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 6:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Megaupload IS "more than a passive conduit".
      Nope. You don't get to say it's infringement, nor I, nor, MegaUpload. Only a judge can.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:08pm
  
  Re: Megaupload IS "more than a passive conduit".
  If Viacom cannot tell "at a glance" whether material is infringing, how is anyone else supposed to?
  
  Yet Viacom seemed to think that YouTube should be able to tell.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bob, 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:03pm
    
    Re: Re: Megaupload IS "more than a passive conduit".
    Oh come on. In 99% of the cases, the infringer is uploading something like a major motion picture or an album from a major band. It's not like these 99% of the people have a plausible reason to believe that the zippy computer generated graphics were actually done back in the 1910s and are therefore in the public domain.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 3:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Megaupload IS "more than a passive conduit".
      The point, in case you missed it, is that Viacom sued Google over Youtube videos uploaded by Viacom. If Perfect 10 wants to go after the uploaders, that's fine (though not productive). But how is Megaupload supposed to know which materials are authorized and which are not?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bob, 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re: Megaupload IS "more than a passive conduit".
  Yes, but you're posting here in la-la land where people think that they can spout the word "innovation" and it makes it all okay.
  
  In almost every other corner of the law, helping the criminals find each other is called being an accomplice. If you run a directory of hitmen and help people find the right one to match their needs, it's not "free speech". Nope. It's called being an accomplice.
  
  If you create a directory of cars and help people find the one they want to steal, that's called being an accomplice. It's not free speech. It's not "innovation". It's a crime.
  
  Yet, people here continue to denigrate the hard work of people like Martin Luther King and Peter Zenger just to try to dodge their inevitable guilt.
  
  Sigh. At moments like this, I almost feel like the $150,000 penalty is actually fair.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 3:24pm
    
    Re: Re: Megaupload IS
    People once talked about YouTube like this (Viacom still does!). Thank holy science heads stuck as far up the ass as yours didn't prevail.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 5:16pm
    
    Re: Re: Megaupload IS "more than a passive conduit".
    "If you create a directory of cars and help people find the one they want to steal, that's called being an accomplice. It's not free speech. It's not "innovation". It's a crime. "
    
    Perhaps it's a crime, but it's not the crime of "car theft". If you cover up evidence of a murder, you are perhaps guilty of obstruction of justice, but not of murder - even though you may have helped the murderer.
    
    Similarily, helping someone to infringe is not DIRECT infringement. By definition, it's INdirect, and has different law that applies to it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 12:20am
    
    Re: Re: Megaupload IS "more than a passive conduit".
    In almost every other corner of the law, helping the criminals find each other is called being an accomplice.
    
    Which is third party liability. Which would make this indirect, not direct infringement.
    
    So you're missing the entire point of the article. How typical.
    
    If you create a directory of cars and help people find the one they want to steal, that's called being an accomplice. It's not free speech. It's not "innovation". It's a crime.
    
    You really need to learn the difference between direct and indirect. It'll make you look less foolish.
    
    Sigh. At moments like this, I almost feel like the $150,000 penalty is actually fair.
    
    You post an entire comment showing pure ignorance of the law, and then close with that? Hilarious.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2011 @ 1:20am
    
    Re: Re: Megaupload IS "more than a passive conduit".
    If you create a directory of cars and help people find the one they want to steal, that's called being an accomplice. It's not free speech. It's not "innovation". It's a crime.
    
    If you publish a map of streets and people use it to find the bank they want to rob, that's called being an accomplice. It's not free speech. It's not "innovation". It's a crime.
    /s
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:45am

Actually, the judge is getting it right, for all of the right reasons.

Megaupload doesn't just allow you to upload a file and point others to it (as a straight file host might) but they are also providing a streamlined user interface, and are aggregating the content (similar in manner to YouTube). There is a point where this type of service has to be aware of the content they are putting up, and realize that it is in violation.

At the point of aggregation, they could become a first party infringer.

Mike, I am surprised you can't see this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:47am
  
  Re:
  There is a point where this type of service has to be aware of the content they are putting up, and realize that it is in violation.
  
  What point would that be?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jackn, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    when they resell it would be a good point to check
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What are they reselling?
      
      And that still doesn't address the issue of magically knowing what is infringing and what isn't, since a judge hasn't weighed in on any of it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's pretty simple, actually. Do you have a license for it? No? End of issue.
        
