MPAA Ok With Allowing Users To Get Back Their Megaupload Files If 0% Infringement Can Be Guaranteed
from the and-no-access-for-megaupload dept
We've been covering the ongoing series of fights concerning what happens to to all the data that was stored on the Megaupload servers. The government has wanted it destroyed. Some users have wanted access to their legitimate content. Megaupload wants access for its own defense. The MPAA has wanted it preserved in case it can be used to sue others. Megaupload wants access for the sake of its defense. Carpathia -- the hosting company -- just wants to stop paying $9,000 per day to maintain the servers and data.However, as TorrentFreak notes, the MPAA's latest filing in this debate offers a very, very, very slight backtrack, in which it says that it kinda sorta would be okay with letting users have access to download their own content... but if and only if there can be a guarantee that not a single bit of infringement occurs as a part of that process. Oh yeah, and also so long as the Megaupload defendants don't get access either (though, it says that's a separate discussion for a separate legal filing).
...the MPAA Members’ position continues to be that if the Court is willing to consider allowing access for users such as Mr. Goodwin to allow retrieval of files, it is essential that the mechanism include a procedure that ensures that any materials the users access and copy or download are not files that have been illegally uploaded to their accounts, given that MPAA Members and other rights holders are certain to own the copyrights in many of the files stored on the servers. In addition, in no event should any Megaupload defendants or their representatives—who have not generally appeared in this proceeding, and who are not subject to the control and supervision of the Court—be allowed to access the Mega Servers under such a mechanism designed for the benefit of third party Megaupload users. Whether and under what conditions the Mega defendants should have access to the servers (again, assuming they are subject to the control of the Court) is a separate issue.Of course, this assumes it's even possible to prevent 100% of infringement. Which it's not. And that's probably the point. The MPAA gets to pretend that it's being "reasonable" by saying some access is okay... but immediately including an impossible caveat on top of that. It's a neat way to pretend to be open to compromise, while really sticking to an extreme position.
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: content, doj, hosting
Companies: carpathia, megaupload, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Handle this like DMCA notices...
And since that requirement of the DMCA notices appears to be completely toothless, the same should be for these.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait What?
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait What?
It's a digital product, so on a copy of a document there is truly no ownership. This is a part of digital people simply cannot understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait What?
Your guess makes you look stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you duped a sentence there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
so if they can prove that a large amount of data stored on their servers is non-infringing, then they would retain safe-harbor protections. this would mean that a lot of the government's case against them would be destroyed. they would have to prove that megaupload wilfully encouraged infringement on their site which would be much more difficult. so therefore Megaupload has every right to look through the data for their defence.
logic'd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since that isn't the case here (some use doesn't mean significant use), the point is moot.
Kim's best offensive was the military users, but even then, it's quite possible they were file sharing as well, so that didn't go over very well.
"so if they can prove that a large amount of data stored on their servers is non-infringing, then they would retain safe-harbor protections."
Incredibly unlikely. With a supposed 150 million users, but only 10% of them uploading, it's pretty clear what was going on here without even having to be very bright. One only needs a small sample of the data to see what is what.
That the Mega people have been unable to come up with anything, even the slightest bit of data to support this argument pretty much seals the deal. Further that the fed's evidence apparently shows that the main players were more than aware of what was going on makes it an even bigger slam dunk.
There is nothing in the law that would permit Mega to look at customer data. In fact, privacy laws might actually make that a big no-no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
SCOTUS has already established significant non-infringing uses of a service as a valid defense. IT does not matter about the rest.
Moreover, why were the MPAA and the DOJ permitted to take what they needed as prosecution, but not Mega for defense purposes? That makes no fucking sense for justice to take place. People are permitted to cross-examine witnesses and "experts" in criminal trials. so why is it not permitted in this trial?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and here is a good question. also completely hypothetical. if all but 1 file on megaupload was legal. and that one file was downloaded 150 million times. would the legal uses still be insignificant?
more reasonable question. if 1/3rd of megaupload was legal, 1/3rd was questionable, and 1/3rd was infringing. is there a significant non-infringing use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The question you should be asking is ... Is this prior restraint?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? You can prove that without access to the data stored on those servers can you? I have personally downloaded hundreds of files from MegaUpload - and not a single one has been infringing. See forums such as XDA Developers, ModMyMobile etc for examples of large communities using these type of services for substantial non-infringing use.
