Odd: Mega Removing Any File It Can Find That Is Publicly Indexed -- Even Completely Legitimate Uploads
from the strange-move dept
There has been talk about how various anti-piracy operations have been "testing" Kim Dotcom's Mega in terms of how it responds to takedown notices (so far, it's apparently doing quite well). However, the folks at TorrentFreak noticed something odd. From their tests, it appears that Mega is actually taking down almost anything that shows up via a search engine that was set up to search publicly released "Mega" links. TorrentFreak uploaded some content that has been shared legally, and which is authorized for further sharing -- and all of it went away almost immediately.It's possible that someone is sending takedowns on all content it can find, or it's possible that Mega itself is taking down all such content -- and then flat out lying about receiving a takedown notice. Unfortunately, it also does not appear that Mega has any sort of appeals process, or the ability (as per the DMCA) to file a counternotice. While Mega is not a US company, and not subject to the DMCA, it seems only reasonable that it at least have a counternotice process.To test how quickly a file is removed by Mega we decided to post some previously uploaded legal content to Mega-search.me ourselves. Our uploads included a few Dan Bull songs, a clip from the Pirate Bay documentary TPB-AFK, a video explaining fair use and Kim Dotcom’s single Mr. President.
Quite shockingly, the files were pulled down by Mega in a matter of minutes, claiming they had received copyright infringement notices for each of them.
We are in receipt of a takedown notice affecting the following public link
in your account:Please be reminded that MEGA respects the copyrights of others and requires that users of the MEGA cloud service comply with the laws of copyright. You are strictly prohibited from using the MEGA cloud service to infringe copyrights. You may not upload, download, store, share, display, stream, distribute, e-mail, link to, transmit or otherwise make available any files, data, or content that infringes any copyright or other proprietary rights of any person or entity.
Furthermore, please be reminded that, pursuant to our Terms of Service, accounts found to be repeat infringers are subject to termination.
Yes, given the legal mess that Kim Dotcom and his partners are in over their previous company, Megaupload, you can certainly understand why they might default to an extreme position of "take down everything that is publicly searched," but that still seems ridiculous. There is plenty of content out there that is legally shareable, and if Mega does not want to allow public sharing at all, even of legal content, it should make that explicit. Alternatively, if someone is issuing bogus takedowns, Mega should have a process for dealing with that. Finally, it seems that Mega is in desperate need of an appeals process or counternotification system.
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 removals, copyright, counternotification, kim dotcom, legitimate content, takedowns
Companies: mega
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sad...
Where is the consequence to those that falsely enforce the law in a manner not legally sanctioned?
I think that the immunity that public servants currently enjoy with regards to the being sued should be revoked until they can show that they are not acting out of unenlightened self interest. Too often those people strike first and do not care whether or not what they do is fully legal or enforceable based on law because they know the victims have very little legal recourse. Also they do so to protect their job first and help their advancement in the world of government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad...
"that reminds us of all those people that lost their content last time around"
I'm one of those people. Fortunately, almost everything I had on MegaUpload was also on my external hard drives.
But it made fixing my website a beyotch when MegaUpload died.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While this does contrast with Mega's promises initially made I'd give them the benefit of the doubt (for now) and let's just watch what happens with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) MegaUpload is lying about getting notices.
2) Someone with a very broken bot is issuing takedown notices to everything it finds containing the word "The", because "The" appears in the title of their copyrighted work.
So, who wants to take bets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wouldn't discount it just yet - it's a play to remove the benefit of Google to Hollywood. They can't issue DMCA's or sue if their bots can't simply search for links.
I also suspect Dotcom has configured his website to automatically blame a DMCA request - probably an underhand attempt to smear the DMCA process.
It's quite interesting to watch these developments. What happens if the MAFIAA can no longer use Google to find infringing content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then no-one else can either!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am the anti-AC comment provider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
It means you just like all trolls and shills are unwilling to debate and instead prefer to just state BS as facts.
Techdirt loves to debate and loves to present facts. AC's do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
The point is that with a very vibrant community that loves to express it's opinions it is very suspicious that the top/first commenter's are ACs.
It raises my troll meter to new high levels and makes your comments about as valid as a joke lottery ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
Assuming you're sincere: I just check in on techdirt every now and then and sometimes an article has just been posted. This time I took the effort to make a post...
Note that I'm not offended or anything, just amused :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
If anything the AC's so far seem to be raising good points as to how MEGA has some big problems and what it'll mean for the service going forward, while avoiding any insane claims along the lines of 'it's a file locker so obviously it's for piracy' that would justify the 'shills' accusation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
Trolls MAY often be ACs.
But ACs are NOT all automatically trolls.
In fact, most of the worst trolls DO in fact use some sort of handle... like bob, Darryl, TAM, or out_of_the_blue even if they're not registered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
"you and all ACs are nothing more than shills for a biased and paid comment group."
A blanket statement that seems pretty clear to me. You've already labeled everyone who doesn't have an account a shill/troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
There's also this... lol
"The point is that with a very vibrant community that loves to express it's opinions it is very suspicious that the top/first commenter's are ACs."
Hmmm... Who was the first commenter on this story again?
Mouth, meet foot. lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
I posted first because I had the time and also TechDirt Crystal Ball. Which AC's generally don't. I also did not say the First commenter I said the first commenter's which I agree is not a good way to word my statement.
What I meant in my haste was that I found it funny that those that commented after me were a higher than normal percentage of people that did not post with a handle.
So enough of the BS. Let's discuss the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
Skeptical Cynic (if that is his real name) claims to share the ideals of the techdirt community, and yet hates people who comment anonymously, regardless of what the discussion topic is.
AAAAAAAA!