        ... and no, an anonymous user cannot grant you a license over clearly copyrighted material. It's not magic, it's pretty much common sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "It's pretty simple, actually. Do you have a license for it? No? End of issue. "
        
        It is nowhere near that simple.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jackn, 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you have a license or is it fair use.
        
        It is that simple.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 3:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fair use is exponentially less simple than "do you have a license."
        
        Also, even if you don't have a license and it's not fair use, that is not "end of issue," because there is a question as to who is liable (y'know, the point of this article/thread).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2011 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So when I paid money and received the 'goods' in exchange, what 'license' did I purchase?
        
        I seem to recall that the merchant treated the sale as just that, a sale, I wasn't 'licensed' the ability to listen to music, I was SOLD the music to listen to or use however I wanted to... I don't recall being presented with a list of 'licensed rights' with any of my music purchases over the years, so when did I agree that I was only 'licensing' the music I purchased?
        
        Show me the license that was presented to me and that I agreed to before purchasing music on purchases of: Phonograph, 45 (smaller phonograph for those newbies), 8-Track, Cassette or CD (technically CD's may have a 'license' included, but it's not one that I saw or agreed to before I purchased it, so I'm not legally bound to comply with it from my perspective.....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jackn, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, no go, guilty
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 6:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not for you to decide.
        
        Take it to court and win, then you can say it's infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        knowledge is not a prerequisite to direct infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:54pm
  
  Re:
  "At the point of aggregation, they could become a first party infringer."
  
  No, you become a direct infringer at the point of reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution of copies or phonorecords, publicly performing the work, displaying the work publicly, or performing the work through digital audio transmission.
  
  Maybe some of these things were alleged in the complaint and the opinion just focuses on "volitional conduct" because that was the only argument megaupload raised, but "volitional conduct" alone is not enough if it doesn't fit one of those enumerated rights.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - blaktron (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    We dont know how much, if any, reproducing of works without checking for licensing happens inside megaupload's network. I think thats why the lawsuit was allowed to go through. Their service is pretty slick and they are clearly distributing copywritten content without any prior aproval. If they are sorting and making things better for distribution without a copyright, and then selling access its a pretty clear violation of US law. If they were simply a warehouse of uploaded content (like megaupload on its own) then it would be fine, or if it were other 3rd party providers that were making content easy to find then again that would be fine under case law, but this is a new breed of animal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "We don't know if Defendant has infringed" is not a grounds for denying a motion to dismiss. The court said, taking the facts alleged by the plaintiff and all reasonable inferences therefrom as true, defendant has engaged in direct copyright infringement.
      
      But the actions discussed specifically in the opinion do not, I believe, amount to direct infringement. Perhaps there is an inference that Megaupload is making reproductions (I do think that's probably reasonable), but the opinion is not clear on that point.
      
      Your post glosses over the distinctions between direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement, which is the main thrust of the article.
      
      Also, "copywritten" is not a word. At least, not a word related to copyright.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - blaktron (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyrighted is my grammatical Achilles heel... and I don't think I'm glossing over anything, I just think the judge wants a chance to listen to experts discuss those minute differences instead of just making an opinion from motions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Helpful hints: copyright is not a verb. copyright is not copywrite.
        
        Anyway, nothing in any of your posts discusses the difference between encouraging others to infringe and profiting from infringement, on the one hand, and actually performing acts of infringement, on the other.
        
        Since that difference is the main thrust of Mike's article, I'd say you are glossing over the differences.
        
        Also, there's no reason for the court to issue an opinion denying the MTD on direct infringement just to hear expert testimony. The difference between direct infringement and contributory/vicarious is not really a "minute difference" and you'll only get to expert testimony on the issue if the plaintiff at least *alleges* that some act of direct infringement ocurred.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        blaktron (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I agree with everything you just said, but I dont think you really understand what megaupload does. It allows users to upload content for storage (legal) and then also provides a service that allows users to browse that content and view it (also legal). But the difference would be if they transfer content to separate MegaVideo and MegaPorn servers to then sell that content out. Thats the step that would concern a judge I believe, because it would be like selling a netflix competitor that just streams content off the PirateBay.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, at the point that they allow people to browse the content, they are going past just being a passive host and into being an aggregation and republishing system. They present the content outside of it's original context, incorporating it into their webpage and web sites.
        
