House Version Of PROTECT IP To Cover Cyberlockers Too

from the of-course-it-will dept

Mon, Sep 26th 2011 3:42pm — Mike Masnick

It's been rumored for a while, but there's growing evidence that the long-delayed House version of the PROTECT IP Act will include provisions for attacking cyberlockers. For whatever reason, the MPAA (in particular) has had an infatuation with cyberlockers as the next big "evil," so this is hardly a surprise. Of course, there's a big problem here: cyberlockers are nothing but online storage, and they have tons of legitimate uses as well. It's difficult to see how any legislation can be crafted that won't have massive unintended consequences and liabilities for all sorts of perfectly legitimate online storage providers. How do you distinguish things like Dropbox or Box.net from one of the cyberlockers that the MPAA loves to hate, such as Hotfile? And as cloud storage continues to grow, the issue only gets worse. How about Amazon.com's S3 offerings? In some ways that's a cyberlocker as well. The fact is that the MPAA is playing a silly and pointless game of whac-a-mole. All this new effort will serve to do is piss people off. It won't lead to any more purchases, but will make it clear that the MPAA has no problem trampling innovation when it can't figure out how to use it properly. Cyberlockers have perfectly legitimate purposes -- as did VCRs before them... but the MPAA tried to kill that, and is now seeking to do the same for lots of other services, just because the MPAA can't comprehend how they're useful.

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: cyberlockers, protect ip

86 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:49pm

This will not be abused
I don't know why you people get up in arms about all of this. It won't be abused. The spirit of the law will be kept.

Why do you paint it to look like the MPAA has our government in its pocket?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:54pm
  
  Re: This will not be abused
  Because they democratize culture wherever they go. Nothing major. We know they have the interests of society at heart, not their own profits.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:56pm
    
    Re: Re: This will not be abused
    We know they have the interests of society at heart, not their own profits.
    
    Exactly. So even if they DID (I am not saying they do) have the government in their pocket, they'd only use that power for good. I still don't see the problem here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - surfer (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This will not be abused
      destruction of legitimate services in the name of heresay, 'MPAA says it's bad, so it must be so', is not an inherent violation of the 1st Amendment? or did you not read the Constitution?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This will not be abused
        ... surfer, you did catch our /s mark, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        surfer (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This will not be abused
        damn!, no
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - surfer (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This will not be abused
      tell you what, post your paypal acct, and I'll send you 10 bucks, and a whole lot more
      
      >:-)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- surfer (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:55pm
  
  Re: This will not be abused
  um, because they are?! do you live under an internet rock?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 7:06pm
    
    Re: Re: This will not be abused
    He lives in a cyberlocker.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rich, 27 Sep 2011 @ 12:58pm
    
    Re: Re: This will not be abused
    You seem to have some impairment in the ability to detect sarcasm.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - surfer (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 3:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This will not be abused
      apologies.. if it doesn't begin with /sarc, I'm lost.
      
      and to my benefit, english is not my first language, therefore it can elude me.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 8:00pm
  
  Re: This will not be abused
  Pop Quiz:
  The internet was invented to _________
  a) cook some tasty bacon.
  b) smile at you and tell you that you are pretty.
  c) access and synchronize to remote information.
  
  Cyberlockers will _________
  a) chill your beer instafast.
  b) will hug you just right.
  c) will let you access and sync to remote information.
  
  Legislating "cyberlockers" will _________
  a) bring back the 50 bajillions of dollars that are vaporized by piracy.
  b) lower the unemployment rate to -24%
  c) be a waste of time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Drak, 26 Sep 2011 @ 8:36pm
    
    Re: Re: This will not be abused
    Just like in school, all the answers are "C".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Spointman (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 10:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This will not be abused
      In law school, the answers might be "C". After a lawyer graduates, though, the answer becomes C-bills.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ComputerAddict (profile), 27 Sep 2011 @ 5:10am
    
    Re: Re: This will not be abused
    The Internet was Invented to D) Look at Naked Pictures
    
    Cyberlockers will D) Let you share naked pictures with a group of friends
    
    Legislating "cyberlockers" will D)Cause "Cyberlockers" to buy Server space and domains outside the US and continue as normal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 3:49pm

If they kill off cyberlockers now, it will clear the decks so that the next big thing that the MPAA hates can develop without competition from cyberlockers.