Once again - just because 90% of users downloaded only does NOT mean that they were downloading without permission or that anyones rights were being infringed. This figure is completely meaningless! See above for examples of non-infringing substantial use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for your hearsay about what others may or may not of infringed upon (jurisdictions where the MPAA have none apply too) that onus is up to the MPAA to prove and since they have no standing whatsoever to access the data, they have no standing in this CRIMINAL case either other than maybe as a witness and alleged victim though if that is the case they need to sit down and STFU and act accordingly or contempt sanctions, malic prosecution charges, Detinue, and other nice legal weapons WILL be initiated on them from a wide range of jurisdictions.
Who knows if you are so well informed and acting in a manner unethical you too could be a party to sanctions as well.
As far as looking at customer data, Megaupload themselves would not be looking at it. A third party authorised by the court that is unbiased and has qualified immunity via the court would instead look at the data. Counsel for MU also would have this ability, even in camera situation could be considered. Especially in relation to NZ jurisdiction where public access is not a given for all court matters, in fact the public have no ability to be informed other than of basic judgements in all criminal hearings. (Public hearings are only a US thing)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's start at the top: the criminal case has to do with the flow of money between the myriad of companies that Kim and his associates set up to profit from infringing material, and to move the money away from the center towards these external companies. There is no normal reason I can think of why one would use this sort of structure, except to move money from one place to another to avoid legal or tax issues. Considering Kim's past involvement with questionable business dealings, I tend to lean towards some sort of chicanery.
I look at the same filings as you, read the same press released and stories, and listen to stuff coming out of the Mega people's mouths. I look at what was in Google when they were shut down, and I look at the extremes they went to in order to hide which files were actually the most downloaded.
Is it unethical to read the news, poke around a little, and draw my own conclusion?
NZ's jurisdiction in the case is very narrow, they case is not going to be tried in that country. Extradition leaves them very little room to move, the US indictments for money laundering and such reach the levels within treaty that lead to almost automatic extradition. There is no need for a third party of any sort in NZ to look at anything. It's just not how the legal system works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not the point. The MPAA shouldn't be involved in any criminal case, save as a possible witness, never mind having access to the data that MU isn't being permitted to access.
Which, if you have been paying any attention, is in those same filings that you claim to have read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If as you state you are only going by what is currently being made public then your allegations are just that allegations, and allegations based on hearsay and opinion are NOT even allegations, just wild speculation based on your lack of understanding of international jurisprudence. Being US-Centric is what has gotten the USJ into this mess in the first place, my advise to you is not to fall down into the same trap.
As for the rest of what I have stated below in further comments in relation to detinue, Malpros, etc this is why the MPAA need to be very very careful (and the USJ) into what they are doing.
Oh and the US indictments that came from a Grand Jury.. -which in itself makes the NZ Judiciary and any other judiciary of an English Law based nation look at it with a dubious eye - is basically lacking in merit based on all evidence before the courts.
There is no need for a third party of any sort in NZ to look at anything
Are you stating that the NZ courts are a third party to this? If so, you really need to go back to basic sovereignty law and think again. If not then the only other third party is the MPAA which means you have just totally made my argument for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
seems to me this is just a way for the MPAA to say they are trying to cooperate with prior customers but at the same time, knowing it will take forever and a day to sort the mess out, they will still be achieving the goal of the whole operation-to shut down and keep shut down a website they didn't/dont like for as long as possible.
they weren't worried about sorting out which files were non-infringing when they forced the site to shut and seized the servers, they shouldn't be so concerned about releasing the servers now people want the their stuff back!! i hope the NZ court can see exactly what the MPAA are up to again here and take the necessary action. after all, the HDDs were removed to the US without court consent. i bet that didn't go down well!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
Right. And theoretically, time travel is possible. Case law or statute are the underpinnings of legal theory. Yours is nothing more than a piracy apologist fantasy, not a theory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whilst you are at it look up transferred malice which might also apply in this situation in which the USG themselves could be liable since no immunity under NZ (as well as the MPAA)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-MegaUpload has a bunch of property they let others pay to use.
