Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Megaupload Shutdown: Should RapidShare and Dropbox Worry?

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the chain-reaction dept.

Cloud 428

An anonymous reader sends in an article discussing whether other commonly used file storage sites are in danger of being shut down now that Megaupload has been closed. Quoting: "In the wake of the crackdown on the file-sharing website Megaupload, sites offering free content-sharing, file linking and digital locker services, such as RapidShare, SoundCloud and Dropbox, could be next in the crosshair of anti-piracy authorities. ... RapidShare and MediaFire are two of the biggest services left after Megaupload's exit. However, these sites have undergone a revamp, and now ... no longer host pirated content that could lead to a permanent ban. Others in the line of fire are DropBox, iCloud and Amazon S3, which support hosting any file a user uploads. Though their intention of supporting open file-sharing is legitimate, there is really no control over the type of content being uploaded."

cancel ×

428 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yes (5, Informative)

tehlinux (896034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775803)

Yes they should.

Re:Yes (5, Informative)

FreeCoder (2558096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775857)

You're correct, and there's big difference between RapidShare and the likes of Dropbox. MegaUpload, RapidShare etc is clearly profiting from copyrighted content. They pay users to upload popular files, and in 99% of cases it is pirated content. In turn they profit when users want to access those files. It's a huge "industry", and there will most likely be many more arrests when the list of affiliates that directly made money by uploading copyrighted content without permission goes public.

Dropbox doesn't have any such incentive for users, and they're free to download from. It's the uploader that pays for file upload space just like with web hosting, and he (nor Dropbox) cannot make money by uploading pirated content.

At least on dropbox (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775881)

if they close it I've still got my files locally

Re:At least on dropbox (5, Informative)

eldorel (828471) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776223)

if they close it I've still got my files locally

Are you certain of that?
If I delete a file from my dropbox folder on my laptop, it gets removed on my desktop.

What happens is someone with access to the dropbox server deletes a file?

Online "backup" services ARE NOT A VALID REPLACEMENT LOCAL BACKUP PROCEDURES.

They are for convenience and additional protection only.

Re:Yes (3, Insightful)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776025)

The trouble is, thats like saying Toshiba, Seagate, Samsung, Hitachi and Western Digital are profiting from Pirating because people store illegally acquired content on their hard drives. Going after these services is treating a symptom, not the root cause. Companies like dropbox are not deliberately making money from 'pirated' content. They make money because people pay them to host files. Now, those files could be pictures of cats, nuclear secrets, or a stolen copy of 'ghostbusters' without deeply invading the privacy of their users, there is no practical means by which they could ensure that every file they host is legal. It is not their place, nor should they be expected to, Police the content their users upload.

Re:Yes (5, Insightful)

FreeCoder (2558096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776077)

It's not a matter of expecting them to police content or users, it's a matter of MegaUpload's intentions. The site was clearly profiting from piracy. Likewise, not all hosting companies are going to be illegal just because police bust a hosting company that clearly is profiting from illegal content, for example by naming themselves "Child Porn Hosting" or "Warez ISP" or where it can be proofed that the company is actively acting as such. In this case MegaUpload's internal emails also showed they were fully aware of this. On top of that they went around DMCA laws by not actually deleting the files. If other user uploaded the same file, it was not actually uploaded again but was only given private url. When DMCA notice came, only the specific URL was disabled and the infringing content was still available at any other URL. Then there is still the whole matter of directly profiting from it.

An exemplar story to tell you. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776137)

I claim alledgely that i'm pirate. Can't i be pirate? This contradiction seems ridiculous to me.

The accusator can't force me to obey the invented word copyright (for profitable interests of the accusator only) without before of being agreed in this negotiation between the accusator and me about the conditions (for each other) of this invented word copyright.

The mental conspiracy of the copyright and the own copyright word infringe my religion, as if the copyright mind is provoking its evil invasion to my own religious mind.

And that the copyright can't be a platinum coin for the accusator only, without negotiated interests in the feedback, it's, for the accused that did suck only zeros and ones.

JCPM

Re:Yes (5, Insightful)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776187)

No, the issue isn't about storage of pirated files, it's about leveraging access to pirated content in order to make money.

The difference between MU and hard drive makers is that hard drive makers don't have revenue sharing schemes whereby they pay people who advertise and sell hard drives filled with pirated content. The more apt comparison would be a situation wherein Toshiba, Seagate, etc. are paying private individuals who possess pirated content to make that content available to the public in a scheme to drive hard drive sales.