I have no idea what the next big thing is, but I am positive that the MPAA will hate it and proclaim that whatever it is will destroy the US economy and western civilization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 3:53pm
  
  Re:
  If the MPAA kills off cyberlockers, Bittorrent will just surpass it. And since the judges have figured out that lawyers are forum shopping, I doubt the revenue streams the movie makers imagine will come from vilifying customers like they do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - blaktron (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Bittorrent will kill it anyway, the underlying heart of the technology is so brilliant and scalable that it will never be stopped. As long as there are switched IP networks, the idea of a bittorrent is forever.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 9:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Any concerns about throttling?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - pirate bay pirate, 27 Sep 2011 @ 4:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        you can only throttle obvious non-encrypted bits, that will soon change with a new protocol so stay tuned
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chaos (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The problem with that theory is that bittorent, any site that contains torrents or links to torrents, and every single torrent program will be one of the first things to be blocked because some torrents are infringing. Part of the problem with PIPA is that it doesn't have any provisions for proving content is infringing, just an accusation of infringement is enough. And absolutely anyone can make that accusation. If microsoft were to make the accusation that ubuntu.com contained so much as a link to a site that may contain a link to pirate content, poof, no more ubuntu.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:07pm

This is a campaign against every corner the industry can think of.

It is not cyberlockers is cyberlockers, filesharing, electronics and anything that can be possibly be perceived as a threat to their business model.

They are sweeping the grounds trying to stop something that can't be stopped which is great, at some point they will go to far and feel the pain.

Would it be that PROTECT IP will allow others to look inside cyberlockers and raise the ire of the commons?

One thing the public do understand is "privacy", if they see it threatened soon many, many lawsuits will fallow, and granting powers to others to look inside your virtual locker may be just what it is needed to make people wake up to the consequences that IP laws are having in this world right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 6:27pm
  
  Re:
  Not sweeping the grounds....
  
  More like salting the earth
  
  or a scorched earth policy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:13pm

Definitions are easy.
How do you distinguish things like Dropbox or Box.net from one of the cyberlockers that the MPAA loves to hate, such as Hotfile?
In the interest of being a freetard and helping you out, I will offer some assistance on making this definition for you.

Cyberlockers are herein defined as online storage that does not allow any of its ones or zeros to be used for infringing purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fogbugzd (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:16pm
  
  Re: Definitions are easy.
  >>In the interest of being a freetard and helping you out, I will offer some assistance on making this definition for you.
  
  >>Cyberlockers are herein defined as online storage that does not allow any of its ones or zeros to be used for infringing purposes.
  
  Fail: You can upload infringing content to things like dropbox or Box.net. Or to your flash drive or your hard disk. Any system for storing files can store infringing files as well as non-infringing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 10:28pm
    
    Re: Re: Definitions are easy.
    That's the point of my definition: they'll be able to go after whoever they want. The MPAA and their ilk don't really care about collateral damage and unintended consequences.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 11:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Definitions are easy.
      Oh, sweet - does that me mean we can go for the FTP lockers in iTunes and Amazon? After all, we're not sure they're not actually infringing...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:15pm

"How do you distinguish things like Dropbox or Box.net from..."
One easy way, assuming those you mention aren't merely new sites with same infringement methods, is CHECK if files are publicly available! Afraid you think these matters beyond human comprehension, Mike, but though difficult to nail down in exact legalisms, are actually obvious.

@Jay: wrong still and again on torrenting. The EASY sign of that is unusual download to upload ratio, which my ISP already tracks. You'll be spotted and three-striked within a month.

The mechanisms are in place, people. You're just willfully blind at this point.

Disclaimer: I'm not for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:52pm
  
  Re: "How do you distinguish things like Dropbox or Box.net from..."
  You are kidding right, download to upload ratios are meaningless if one uses proxies, VPN's or any other secure channel to listen to something, it will just appear somebody lockers are being accessed by different machines but it would be the same person.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:51pm
  
  Re: "How do you distinguish things like Dropbox or Box.net from..."
  While it's in place, out_of_the_blue, it won't be effective against anyone that wants to dodge the three strikes. VPN assures they will have a much harder time with deep packet inspections. VPN is encrypted from user to connection point.
  
  All they can tell is you are moving data, not what.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- athe, 26 Sep 2011 @ 6:00pm
  
  Re: "How do you distinguish things like Dropbox or Box.net from..."
  Files are publicly available == infringing?!
  
  Are you serious?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 7:03pm
  
  Re: "How do you distinguish things like Dropbox or Box.net from..."
  One easy way, assuming those you mention aren't merely new sites with same infringement methods, is CHECK if files are publicly available! Afraid you think these matters beyond human comprehension, Mike, but though difficult to nail down in exact legalisms, are actually obvious.
  