\ | /
-- POP! --
/ | \
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
Even more priceless is the fact that it was him who started this entire off-topic discussion...
"I am the anti-AC comment provider"
...inadvertently making HIMSELF the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
Oh, that's right, I support TD and not idiotic comments (some of which are even mine!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am the anti-AC comment provider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"#Mega policy: NO PROACTIVE COPYRIGHT POLICING OF THE INTERNET. That's not our job. But linking sites abusing the Mega brand will be blocked."
Looks like linking sites to files on MEGA will all be blocked by MEGA. MEGA is a privacy site NOT a piracy site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So we're still allowed to share the stuff, but just not on linking sites? Seems fair enough to me. Probably for the best too, since some dumbasses clearly don't know how to hide their copyrighted material properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Still no excuse though for the way he's handled & disabled perfectly legal files.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://mega.co.nz/#blog_5
"MEGA as a cloud storage provider is not required to police its users. For example, under the United States DMCA safe harbour, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(e), the DMCA safe harbour provisions are not conditioned upon a service provider "monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity." Section 512 represents a legislative determination that copyright owners must themselves bear the burden of policing for infringing activity — service providers are under no such duty.
However, it has come to MEGA's attention that there are micro search engines that use our (M) logo and other MEGA branding without authorization. Worse, such site(s) were reported in a highly publicized manner and purport to be globally available search engines, but don't have their own DMCA takedown policy or registered DMCA agent.
In addition, MEGA distinguishes itself from other major cloud storage providers through two important concepts: Privacy and security. Both are utterly eviscerated by making encryption keys public, a fact that is not only self-evident, but also made very clear in the MEGA user interface:
"Caution: MEGA's cryptographic security model depends on the confidentiality of the keys displayed above. Avoid transmitting them through insecure channels!"
We apologize to the very small number of users who, due to MEGA's cautious legal practices, had some of their authorized files mistakenly taken down. We do believe that by ignoring our advice and making encryption keys public, especially through sites that do not even implement a proper notice-and-takedown protocol, you were not entirely unprepared for negative repercussions."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THE SKY IS FALLING[/sarcasm]
1) MEGA is only 11 DAYS OLD! Plus it's the brainchild of the copyright industry's #1 enemy, Kim Dotcom. Did you really think that things wouldn't go off without a hitch? (also, it's still (supposedly) in Beta, so there's probably still a few kinks to work out)
2) Unless you didn't get the memo before, MEGA=/=MegaUpload. MEGA's slogan is even "THE PRIVACY COMPANY". The fact that your files were taken down because you released the links on a public index site and they caught the eye of some overzealous copyright lobby stooge is your own damn fault. In other words, don't go publicly sharing the files just yet. Wait until MEGA's at least a few months old before you start sharing your stuff.
3) The US DoJ is breathing down Dotcom's neck, looking for any excuse to say that MEGA is just MU back from the dead, and then get Kim Dotcom tossed back in jail for violating his bail agreement, and quickly extradited to the US for their witch trial. So yeah, if MEGA's being overzealous with the takedown notices, or just trying to stop people from sharing them on public index sites, I can't say I really blame him for trying to cover his fat ass.
It'll be interesting to see what's really going on though.
As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: THE SKY IS FALLING[/sarcasm]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought one of Mega's goals was to upset the current distribution model... but if public linking isn't allowed, how will independents (music, software, etc.) use his site for their content distrubution?
I'm not sure Torrent Freak published their links publicaly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for MEGA's goals being to upset the current business model, I think you might be mixing up MEGA with Dotcom's MegaBox music service that was put on hold as a result of last year's raid. But if he was talking about MEGA, then it's obvious there are still some kinks to work out with the service... it hasn't even been online for two weeks, so these things are bound to sort themselves out one way or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Go look it up (insert the "Mega-search.me" letters into a browser URL and press Enter).
Though I'ts interesting when you think how they only chose video and music files to link to publicly and they were removed, I wonder if documents or images would be removed and if not that means it is highly likely that a robot is automagically looking for music and videos and sending them as "infringing notices" (not DMCA's) to Mega. Makes more sense then Mega doing it proactively themselves.
Also interestingly (and I'm not sure people actually realise this yet) if a notice is sent to mega and it's done maliciously, vindictively, fallaciously, or without full due diligence and it pulls a file that is not what they say it is (ie: lawful) the owner of that file has full legal recourse against the organisation that sent it. This is even more so if that owner is not American. The reason for this is there is no qualified immunity as under the DMCA since the DMCA is not relevant in this matter.
hmmmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't it the LINKING itself that is violating the copyright
"You are not allowed to, and you can't let anyone else... display... by linking... or use any of our copyright, intellectual property... without getting our permission first in writing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't it the LINKING itself that is violating the copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm very surprised that folk would believe a new service would go off without a hitch. It takes time to massage a new service into a polished state. Still long ago I've learned to be patient and see what comes of various new things; not limited to just Mega.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However the chilling effect is quite clear. MAFIAA PLEASE HURRY UP AND DIE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mega Search
Due to a script developed by Mega to delete all files indexed on Mega-search, the engine is temporarily unavailable. A solution to overcome this problem will be made shortly.
Does this REALLY mean that the very act of searching for something publicly available actually deletes the file?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mega Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another one popped up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my word documents are gone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://twitter.com/getpopcornapp/status/443733822035988480
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://gizmodo.com/5953044/the-new-megaupload-has-a-super-clever-way-to-avoid-copyright-infringement -and-getting-raided-again
How can they know unless they do have the encryption keys and do look at what is uploaded?
(tl; dr: the link reports that Mega has no idea what is uploaded, but the article above reports that they do.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]