MPAA Says Letting Anyone Access Data On Megaupload Servers Would Represent Infringement
from the entitlement? dept
As you may recall, the MPAA is among those who have said that Carpathia, the hosting company Megaupload used, must retain the data on its servers -- even though the Justice Department has said it's done with it and Carpathia was free to delete the evidence. Others, of course have also asked for access to their data. And, most importantly, Megaupload itself has asked if it can keep the data. Carpathia wants nothing to do with it, because it's costing the company $9,000 per day to hang onto the servers without doing anything else with them.However, in response to all of this, the MPAA has again gone to the court to suggest that if Carpathia gave the content to anyone else, that alone would represent copyright infringement:
The sale or transfer of those copies from Carpathia to Megaupload or any other third party would constitute an unauthorized "distribut[ion] ... to the public" under the Copyright ActThat seems like a pretty big legal stretch by the MPAA's typically overreaching lawyers. Depending on who the content was transferred to, it doesn't automatically mean distribution "to the public."
Of course, the continued insane paranoia of the MPAA continues to shine through in this filing as well. It insists that if Megaupload is given back the servers, it will ship them to some other jurisdiction and immediately relaunch the site:
"A sale or transfer of the servers to Megaupload (or any of the defendants) would raise a significant risk that Megaupload will simply ship the servers, hard drives or other equipment -- and all of the infringing content they contain -- to a foreign jurisdiction and relaunch the infringing Megaupload service, which would result in untold further infringements of the MPAA members’ copyrighted works. If so, the renewed criminal enterprise might be beyond any effective legal remedy."This also seems like a reach. All of the principles are under arrest and facing extradition to the US where they'll face criminal charges. One would imagine they all recognize that it doesn't do their case any good to set the site up again in another jurisdiction.
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: data, hosting, infringement
Companies: carpathia, megaupload, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Move them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Move them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Move them?
What if the judge in this case is worse?
I've heard rumors that the VA judges are part of a "rocket docket", meaning they may not look at all of the technical aspects to this case.
I can't verify this notion, but the fact that some judges don't understand the internet somewhat worries me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this folks is why piracy will never go away until the MAFIAA gives the public what they want how they want it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, but could you imagine a group of nose tweakers say like brokeP buying it out and moving it to try to prove a point? The MPAA is right on this one!
nm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Following that reasoning....
The way to stop infringement is to stop producing material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Facts are clearly not your strong suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guilty until proven innocent.
They act like it's a plain and obvious fact without any doubt. A den of liars they are.
I'm sick of this shit. I'll just download whatever the hell I feel like and these industry liars can just shove it up their asses because I've had all I can stomach. The fault is theirs, they should find a solution to this internally instead of bribing the government and police to act like hired thugs they can send to anyone, anywhere they see speech they don't like to be beaten down for not paying "protection". The MPAA and their ilk are all criminals and thugs as far as I'm concerned. The only solution to dealing with thugs is superior numbers and technology. We are many. They are few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alleged.
Nothing has been found in a court of law to be infringing.
There are only 2 examples of files handled by Dotcom that could be infringing, but were never distributed so moot point.
The only other examples of infringing files seem to be those uploaded by the **AA's and its agents to the site.
Given the track record of the **AA's when it comes to identifying infringing works, they are not to be believed.
While it is messy to have to sort out, this is something the court needs to fix after the over zealous seizure of the servers. It has affected innocent parties to "benefit" the **AA's.
The easy answer to for the court would be to order people who had paid memberships be allowed access to their data. There are records of who these people are, so they are more then likely not bad actors. As no court has had a chance to rule on the "criminal" case, deletion of the data is to be avoided. If Mega is found innocent or the case lacking in merit, the Government will have destroyed a business and negatively affected people around the globe.
The bill should be paid by the Government, they took custody of it and until the case is adjudicated it should be held like physical evidence. Sealed and protected.
Why the **AA's are allowed any standing in a criminal case is confusing. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, and to prove their damages they would need access to the servers of Mega. Of course this opens a whole host of privacy violations, and this is why suing service providers is a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: That Anonymous Coward on Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 4:25pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Alleged doesn't mean "innocent" either. Clearly, there is enough here for the charges to be brought. That should be enough.
If an enterprise is considered criminal enough for charges to be laid, is there any logical reason why the courts would allow the business to be sold onto a third party during the process?
It's just not logical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right, just as it was with Dajaz et al.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, but when it involves any form of speech there is usually steps taken to avoid prior restraint. That didn't happen in the Dajaz1 case and apparently didn't happen with the Mega case either.
What, because the word "internet" is involved we are just supposed to forget that the US Government needs to adhere to the Constitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The "enterprise" AKA the corporation is claimed to be laundering money, by paying the bills for bandwidth and servers. Every company pays their bills, and to represent paying ones bills as a criminal act is outrageous.