  Dropbox and Box.net lets files be public. In fact, that's one of the more useful purposes of them. So... um... you've just outlawed all online storage. Congrats.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pirate Bay, 27 Sep 2011 @ 4:33am
  
  Re: "How do you distinguish things like Dropbox or Box.net from..."
  psst, we have something new for you. Wait till 2012
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 6:48pm
    
    Re: Re: "How do you distinguish things like Dropbox or Box.net from..."
    psst, we have something new for you. Wait till 2012
    
    psst, we have something new for you. Wait till 2012. It's called the Protect IP Act
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 9:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: "How do you distinguish things like Dropbox or Box.net from..."
      pssst, its going to be as irrelevant as you are
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2011 @ 5:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "How do you distinguish things like Dropbox or Box.net from..."
        pssst, its going to be as irrelevant as you are
        
        Really? The why the epic sniveling and vociferous opposition?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:40pm

Can't wait until some *AA fuckwit hears about freenet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:55pm
  
  Re:
  I2P, GNUNET, and so many others, the industry is just a laugh.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - surfer (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    they should ban VPN, it's used to secretly distribute their content..
    
    I mean, cmon, Charlie's Angels redux? what's next, Rockford Files, Magnum P.I., MOD Squad? hfs!
    
    can you say usenet? sigh..
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marc John Randazza, 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:57pm

The distinction
I can help you here:

Dropbox exists solely for storage. Dropbox has potentially infringing uses, but its primary purpose is non infringing.

Some cyberlockers outwardly court infringing uses, and pay rewards for infringing uses.

I'm not sure about how I feel about the Act, but I think that the outrage here is a little misplaced. It is pretty easy to tell which cyberlockers are working to make an end run around Grokster, and which are just legitimate businesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ikarushka (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 6:45pm
  
  Re: The distinction
  Open wi-fi exists solely for connecting wireless devices. There is a potential of illegitimate use, but the primary purpose is non-infringing. Nonetheless, as I recently read somewhere, someone tried to equate running an open wireless network with negligence and make the persons who do not encrypt their networks liable.
  
  The �legitimate businesses� like DropBox are off the rightholders� radar until some clever MPAA lawyer finds out how to shake down these businesses cheaply.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 7:07pm
  
  Re: The distinction
  Dropbox exists solely for storage. Dropbox has potentially infringing uses, but its primary purpose is non infringing.
  
  How do you make that distinction? Most cyberlockers' primary use is storage, so not sure how you're determining which are the good players and which are the bad.
  
  Some cyberlockers outwardly court infringing uses, and pay rewards for infringing uses.
  
  I've heard this claim, but never seen evidence of it. It is true that sites like Hotfile pay those for *popular* files, but that's not the same as *infringing* files. But, more to the point, existing law already allows one to go after such sites for inducing infringement if it's true that they really induced.
  
  The problem is that so many folks seem to assume inducement where none may actually exist.
  
  I'm not sure about how I feel about the Act, but I think that the outrage here is a little misplaced. It is pretty easy to tell which cyberlockers are working to make an end run around Grokster, and which are just legitimate businesses.
  
  I'm sorry, but the "it's pretty obvious" doesn't explain to me how you write the law to only cover one batch. I just don't see it. I can't see how you make that distinction in any reasonable way that doesn't outlaw all sorts of perfectly legitimate technology.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 9:21pm
    
    Re: Re: The distinction
    It is true that sites like Hotfile pay those for *popular* files, but that's not the same as *infringing* files
    
    Really? Never the 'twain shall meet?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 10:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The distinction
      Really? Never the 'twain shall meet?
      
      Did anyone claim that?
      
      Want to make up a few more strawmen?
      
      Point is that while their may be overlap, they are not the same thing. And these things change over time. The VCR, when it was introduced, was dedicated to infringing activities. So was the MP3 player. But over time, without the need for legislative changes, those things changed.
      
      So why do you want to break the next generation of tools as well? Because it's *what you do for a living*. You break innovation to prop up a dying business model.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 12:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The distinction
        You break innovation to prop up a dying business model.
        
        LOL. And you whine about law enforcement because piracy apologism is yours.
        