Re:Yes (4, Insightful)

fightinfilipino (1449273) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776123)

charging piracy for this is incredibly problematic, though. if the model is basically "we pay if your file is popular", but there is no checking of the actual file, whether the user has actual rights to the file or not, or encouragement of piracy specifically, all that's left is accusing MegaUpload of encouraging popular files.

last i checked, not only is it NOT illegal to pay for popular things, it's ALSO one of the fundamental principles behind the "free market".

this whole thing is troubling. especially since services like MegaUpload CAN serve as alternative distribution channels out of the control of old media. if old media can get these services shut down, it's not because of any criminality: it's because they're trying to eliminate competing business models.

Re:Yes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776275)

Sure, sure... Always b/tards like you trying to justify both piracy and child porn. Rock on, tard.

Re:Yes (5, Insightful)

shark72 (702619) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776287)

if the model is basically "we pay if your file is popular", but there is no checking of the actual file, whether the user has actual rights to the file or not, or encouragement of piracy specifically, all that's left is accusing MegaUpload of encouraging popular files.

Note the IF. What you describe is not how MegaUpload operates. If the indictments are to be believed, the operators were caught numerous times encouraging the sharing of content that they knew to be pirated.

You're correct that a truly content-agnostic file storage and sharing site should have nothing to fear. DropBox is safe. The operators of MegaUpload, however, serve as a textbook example of purposely avoiding all the safe harbor opportunities. This isn't because they were stupid -- far from it -- but because this is their very business model.

The legal concept of mens rea -- latin for "guilty mind" -- applies here. The MegaUpload guys, through their actions, have been nailed fair and square. This is their choice. They took the lucrative, but risky, path, of actively courting piracy. Their business model is wholly different than that of DropBox.

Re:Yes (5, Interesting)

Dr. Hellno (1159307) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776341)

If you find the closure of Megaupload troubling, just read the indictment. I won't consider the legal matters here, but the emails cited in the indictment paint a pretty clear picture of intent. They show that:

A) In many cases, Megaupload employees knew that *specific* files on the site were in violation of copyright, but they took no action to remove the content
B) Knowing specific files were copyrighted, megaupload still paid out rewards to those files' uploaders
C) In a few instances, staff members shared links to copyrighted content with eachother and with the internet at large.

Those are just the most egregious points, which basically demolish their claim of safe-harbor. But there's more: The claim of conspiracy at first sounds ridiculous and overblown, but it begins to make sense when the indictment describes all the ways Megaupload is alleged to have actively worked to conceal piracy. Claims of DCMA compliance are shot to pieces by an allegation that certain links were the subject of takedown notices, but remained active for over a year. I could go on, but just read the thing yourself, it's actually pretty interesting for a while.

The guys at Megaupload sound hella guilty. The only other explanation is a massive conspiracy involving the FBI and the Justice Department, but I have trouble believing that.

Re:Yes (3, Informative)

thsths (31372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776361)

> last i checked, not only is it NOT illegal to pay for popular things, it's ALSO one of the fundamental principles behind the "free market".

Sure, it is called selling content. But you can only sell content you own, not content that someone pirated for you.

Dropbox and similar services get around this problem by offering a service, not content. You can upload your files, you can download your files, and you can even share your files. Dropbox has no incentive for illegal content.

Re:Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776263)

But I will gave a example, Dropbox on the other hand might not get shutdown. Due to the fact that some branch's of US Government law enforcement agencies have been using it for data transfer storage while out in the field. In the end I could see Dropbox increasing their polices on hosting copyright content.

Re:Yes (5, Interesting)

X.25 (255792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776307)

You're correct, and there's big difference between RapidShare and the likes of Dropbox. MegaUpload, RapidShare etc is clearly profiting from copyrighted content. They pay users to upload popular files, and in 99% of cases it is pirated content. In turn they profit when users want to access those files. It's a huge "industry", and there will most likely be many more arrests when the list of affiliates that directly made money by uploading copyrighted content without permission goes public.

So, for the sake of the argument, let's assume that 'pay for downloads' program is still running on Mega.

And decides to upload a new song that (s)he just made.

And 50 million people download it.

And (s)he gets paid by Mega.

Would you have any objections to that?

Program in itself is not a problem. Problem is that most popular downloads were those that infringed copyright and were uploaded by random people.

Re:Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775863)

Add ScribD to the list--they pander for uploads of copyrighted material.

Re:Yes (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775987)

Of course they do. All (new) material is copyrighted. Even this post.

Notable copyrighted works (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776163)

Then allow me to rephrase: "they pander for uploads of notable copyrighted material." In this market, notable copyrighted works are predominantly non-free. There are a few exceptions, most notably free software and Wikipedia, but these are nowhere near the majority of the works uploaded to sites under the pay-for-popular-downloads program.