-The government takes MegaUpload's property away from them, and robs MegaUpload's customers of access to that property that they already paid for.
-The MPAA says it would be fine let others continue to use MegaUpload's property, but NOT MegaUpload, who owns the property.
Yeah, that makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You go first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You go first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Carpathia most likely does not own the facilities where some or all of the servers are located, which means they are paying another company for rackspace, network connections, power, cooling, etc. If Carpathia owns the physical servers, those servers could be reprovisioned for other purposes and can't be used for income generating purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has the MPAA been deputized?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The MPAA is doing the users a favor
And there's no reason to waste time wondering whether anyone infringed by mistake, perhaps by sticking copyrighted clipart in a Word document. The game was quite obvious at Megaupload. No one cares about incidental infringement, it's all about the massive infringement that made enough money to create that mansion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
The big problem here is the MPAA is now acting as the enforcer for content that's not even theirs, and they're still limiting people's access to their own creative content.
Sorry Bob, but the MPAA is full of hypocrisy, even you can see that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
Remember Germany, that has the most idiotic copyright laws on the face of the planet maybe behind only to Japan which has those laws more like window dressing since they enforce nothing and are very afraid of public scrutiny of those laws which they use very selectively to harm competitors that try to enter the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
Know what, screw it. You can say that I am wrong and say that, no matter if there are legitimate files, every file stored under Mega's name has some proof of infringement and others are going to present their case to say "you're wrong." All I'm here for (and really part of the reason why I got an account) is to ask this simple question: "where's your proof?" I myself may not have any evidence, but there's plenty of things out there that proves our point better than yours. If you can dig up anything that could save your behind and prove us wrong, then... well, I can't tell you to shut up. There's no point in telling someone like you to shut up, no matter how many people tell you too. I'm certain even the freaking president can't tell you to shut up! There's no way of keeping you silent, Bob.
And now I'll do you a favor: I'll shut up (for the time being).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
As Bob said, it's unlikely to see that many takers, as most of what was going on with Mega wasn't exactly 100% above board, if you know what I mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
1 citation needed. proof that MAJORITY of the traffic was infringing. (my bet is that you can't and never will be able to)
2 even if it is a majority being downloaded as long as the site has SIGNIFICANT non-infringing uses it does not matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
2 - what do you consider significant? 1%? 5%? Would you say that a crack house should be left alone if 1% of the time people are NOT dealing drugs? Significant for me would suggest "mostly" or "almost always", and that just doesn't add up here. You can look at the ripples through all the file sharing chat boards and stuff to know just how much infringing material was taken down this way. It's shocking that you can't see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
2) Significant is beyond the margins of error. Moreover, digital crack and physical crack are two completely different things: one is an MMORPG, and the other is a highly addictive drug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
and another thing. lets say 49% of files are not infringing. suddenly it is not significant. plus you think this stopped any serious file-sharer for more than a single day? best this did was stop a casual sharer for at best a week til he migrated elsewhere. hell all this has done for copyright is piss people off at it. and you think otherwise you are clearly delusional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
Oh that is right you can't do that.
Why should you be able to do that in cyberspace is a wonder though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
All at their own expense, of course, including independent musicians and filmmakers they would love to see fail and/or be indentured to their own distribution methods.
"As Bob said, it's unlikely to see that many takers, as most of what was going on with Mega wasn't exactly 100% above board,"
Only via innuendo and bullshit assumptions like "since most of the users downloaded without uploading, they must have been infringing". Utter ass water. The actual proof of what was and wasn't infringing is, conveniently enough, hosted in the very servers at question here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
For the claiming process, if you have material at, say, a storage locker company that goes bankrupt, you would be required to prove that the contents of a given locker is yours. Yes, it would be at your expense. Why would it be different here? It's even more fun here, considering the anonymous factor, which means that people will not only have to prove it's theirs, but prove that they have account access. At their expense, yes. Why would it be any different online from the real world?