        Good luck in 5 years.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 2:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The distinction
        Good luck in 5 years.
        
        no u? one can only imagine what you MAFIAA wankers will be baaaw'ing about then, or if you'd even still be around by then
        
        squeaky wheel(MAFIAA) gets the grease but if all the wheel ever does is squeak no matter how much grease(money/bogus laws) you give it, people are eventually going to get tired of it and replace it
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 4:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The distinction
        Thanks to that 5 year plan comment you made I know who you are now, and just how full of shit you are. You are the worst of the worst, a mafiaa wannabe. Yf you weren't retarded, this would be funny
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 27 Sep 2011 @ 8:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The distinction
        Always funny to see how delusional you guys are. You cooked up some 5 year plan to stop piracy and actually manage to believe it will work? Wow!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 5:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The distinction
        strawmen? Oh Mike, please.
        
        One only has to look at your typical torrent site top 100 files to understand what is and what is not popular. They aren't trading Corey Smith, there is nobody clambering for a download of Sita Sings the Blues or the latest masterwork from the talentless git Marcus Carab. They are going for hollywood movies, RIAA music, etc.
        
        Hotfile is built predicated on the idea that end users will upload "popular" files, and people will pay to be able to download them. While popular doesn't directly mean infringing, I would put money on the table that 8 or even 9 out of 10 files / lockers that are the most popular are infringing.
        
        Would you want to live in a neighborhood where 9 out of 10 houses were crack dens?
        
        Hotfile would appear to have to be wilfully blind not to see what their service is being used for, and not to understand what they are profiting from. Are you equally as blind?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 7:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The distinction
        You heard it here first folks, 1 infringing file is approximately equivalent to 1 'crack den.'
        
        If the deep end had its own deep end you'd have just gone off it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 8:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The distinction
        You heard it here first, someone doesn't understand analogies.
        
        One crack den isn't equal to one infringing file. The point is only if 90% of your neighborhood is crack dens, you might sort of figure it out, right? How can a hosting company resell access to files without realizing at some point that "STAR_WARS_DVD_RIP_XVID" might, maybe, sort of, possibly be infringing?
        
        Fuck me, people here are dense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 27 Sep 2011 @ 8:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The distinction
        "One only has to look at your typical torrent site top 100 files to understand what is and what is not popular. They aren't trading Corey Smith, there is nobody clambering for a download of Sita Sings the Blues or the latest masterwork from the talentless git Marcus Carab. They are going for hollywood movies, RIAA music, etc."
        
        And where are those torrents coming from, chief?
        
        "While popular doesn't directly mean infringing, I would put money on the table that 8 or even 9 out of 10 files / lockers that are the most popular are infringing."
        
        So it's best to just open all of the lockers and view their contents without their permission. Right. That's going to go well with Hotfile, *especially* since a judge has already ruled that there's no direct infringement in the case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The distinction
        Just my opinion, but I believe the lower court will be overturned by the 11th Circuit on the finding of no direct infringement. The district court basically said "but it is the software that makes the copies, and it does so automatically, so there can be no direct infringement", which, of course, tends to overlook the rather important point that the software is programmed by a person to carry out the copying. It does what it is told, and someone told it to make 5 copies of everything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 5:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The distinction
        So it's best to just open all of the lockers and view their contents without their permission. Right. That's going to go well with Hotfile, *especially* since a judge has already ruled that there's no direct infringement in the case.
        
        Rapidshare already does it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 5:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The distinction
      Really? Always the 'twain shall meet?
      
      Popular != Infringing a priori.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marc John Randazza (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 10:44pm
    
    Re: Re: The distinction
    It is pretty easy, using existing law. If there are "substantial non-infringing uses," and the infringing uses are merely incidental to the technology, then no problem.
    
    If the use is clearly to promote infringement, or if it outwardly rewards infringement, then you don't even need your obvious-meter.
    
    This is why VCRs are permissible, and why Grokster isn't. It is why Limewire lost its case, and why I predict Hotfile will as well. Meanwhile, I couldn't possibly see Dropbox losing a Hotfile-style case.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:58pm

Saying that the MPAA "MPAA can't comprehend how they're useful." is just Naive. They know damn good and well that these services can be use for legit uses, they just don't care about those usages they only want to protect their own business model.