Where did anyone talk about selling the business to a 3rd party? Or did you skip ahead in the talking points memo to arguments to be made later?
Your not logical.
We are talking about people cut off from their property because of over zealous actions by a former BSA lawyer who now has a DOJ job.
To inflict losses on innocent parties on the dubious claims of the **AA's, who have made claims PROVEN IN COURT TO BE FALSE resulting in seizing property from people who were actually innocent. The Government then engaged in a coverup of this misdeed, mislead the courts, mislead Congress, mislead the press to cover up their entire source of information was the word of the **AA's with NO FACT CHECKING.
What we are talking about is returning property to the people who own it, rather than let the Government seize evidence and then destroy it before it can be used to offer any defense against the charges.
We are talking about forcing the Government to pay the bills to protect citizens property that was taken away from them on what could be shown to be baseless claims yet again.
We are talking about letting registered users of the system, have access to get their data before it gets destroyed.
What we are talking about is the **AA's entering an opinion in a criminal case they are NOT a party to.
But by all means spill the rest of the memo about selling the service to someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Can you say HAM SANDWICH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the **AA's or their agents uploaded it then its authorised distibution isn't it... if I put $10 on the sidewalk and it is gone tomorrow I can't really claim it's theft that someone claimed it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Will someone just kill everyone in the MPAA already? Trolling is one thing. Being the biggest retards in the history of the world is another. They're just wasting oxygen being alive. Please just kill them....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point is that unless a monkey took the pictures, someone owns the copyright and unless you are paying the someone who has copyright then you are an infringing pirate, whether you are the copyright holder or not.
It's simple really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At least that what the MPAA and RIAA are convinced of. Along with an AC or two around here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
theres precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: theres precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: theres precedent
Or the hydra program that has scattered copies of the site around the globe to avoid takedowns by intimidation and not law?
Or moving it into a former bomb bunker for the press it generated?
You understand TPB as it currently stands fits on a relatively small flash drive. The compiled amount of data on Megas servers is just slightly larger than that, by several thousand magnitudes I would guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: theres precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Carpathia: so pull the fucking drives out...
Big fat hairy deal. Total cost should be a few hundred lousy bucks.
As far as us gov inc. and their mafiaa owners and shyster briefs are concerned, they can all go fuck themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Carpathia: so pull the fucking drives out...
For the sake of politeness, I'm going to assume you're completely ignorant with the fine details of this case. Specifically, that Megaupload was using 25 PETABYTES of storage at Carpathia. If using 2 Terabyte hard drives, that's 12,500 hard drives. They're not cheap. Just going by a quick price scan on Amazon.com (for consumer grade hard drives, not for enterprise grade), each drive would cost $129 ($129 x 12,500 = $1,612,500). Carpathia decided to take the least costly option of just keeping the drives at $9,000/day.
Also, legally, they can't pull them out. Where would they go? They can't crush them, because there is copyrighted content on there (not just the MAFIAA content, but content owned by innocent third parties, who would be likely to sue over the destruction of their files). Carpathia doesn't want the bad press it would get if it destroyed a video uploaded by a soldier in action to his family.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Carpathia: so pull the fucking drives out...
What type of hard drives are we talking about here?
Are these similar to IBM server blades, where they only hold the information or do they have to be in a temperature controlled climate? What exactly are we dealing with in regards to this leasing that makes this so much more difficult to just give the servers to MU to mount a defense (to give Fuque the benefit of the doubt).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Carpathia: so pull the fucking drives out...
Like I said, a few hundred bucks.
And the mafiaa and their briefs can go fuck themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @Carpathia: so pull the fucking drives out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @Carpathia: so pull the fucking drives out...
If Anything Rikou numbers are an underestimate, there would have to be drives for redundancy as well which also cost money for an effective solution for data redundancy.
if you say a few hundred dollars can you please tell me where you procure your hardware from? I want to start up a new business selling enterprise grade hardware with your supplier as my sole provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @Carpathia: so pull the fucking drives out...
:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @Carpathia: so pull the fucking drives out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @Carpathia: so pull the fucking drives out...
We're entirely convinced by that reasoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @Carpathia: so pull the fucking drives out...
Unless you have the knowledge and facts to back up your statements, kindly keep them to yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course it's infringement...
It's all an illusion... no one but Big Media can own a "piece of the action". Everything in the world that has been, is being or will ever be created is their property.