NO !! RAPIDSHARE IS ALL GERMAN !! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775805)

And if the Germans can do one thing, it's MAKE WAR !!

Re:NO !! RAPIDSHARE IS ALL GERMAN !! (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775823)

If some of you have so much time and money that all you do is walk around and cause [usccb.org] problems then we need to know who you are because we are trying to work here. Size on these armbands.

Re:NO !! RAPIDSHARE IS ALL GERMAN !! (2)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775827)

And if the Germans can do two things, it's scat porn.

Re:NO !! RAPIDSHARE IS ALL GERMAN !! (2)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775961)

They do porn about jazz vocal improvisation?

Simlish lyrics about poop (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776179)

Jazz singers are really singing about going poop?

Re:NO !! RAPIDSHARE IS ALL GERMAN !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775921)

It's actually swiss, we're small and neutral, not ambitious and misunderstood.

Re:NO !! RAPIDSHARE IS ALL GERMAN !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776267)

It's actually swiss, we're small and neutral, not ambitious and misunderstood.

The whole thing sounds like a neutral plot to me. As Zapp Brannigan said "What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

Re:NO !! RAPIDSHARE IS ALL GERMAN !! (2)

moronoxyd (1000371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775937)

The Swiss will be surprised to hear that they are part of Germany now.

Re:NO !! RAPIDSHARE IS ALL GERMAN !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775989)

But in the end, the Kaiser gave up, and Hitler put a gun up his bumhole and fired (it is true). So, while the Germans can MAKE a good war, WINNING one is something that eludes them. So far.

Re:NO !! RAPIDSHARE IS ALL GERMAN !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776167)

It's Germans all the way down! OHNOES

Re:NO !! RAPIDSHARE IS ALL GERMAN !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776245)

And if the Germans can do one thing, it's MAKE WAR !!

Making war is fine, but it's winning them that matters. Not such a great track record there...

It depends (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775809)

Rapidshare, yes. Dropbox, no.

Re:It depends (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775859)

Dropbox has a Public folder than anyone (with the URL) can access.

Re:It depends (5, Insightful)

FreeCoder (2558096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775877)

But Dropbox doesn't try to profit from allowing users to download copyrighted material. Nor do they pay out to affiliates to upload popular content which almost always is pirated files. There's a major difference. And intent *does* count in court.

Re:It depends (5, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775891)

Court doesn't matter when the government decides to shut down a web site.

Re:It depends (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775905)

Well, if you're going to fall back to that argument then *every single website in existence* is at risk. In which case the question is pointless.

Re:It depends (4, Insightful)

finkployd (12902) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775949)

Now you are getting it. The media conglomerates have long been going after the ability to take down websites regardless of copyright content (they took down megaupload's youtube video despite not having any copyright claim on it, they have that agreement with google and want it elsewhere).

Re:It depends (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776079)

Allowing users to download copyrighted content" in of itself means nothing. Everything is copyrighted that can under current law, and the illegality comes from the sharing ILLEGALLY - as in WITHOUT PERMISSION. If I make a work, copyright it, and share it freely expecting / allowing others to do so, we're sharing copyrighted works legally. In before "you know what I meant" - MOST people don't, and that doesn't make it ok to be factually wrong wither.

Re:It depends (1)

FreeCoder (2558096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776139)

People aren't as stupid as you think. Almost everyone knows about copyright laws. And regardless, not knowing about laws doesn't remove your liability. I can't kill or rape someone and say that I didn't know such laws existed.

Re:It depends (1)

eldorel (828471) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776297)

People aren't as stupid as you think.

I wish that was true, but stupid has nothing to do with it.

Almost everyone knows about copyright laws.

Most people are ignorant about anything that is not directly related to their day to day lives.
Copyright may be something you and I deal with, but your average joe doesn't even know that fair use exists much less how it affects his day to day life.
Don't assume that everyone knows something just because the people you socialize with are aware of it.

And regardless, not knowing about laws doesn't remove your liability.

And this is exactly where the problem with the current legal system lies.
Laws are created every day that are broken by most of the population.
90% of them are never mentioned or covered in any media, so no one knows they exist until they're used to seize your property.
But that's a separate discussion.

Cryptomnesia (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776207)

If I make a work, copyright it, and share it freely expecting / allowing others to do so, we're sharing copyrighted works legally.

Not if you end up discovering later that your work is substantially similar to an existing non-free copyrighted work.