I work in the radio industry and the radio owners bitch and moan all the time about only making 20% margins instead of the 50% they before technology caught up with them, and it's the same way with movie producers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mike allen (profile), 27 Sep 2011 @ 1:15am
  
  Re:
  Not sure what you are saying here I too work in the radio industry. If cyblockers I cant syndicate my show to all the stations so MPAA get ready to get sued.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:03pm

I take it that no one here sees any middle ground on the matter of online storage, i.e., recognizing the utility of online storage while at the same time considering means by which their use to facilitate illegal online distribution can be curtailed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- surfer (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:19pm
  
  Re:
  infringing, INFRINGING, there is nothing illegal about non commercial distribution of copywronged material, it's called infringing copyright..
  
  these are not the copyrights you are infringing on..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 5:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    surfer, when hotfile is making money off of it (and all cyberlockers have to make money to stay in business), it becomes commercial. Your individual goal may or may not be commercial distribution, but the cyberlocker does make a living off of it.
    
    BTW, your icon thingie is pretty ignorant.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 7:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Making money off of a business that has illegal uses is not illegal. If I want to sell wrappers for rolling your own cigarettes I'm not liable if someone uses them to make joints am I?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - surfer (profile), 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ignorant, by definition is a lack of knowledge. And I was pretty knowledgeable when i chose this particular icon. Therefore I consider your comment ironic, if not funny, so thanks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:44pm
  
  Re:
  The only means to do that is by looking inside of it.
  
  I'm sure the public will be thrilled with that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 7:09pm
  
  Re:
  I take it that no one here sees any middle ground on the matter of online storage, i.e., recognizing the utility of online storage while at the same time considering means by which their use to facilitate illegal online distribution can be curtailed.
  
  Um. That was the point of this post, which it appears you failed to read. I'm asking how anyone could write a law that does what you claim? As far as I can tell it can't be done without significant collateral damage.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 9:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It's not easy, which is why so much attention has been directed to sites having no purpose for being other than facilitating infringement (and perhaps even other material where copyright is not the driving force behind legitimate concerns.
    
    A useful starting point for drafting such legislation are the holdings in Betamax, Grokster, etc.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 27 Sep 2011 @ 2:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      which is why so much attention has been directed to sites having no purpose for being other than facilitating infringement
      
      NO PURPOSE other than infringement? You're sure you want to go with that argument? Because that argument can be debunked in just a few minutes. ... There, I just uploaded a text file to a cyberlocker. It's all original content written by me. Yes, it's all complete nonsense, but I own the copyright on it! Oh, wait, you said it couldn't POSSIBLY be used for anything other than facilitating infringement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 7:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Let me help my AC friend out here.
        
        The sites have no hope of surviving or having valid business models without facilitating infringement. There just are not enough people willing to pay for online storage by itself.
        
        Actually, when you look at the business model, it sort of explains itself. File lockers which charge for a download (but not an upload) are clearly indicating that the value is in a third party downloading stuff, and not for the person storing it.
        
        Just as storage, it's sort of useless, because it's unsafe, you don't know if the company will be in business tomorrow, it's not a safe backup or anything like that.
        
        It's also slower than just sending someone a file over a chat program (like windows live, ICQ, QQ, whatever). So it's also not very effecient.
        
        There is also no business logic in "one upload, one download" sharing, where people put up a file just to get it downloaded by one person. That one person, if they aren't in a rush, are not going to pay to download, they will take the slow free route.
        
        So then the question is "where is the business model?" It would appear that the only functional solution is hosting files that are popular, are downloaded by multiple people, and require payment to obtain in a reasonable amount of time. That is why often storage places won't let you put up a single DVD rip size file, but require you to spread it over multiple RAR files. That way they can let the downloader get one for free, and then make them wait 15 - 30 minutes for the next part - or "get it now for only $9.95 a month!".
        
        The business model is clear. What do you think it is?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 8:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your 'logic' is completely circular: because downloads exceed uploads it must be infringing and the business can't stay in business without downloads exceeding uploads so downloads must exceed uploads so it must be infringing and round and round we go.
        
        The business model is clear but you have yet to explain how downloads exceeding uploads proves infringement or that the business model can only be profitable if it infringes. Hell, by your standards every Youtube video with more than 1 view must be infringing content.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2011 @ 6:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, you got it wrong, apparently I didn't explain it clearly. Can you please not try to create bizarre absolutes to justify your position? I never indicated that more than a single view of a you tube video was relevant. Those are your words, your ideas, and not mine.
        
        "because downloads exceed uploads it must be infringing and the business can't stay in business without downloads exceeding uploads so downloads must exceed uploads so it must be infringing and round and round we go."
        