        It's pretty hard for them to deny.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, at the point that they allow people to browse the content, they are going past just being a passive host and into being an aggregation and republishing system.
        
        That's not true. They have to selectively allow people to browse the content; that is, they have to have the role of approving and disapproving the content. In the words of Playboy v. Hardenburgh, they must have "used a screening policy that allowed employees to view files before they were uploaded."
        
        From what I understand, Megaupload does allow people who upload (say) .avi files, to allow that content to be transcoded and streamed; but that decision is done by the user, not Megaupload.
        
        Also, r.e. "copywritten": there is such a thing as a "copywriter," i.e. "one who writes copy," as in a news article. No relation to copyright. That's probably the source of confusion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 12:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, at the point that they allow people to browse the content, they are going past just being a passive host and into being an aggregation and republishing system
        
        Interesting theory, but there is simply nothing that backs you up in the law. It's kind of funny when you make up theories that have no basis in the law and pretend they're factual.
        
        You might want to stop that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bob, 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:51pm
        
        sometimes things add up in funny ways.
        The law allows people to shoot guns. (legal!) The law allows people to point guns at people. (Also legal). But it doesn't allow people to do both.
        
        At some point, even the nuttiest person must admit that the only reason people pay sites like this is to get the copyrighted content. No one uses a public site for backup. No one uses a public site like Megaupload to run a blog. They're engineered for one purpose only.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        blaktron (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 3:21pm
        
        Re: sometimes things add up in funny ways.
        Those sites are used to move perfectly legit binaries around all the time, for example, the android development world. But thats beside the point, because that part of it is legal. Its the fact that they sort out content and then sell that content without paying the copyright holder. And I think they pay the uploader for the right to do that without checking if the uploader is the copyright holder.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: sometimes things add up in funny ways.
        "The law allows people to point guns at people. (Also legal)."
        
        Um...not usually. That's usually called criminal assault or brandishing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 3:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're talking in vague terms (e.g., "legal" and "sell that content out").
        
        I have never said anything MegaUpload has done is legal. The question is whether MegaUpload is liable and under what theory of liability (direct, vicarious, contributory).
        
        Now, if they "transfer" content from one server to another, then they have made a copy, and therefore might be liable for direct infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 3:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        P.S. But the opinion did not discuss any such transferring or other copying *by MegaUpload* in discussing direct infringement, which is the point of the article.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      but this is a new breed of animal.
      
      Not that new. It was considered back when section 230 of the DMCA was written. Of course, people who don't like section 230 have been trying to get rid of it ever since then with case after case that they try to claim is somehow new and different.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 1:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The DMCA does not have a Section 230.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2011 @ 12:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The DMCA does not have a Section 230.
        
        You're right, I got my alphabet soup mixed up. It's the CDA, not DMCA that has a section 230. The DMCA has a Title II instead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bob, 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:18pm
  
  Re:
  Why are you surprised? This site is all about astroturfing for Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy. Piracy is a big business and this site is just a new example of how piracy isn't just a few friends making mixtape. It's all about the cash.
  
  The folks here will jump through any hoops to believe that what these sites are doing is "innovation" when, as far as I can tell, the only innovation is cutting the creator out of the loop.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    This site is all about astroturfing for Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy.
    
    Oh goody, another one of the tin-foil-hat brigade.
    
    Sorry, none of the people on this site are "astroturfing," which doesn't mean what you think it means. And from what I understand, Mike makes most of his money by helping artists make more money, not from "Big Search, Big Hardware, and Big Piracy" (as if those three are not related in any way at all).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ...er, "as if those three are related in any way at all." Bad editing before posting, sorry.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bob, 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Get a clue. Look at Mike's sponsors. Who do you think pays for his conferences? Who generates his ad revenues?
      
      And they are all related in that they don't want content creators to make much money because there's only so much money in the pot. Splitting some with the creators who do the work would only make it harder for the Big Search stock option princes and princesses to afford their hot tubs.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - CrushU, 1 Aug 2011 @ 2:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Look at Mike's sponsors.
        
        That dastardly UPS and their insidious brown marketing schemes!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 3:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Get a clue. Look at Mike's sponsors. Who do you think pays for his conferences? Who generates his ad revenues?
        
        Take a peek at the Insight Community Case Studies. The big clients are UPS, American Express, Dell, Sun/Oracle, and LetsTalk.com, plus music startups like CybearSonic. Not exactly "Big Piracy," now, are they?
        
