Let’s say I buy and losslessly rip a DVD and upload it to Megaupload as a backup or to have access to it on the go. I don’t share the link with anyone and thus don’t infringe on the copyright by redistributing the content publicly.
Now someone else buys the same DVD, rips it the same way and ends up with the exact same file (so their link actually points to my file because of deduplication), however they then decide to infringe on the copyright by distributing the link publicly.
Their link should indeed be disabled, but the original file should stay (with its other links) as there is no way to tell whether those other links are used legitimately.
IANAL so maybe the plausible deniability here is enough legal protection, but this is an argument that rings hollow to me from a technical perspective. Usually content ripped from physical media is not stored in its original format, especially during the timeline of MegaUpload's existence. The data is going to be encoded in a different format and therefore could have a variety of different potential hashes. A bunch of people having exactly the same version of this media indicates that it is a single encoding being repeatedly shared.
> Let’s say I buy and losslessly rip a DVD and upload it to Megaupload as a backup or to have access to it on the go. I don’t share the link with anyone and thus don’t infringe on the copyright by redistributing the content publicly.
this right here is (sadly) already a DMCA violation for the person who rips the DVD. I'm not sure whether or not that makes it a different situation for megaupload vs. a person uploading a rip of a DVD they didn't own in the first place.
second, the lawyers can probably argue that megaupload knew (or should have known) how widely each upload was being distributed. it's hard to argue you don't know that infringement is going on if you see hundreds/thousands of downloads through a link to a file whose hash matches a known illicit copy. maybe they were at least smart enough not to keep these kinds of logs, I dunno.
Yes, because we all live in America... right? Megaupload wasn't even a US company, why should it “enforce” some foreign legislation on non-concerned parties?
Pretty much. The US makes other countries adopt laws that are similar to their own via trade agreements. The whole purpose of doing that is to make it easier for american businesses to sell stuff in other countries. The whole world is economically forced to converge into the same set of general laws that just happen to be very friendly to the interests of american corporations. Intellectual property laws are included in the package.
There are countries in the world where governments struggle to provide basic infrastructure to their populations. Why would anyone in such a miserable situation even care about protecting american copyright industry interests by prosecuting copyright infringement?
An MPAA official once visited my country to lobby politicians and push their agenda. Journalists asked him point blank: do you think copyright is a priority in a country where people do not have basic sanitation? I wish I had saved the article where I read that...
> Megaupload wasn't even a US company, why should it “enforce” some foreign legislation on non-concerned parties?
Good question... The US can probably just do whatever it wants though. If they hate you enough, they'll just kidnap you and fly you to wherever it is they need you to be. They call it extraordinary rendition.
Nothing he or his company did was illegal in NZ.
Put it like this: if a Pakistani courts tried to extradite Zuckerburg for blasphemy because some of Facebook's users said bad things about islam, then they'd be rightfully laughed at.
But a US court trying to extradite a NZ CEO for something the company's users did... different story. Because America.
Every digital file is copyrighted (in practice). Some people are allowed to distribute some files, others aren't. You are claiming it's up to him to know who were allowed and who were not, but I don't thing that's clear in any way.
When they received a copyright notice, they would immediately remove only the link that was referenced in the notice, but would leave the file with all the other links still pointing to it. Which was the difference between "running a file-hosting service" and "knowingly hosting copyrighted material".