"Only via innuendo and bullshit assumptions like "since most of the users downloaded without uploading, they must have been infringing". Utter ass water. "
Paul, the only ass water is what is rolling out of your mouth today. You only have to look at the incredible ripples through the file sharing communities online as mega got shut down. Chat boards with tens of thousands of posts all pointing to infringing material, suddenly rendered useless. Tons of traffic being fed to mega from pirate sites, all so that people could get paid for downloads. It's all there, you only have to open your eyes and step back from licking Mike's boots long enough and you might actually see it.
Oh wait, you don't WANT to see it. That's different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
Because it is different, as are all logistics online vs. offline. I'm sorry that you can't apply cheap analogies to this case. All your physical analogies do tend to fail, maybe you should stop doing so where they don't apply.
Also, I'm sorry if you don't want your RIAA masters to have to pay the bills to claim their stuff and allow MU a reasonable defence, and pass all the costs on to innocent 3rd parties. Why do you want independents to go under just so your corporations get paid? Why do you attack the rights of innocent artists?
"Tons of traffic being fed to mega from pirate sites, all so that people could get paid for downloads."
...and tons of traffic was being driven there for perfectly legitimate uses. Why do you ignore them?
"Oh wait, you don't WANT to see it. That's different."
Look in a mirror, dumbass, you're the only one who's choosing to remain ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
It's a little too late to try and get protection long after getting into bed with Congress. The MPAA should have used a legal condom long before it got to this point, but instead kept going around screwing every customer on two legs and is now rushing to the doctor to get the cure no matter what it costs anyone else.
As Bob said, it's unlikely to see that many takers, as most of what was going on with Mega wasn't exactly 100% above board, if you know what I mean.
Many takers that had legitimate legal (their own) data uploaded to Megaupload will not ever need to retrieve anything as it was not their only backup of said data and have already moved on to other storage sites. Some do not have that luxury, but all users have been treated as if they were infringing without the benefit of a doubt, or even a simple look.
Welcome to the new Crusades: For the holiness that is copyright, none shall be spared. Off with their websites!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
And apparently, no one, and especially you b0B, cares about the rights or property of either the incidental infringers, or especially the ones who want their legally copyright protected property back that was illegally stolen from them and they were essentially accused (assumed) of copyright violations ON THEIR OWN WORK.
Thanks, b0B, for letting us know exactly what kind of human being you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
Try applying your lofty moral standards to the intellectual property of those whose works are illegally stolen from them in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
If you use correct terminology, one MIGHT take you more seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
Try applying your lofty moral standards to the intellectual property of those whose works are illegally stolen from them in the first place."
I just did. There are people who's work was on MU that is now stolen and inaccessible to them, illegally. OR, are you saying that copyright laws only apply to "big media" and not the little guy? Remember, the 1976 Copyright revisions added an "automatic copyright" to ALL works by ANYONE, and that was at the insistence of YOUR beloved industry. So unless we have a high court/low court dichotomy happening here, these laws apply equally to all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
Well maybe they should have CwF + RtB or information wants to be free or they need to stop clinging to the past and use better storage solutions. How's it feel, asswipe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
CwF + RtB: Which was what people wanted to do with their own backups/material they put online; put it somewhere where people could get it.
Information wants to be free: So what the fuck's the point with suddenly locking it all down?
Stop clinging to the past: This is as good as crashing someone's car and resisting charges for reckless driving and saying it's all in the past. If the RIAA declared all storage media illegal and seized it, it's somehow the fault of the users?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
Weak, cause your puny argument doesn't hold any water. Try harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
Both could be a sale lost, but it's far more likely the loaning of the tool made someone lose a sale.
Stop being a fucking hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
Repeating this doesn't make it true.