The sooner you realize this, the sooner you can just pay them to take pictures of your family, friends, etc. In fact... any pictures that might be snapped by monkeys handling your camera... they also belong to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Rikuo on Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 5:14pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
New technologies should not have to change their business models to suit the legacy players when they have done nothing wrong. The fact these corporations have huge war chests devoted to threatening anything they do not like into compliance should call into question how economically they are actually damaged vs the amount of damage they cause society by fearing new technology and demanding it be broken to protect them from the possibility of bad acts committed by 3rd parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All that said, I agree the government should have to pay for the retention. I don't see why they should be able to just let the data get deleted, that seems an awful lot like intentionally destroying a business' assets for no good reason and a violation of every principle of due process there is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I highly doubt myself that the Carpathia management would still have the drives turned on, because, to be honest, who would be using these drives? At the time of writing, no-one is allowed even so much as view the contents of the drives. I will agree with you though, $9,000 per day is a suspect number, but Carpathia is suffering a loss, no doubt about that (but how much of a loss, we'll have to wait and see).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for the number, for the 26PB (26,000,000GB!) of data it works out at around $0.35/day per TB, which seems quite reasonable to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 5:34pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction
I think you mean principals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correction
I think you mean principals"
If he was talking about things like due process, the concept of innocence until proven guilty, or the sovereignty of other nations, I think he was right on the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Correction
and facing extradition to the US where they'll face criminal charges.
I would have thought they'd be wanting to send the principles you're referring to to Gitmo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why don't they just copyright the whole Cosmos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evidence in the public record
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All their crying about what is killing them is getting old. They tried to ban the VCR with the same pathetic claims they're using against online storage services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
now the government and the entertainment industries have been over the files stored with fine tooth combs, found what they want, why should Kim and his team be denied access? bit one sided, as usual.
any proof that no files have been added/removed since the seizures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets say the MPAA gets access to this material for their own civil purposes, at the same time a court grants the opinion that giving the data to "the public" would be infringement.
Does the MPAA not understand that anyone who then owns a movie that the MPAA does not have the control of, say a business owner who creates there own movies and owns the copyright outright for their own business, can then take infringement action on the MPAA for infringement of that same copyright.
This is a very two-edged sword that the MPAA et.al are playing with, and I already know of a lot of people who will instantly lodge claims in courts around the world against the MPAA if they obtain access to the data and the owners do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not only that but the MPAA/RIAA's of the world also equate the movie copy itself as property, and the use of the property (which is not in the possession of the owner) without the owners possession is called conversion or Detinue dependant on the circumstances. ie: larceny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, the ideal line for the **AAs is to be able to baldly/boldy state "It's all infringing", and then make individuals have to prove each item isn't...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Besides do you know how many DVDs it would take to backup 25 Pentabytes of data?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
*hides*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An Update....
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/us-government-we-hear-theres-child-porn-o n-those-megaupload-servers-judge.ars
Government - There might be kiddy porn on the servers so they can't do anything with them.
"The US government insists that the court has no real jurisdiction over the server issue. In a filing made late yesterday, the government argued that the EFF had highlighted an "unfortunate" situation, but one not before the court (even Megaupload's terms of service warned users not to count on the site as a sole repository for files). As for the MPAA, it hasn't even filed a civil lawsuit yet, and courts should not rule on "speculative matters affecting civil lawsuits that have not yet been filed (and may not be filed at all)." As for Carpathia's request for cash, the government suggests it doesn't deserve any. After all, it's free to wipe and re-lease the servers; the government already has its forensic evidence. The entire dispute is merely a "private contractual matter.""
So the court is denying Mega access to the servers that could prove the entire case is bogus. Encouraging them to be wiped, making sure there is no evidence. While the Government holds all of Megas assets that could be used to outright buy the servers and hold them until there actually is a trial.
""Well, sort of. When it comes to selling or renting the servers back to Megaupload�there the government draws the line. It doesn't want the servers to leave the court's jurisdiction and it worries that they could be used for criminal activity. In addition, "the government recently learned from multiple sources that the Carpathia Servers may contain child pornography, rendering the Carpathia servers contraband.""
So they are willing to pull out all of the stops now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An Update....
If that is backed up by reasonable proof then it's a whole new ballgame and one the US Government particularly will not want, MPAA won't even get a look see at ANY of the files either EVER so therefore will never be able to prove or disprove that infringement has taken place (or not).
Not only that but under international treaties the USG has an absolute duty to investigate the Indecent Images allegation FIRST and Foremost, the criminal aspect of the copyright cases has to be placed in the background.
No-one should even make the suggestion of this possibility unless they have unequivocal evidence that there is the good possibility that indecent images (CP) exists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An Update....
A court completely ok with allowing evidence to be destroyed due to lack of payment, pretending it doesn't control the accused's funds.
Carpathia cut a deal to sell the servers to Mega for 1 million, and if the reports are to be believed that should be a drop in the bucket compared to how much was seized. Using Mega's funds to secure the evidence, especially in light of the new allegations (Oh hey didn't the Feds get access to the servers? Be a fun time to add things.) the servers should be protected.
The CP accusation is funny because the indictment specifically pointed out Mega had a proactive filter running to remove known CP files, it was them not using it to remove copyrighted material that was the evil part. Except the law didn't require that for copyrighted material, but it does for CP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]