        Merely having downloads exceed uploads (by a small margin) isn't enough to bother looking. But if a single file or locker is downloaded hundreds of times from all over the world, it might be worth at least taking a cursory look at the names of the files to see what is what... maybe look at the referring pages that are sending people to that locker (because there will be referring URLs if they links are posted on chat boards, etc). If the referral is from "free-pirated-movies.info" and points to something called "star_wars_bluray_dvd_rip.RAR", you might consider that perhaps, maybe, the content MIGHT be infringing, and certainly worth a look.
        
        This is all information that is readily available to the "host".
        
        It's more obvious when it's a site like Hotfile, that knows exactly which "lockers" are getting paid access sales and which are not. The ones that are making a lot of sales probably should be checked. Again, some fairly quick cursory work would be more than enough to get the gist of what is in the locker file, even without opening it.
        
        Clearly, as a business partner, they should know what they are selling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 27 Sep 2011 @ 8:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL, your typical BS. You're prolly one of those execs who abuses mail by sending your fance 10+ MB Powerpoint Slides and wonder why everyone else around you uses Cyberlockers instead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - anonymous, 27 Sep 2011 @ 12:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    and the entertainment industries are really worried about collateral damage. i dont think so!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 27 Sep 2011 @ 4:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      and the entertainment industries are really worried about collateral damage. i dont think so!
      
      Privately, the collateral damage is exactly what they want to achieve.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 8:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This. A thousand times this. The copyright lobby has never been interested in shutting down illegal activity as much as they want to expand the scope and legal obscurity of what is and is not legal so much that it forces completely legal competition out of the market. You can see it in all of their work, they constantly go after distribution platforms that are not only used for infringement but also for independent distribution of content they don't get a cut of because it threatens their distribution monopoly. That's what this has always been about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:14pm

Web 2.0
That's it. I am going to anonymously email all my torrent files to myself at my Gmail account, and let them store it.

'/sarc'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Psychic Octopus, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:35pm

It's difficult to see how any legislation can be crafted that won't have massive unintended consequences and liabilities for all sorts of perfectly legitimate online storage providers.

That's because all the massive consequences and liabilities are not unintended. They are a great part of the purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:44pm

This would be like if ford said you could park your mustang and your house, but not your beach house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:59pm
  
  Re:
  What do you mean I can't park my beach house. I will park it wherever I like.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 7:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Could you please paint it.
    http://www.homestyleidea.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Mobile-Home-image.jpg
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 8:47pm

Encrypt Your Data People
Dearie me, "cyberlockers" are just the new trendy name for "FTP storage". You can store anything you please in your FTP storage, which can be remote and accessible by the general internet, as you may wish. FTP has been around for ever and it is not going away anytime soon.

But remember, there are snoops out there, so make sure all your FTP files are encrypted. That way, when the snoops get to snooping, they do not find anything. Proper encryption key management is your problem and should never be delegated to anybody else. Use a secure session for accessing your FTP storage, as well. When and if the cops come knocking, make sure you fully exercise your right to silence. The fifth amendment is a wonderful thing. Huffing and puffing about how dreadful it is that your privacy is being invaded, that is good too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RcCypher (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 9:09pm

Storage Locker
I seem to remember someone creating a FF Plugin that would let me use my Gmail acct as a free storage locker. I would say upload all my music to that but why would I bother when Google Music is up and running now, which is a music storage locker and nothing short of one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 9:20pm

They might as well be against paper. I guess that will be next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Cowherd (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 11:55pm

So short sighted. But then what do you expect from the MPAA?
Go ahead, legislate all successful American storage services out of business. The revenue will just move to a company abroad that is not getting fucked over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 27 Sep 2011 @ 12:20am

just because something can be or may be used for 'infringing content' doesn't mean it will be or that all files will be infringing. torrents can be infringing, it doesn't mean they all are. there are 1000s of site that have legal torrents as well. in trying to shut down illegal torrents by shutting down the whole site, legal stuff went/goes too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jimr (profile), 27 Sep 2011 @ 6:14am

Cloud computing is builds upon the Cyberlocker idea. After all cloud computing is just online storage set up in a fashion to hopefully increase reliability and availability if implemented correctly.

I have had a paid online secure storage location for years and it is massive in size.

Even our world wide company has a secure FTP-like site where I can easily transfer massive files in a secure way.

I do not trust the government to technically knowledgeable enough to craft a bill that would not end up hurting everyone's business in an effort to appease the MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 27 Sep 2011 @ 7:41am

How do you distinguish things like Dropbox or Box.net from one of the cyberlockers that the MPAA loves to hate, such as Hotfile?

They'll use the same foolproof method as they use for "obscenity"; They'll know it when they see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]