Citations or STFU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The MPAA is doing the users a favor
Here's a clue: The mansion was RENTED!
Therefore like I have said before Bob suits you as a name since it really means discomBOBulation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
District Court Judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA what?
The fact that the MPAA seems to be dictating terms on behalf of the US gvmt really freaks me out. These bozos will be the first to leave the room when the courts side with DotCom over the botched operation and MegaUpload sues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The boilerplate MPAA form for requesting your own legally owned data:
1. Do your files contain binary data with any 1's? YES / NO
2. Do your files contain binary data with any 0's? YES / NO
NOTE: If you answered YES to either question 1 or 2, you will not be receiving your files. We will automatically suspect you of copyright infringement and will use your circling as an indication of willful infringement and acknowledgment of your guilt, which we will use in court to prove same, and be expecting a check in the amount of $250,000 for each file you have uploaded on Megaupload.
If you answered NO to both questions, then we will still suspect you of copyright infringement but will be willing to settle out of court for a slightly smaller fee (not to include our lawyers fees, they cost wayyy too much, our movies never make money, bla, bla, bla).
P.S. By the way, if your files did not contain any binary 1's or 0's, then your files contained nothing, which means you already have them. Have a nice day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The boilerplate MPAA form for requesting your own legally owned data:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The boilerplate MPAA form for requesting your own legally owned data:
Now, if you have stored your files in Trinary on Megaupload, it will be a simple enough process to sue you for the 1's and 0's it still contains (Not to mention the possible violation of Megauploads TOS for storing your data in an unapproved format - the courts frown highly upon TOS violators these days). The files may not be capable of being directly checked for copyright violations, but the fact that you were using the unapproved Trinary numbering system on a clearly Binary file system is proof that you are trying to hide evidence of your illicit activities, just like everyone who uses encrypted communications, and those who shield the ATM keypad with their hand when entering their PIN code at the bank.
If your not doing anything illegal, you should hide nothing.
Just look at example the governments of the world are setting with ACTA... oops, bad example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The boilerplate MPAA form for requesting your own legally owned data:
The possibilities are endless ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The boilerplate MPAA form for requesting your own legally owned data:
It does not matter that this is an immutable law of physics, you are still in direct violation of the QMCA (Quantum Millennium Copyright Act, passed in the year 3000 AD - which has set the notable legal precedent as applying to the future as well as the past). In that future time, the MPAA has perfected the Heisenberg Compensator from Sun Microsystems to measure your data without affecting the either the position or momentum of the subatomic particles in your original file, and will use said future quantum evidence in court against you in their past - or our present.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The boilerplate MPAA form for requesting your own legally owned data:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The boilerplate MPAA form for requesting your own legally owned data:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/359470/crap-out-your-mouth
(Thank you South Park)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Message to the MPAA, RIAA and the rest of the Copyright Cartel:
You’re nothing.
Fuck off and keep dying you evil greedy lowlife assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They should pay for it.
It's only fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: files
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems to me...
Also, didn't they say not too long ago that they wanted the data intact so they could use it to sue people?
But hey, I'm sure these two points are completely disconnected from each other...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless I am missing something...
Since I know nothing of the setup nor complexity of the Megaupload system I cannot attest to the difficulty of such a task. But if they have a decent permissions system in place it shouldn't be too difficult. I'm a web developer and I have done stuff like that before, given only a user access to their own content.
If the person who uploaded the files is the only one to access them then how is it infringement? How can their possibly be any infringement?
It would be safe to assume that if they uploaded it in the first place and it is infringing material then they probably still have another way to get it (either through backups or other sites). So I don't see the difficulty here.
There should, however, be concerns that such developer access could pose a threat to data security for the MegaUpload defense team. But beyond that this seems very doable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unless I am missing something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unless I am missing something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unless I am missing something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually
Apparently thats FAR more efficient than trying to rifle through the entire megaupload system looking for things to illegally take.
and the MPAA has been known to 'steal' data and intellectual property in this way before....there are entire film scripts that were sold under the counter that have been taken from websites....songs...you name it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Infringing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]