        And ad revenues don't even pay for hosting costs. I know this from experience as a webmaster, and Mike has confirmed it numerous times.
        
        And they are all related in that they don't want content creators to make much money because there's only so much money in the pot.
        
        Sounds more like major labels to me. Which would make sense, actually, since Sony is both a major label, and "Big Hardware."
        
        Seriously, though: you have no idea what you're talking about. You just make stupid little accusations and transparent little smear attempts.
        
        The fact is that you think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is "astroturfing" for big, bad, nebulous organizations who are out to get you. That is classic loony-bin conspiracy theory nonsense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bob, 1 Aug 2011 @ 5:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The fact is that you think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is "astroturfing" for big, bad, nebulous organizations who are out to get you. That is classic loony-bin conspiracy theory nonsense.
        
        I thought that's how the game is played around here except it's usually people complaining about Big Content instead of the other Big businesses. I'm just trying to spread the love.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 10:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I thought
        
        Apparently this word does not mean what you think it means.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bob, 1 Aug 2011 @ 6:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And from what I understand, Mike makes most of his money by helping artists make more money
      
      Oh really? Tell me more. As far as I can tell, his surveys about the wonderful future for artists usually come down to repeating the name Radiohead and talking about some guy who sold elaborate music boxes. They're all quite nice little niches, but I've never seen any story about how Mike is actually writing checks to artists or even helping someone else write the check. Usually he just seems to be saying that it's all going to be really cool as long as we keep giving away our content so Big Search can sell ads next to it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 8:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, it is really cool. I can listen to any music I wish via YouTube.
        
        Ain't progress grand?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 12:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh really? Tell me more. As far as I can tell, his surveys about the wonderful future for artists usually come down to repeating the name Radiohead and talking about some guy who sold elaborate music boxes
        
        You seem to have me confused with another site.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 11:55am

The judge applied the jurisdprudential philosophy of 'if it quacks like a duck'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:48pm
  
  Re:
  The judge applied the jurisdprudential philosophy of 'if it quacks like a duck'
  
  Kind of like the duck hunter who shot another hunter using a duck call, huh? Yeah, real genius there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TimothyAWiseman (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:33pm

This was a summary judgment motion
I have not looked into the details of the case, but based on the short snippet you provide, it looks like this was rejection of a request for summary judgment. When considering a request for summary judgment, the judge must make every possible inference in favor of the non-moving party.

So, remember this is not saying MegaUpload is even likely to be liable for direct infringement. It is merely saying that when every possible inference is made against MegaUpload that what the other side has alleged is enough that it might possibly constitute direct infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re: This was a summary judgment motion
  I think it was a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
  
  Either way, the opinion doesn't describe anything that amounts to copying, distributing, etc. (i.e. the exclusive rights innumerated in 17 USC 106). So, regardless of whether there's volitional conduct, it's not conduct amounting to direct infringement (judging by the snippet).
  
  Then again, the opinion makes it sound like the defendant only argued there was insufficient "volitional conduct," so maybe acts of copying were alleged and the only question was "volition."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TimothyAWiseman (profile), 2 Aug 2011 @ 3:39pm
    
    Re: Re: This was a summary judgment motion
    That is possible though the small snippet reads more like summary judgement ruling than a 12(b)(6) which is really only concerned about whether the plaintiff made a prima facie allegation of a claim for which relief can be granted where it would not matter what inferences were made or what was even possible.
    
    Does anyone have the entire judgment or at least the full case citation to make looking it up easier?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christopher Meatto (profile), 1 Aug 2011 @ 3:25pm

adult content often makes bad law
As an intellectual property copyright freedom litigator, I have represented and been counsel to adult publishers. In general, one has to realize that this is the United States and that any case with adult content involved has the potential to make bad law. It is almost pointless to debate the legal reasoning here. Mike Masnick is brillian, I follow him closely, quote him often, and I know he is not naive about judges working backwards from a conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2011 @ 3:42pm

"Mike Masnick is brillian"

lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
xpter, 17 Sep 2011 @ 5:53am

this is nothing
Let's see as far as I know megaupload is a hong kong based corporation, the owner is not a US citizen nor lives in the US, so US laws are not applicable in this case, now I do not know where the server are physically located so if this goes further I guess that in the remote case of the server being located in US soil these could be seized but other than that i guess that this dude keeps hasnt lost any of his sleep due to this case...The US court has no jurisdiction at all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]