Re:It depends (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776165)

Great, you can make that argument in court--months, if not years, after the FBI has kicked in your door, taken all your servers, and arrested all your workers.

Re:It depends (1)

X.25 (255792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776325)

But Dropbox doesn't try to profit from allowing users to download copyrighted material.

You do realize that your and my comments are copyrighted too?

As would be a random document which I would type and store on Dropbox.

So yeah, Dropbox is profiting from allowing users to store and download copyrighted material.

Pffffff (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775819)

no longer host pirated content that could lead to a permanent ban

Don't make me laugh while I'm eating, you inconsiderate bastard! Who is going to clean up this mess now?

No? (2)

fenskinator (1629895) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775825)

Not unless the company is conspiring to have copyrighted material on its website.

Re:No? (1, Insightful)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775879)

Copyrighted materials as in almost any materials produced in the last several decades? Everything is copyrighted. Even your post might be copyrighted even though blindly copying words such as "copyrighted" should push it below the threshold of originality.

Re:No? (0)

FreeCoder (2558096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775897)

It's clear to everyone what is being meant, and you should stop nit-picking.

Re:No? (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775995)

It's clear to everyone what is being meant, and you should stop nit-picking.

Why should he, the *AAs won't stop nit-picking. Create your own content anyway, and the *AAs will sue you for ripping off their ideas. There's a reason why SyFy has such shitty inhouse movies, it's because if they produce absolute unbelievable shit, nobody'll sue them for idea theft & they'll still scrape by on advertising revenues. 'Intellectual property' means they'll copyright every idea they can and sue you to prove that you came by it on your own. Good luck with that. They have better lawyers and the law is on their side.

Re:No? (1)

FreeCoder (2558096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776017)

Do you want link to any case where **AA sued someone for "stealing idea"? And no, actual movie/song/whatever isn't an idea, it's a product. I have never heard of anyone getting sued for copyright infringement by making original content.

Re:No? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776111)

Perhaps you've heard of the case where one company wanted to call their game "Scrolls", and another company is after them because they create "The Elder Scrolls", and said it was too similar? I realize it's not the **AA, but over-broad copyright enforcement can cause havoc to original content creators. I, myself, am worried about it.

However! I am not in danger like MegaUpload is. I'm more worried about SOPA/PIPA.

Re:No? (1)

FreeCoder (2558096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776159)

That's not copyright infringement, it's trademark issue. And trademarks are a good thing to avoid someone taking your name and using it to confuse people. Note that generally trademarks also only apply to the same industry.

Re:No? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776251)

Great... so if in 2199 I have a website that offers "Walt Disney's Steamboat Willy" as a free download because it became Public Domain the year before, then I get hit by a Trademark infringement lawsuit from the Warner-Disney Universal corporation?

Re:No? (1)

FreeCoder (2558096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776301)

No you won't be hit with trademark infringement lawsuit. You're not claiming "Walt Disney's Steamboat Willy" as your own product or company, you're only allowing user to download it. That's fair use. Likewise, companies are allowed to use their competitors names when doing product comparisons or other things like that (if they're honest). You just aren't allowed to claim it as your own product.

Stealing ideas (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776253)

Not RIAA or MPAA, but Konami sued Roxor for patent infringement for making an arrow stomping game. Now patent infringement is not copyright infringement, but the SOPA and PROTECTIP proposals cover both. Within copyright, The Tetris Company has sued Biosocia, developer of a game with original graphics but the same rules as Tetris, despite that game rules can't be copyrighted (US Copyright Office form letter, citing 17 USC 102(b)). Both cases ended up settling out of court. And within the music industry, see Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton, successful lawsuits over accidental copying.

Re:No? (1)

fenskinator (1629895) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775945)

Good thing no one patented the tin foil hat, you might need one.

Re:No? (1)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776241)

I think the OP was referring to explicitly copyrighted material like movies, music (things that are published with copyright notice or are registered), rather than implicitly copyrighted material like forums postings.

Re:No? (2)

fenskinator (1629895) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775895)

Then again, when did it matter whether or not a company was doing something illegal for the government to claim a company did and step in?

Re:No? (5, Insightful)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775955)

Find three copies of Vanilla Ice's Song "Ice Ice Baby" on the site, and someone, somewhere will find a way to call that "willfiull infringement".... and have Dropbox shutdown. Why? Because the *AA's are criminal organizations, and copyright is and never will be a property right, but since we don't have the money to enforce the Constitution (we being the normal people)... corporations will assfuck us while the government holds us down.

Fuck 'em all. I don't give a shit about copyright anymore. I hate it all.

Re:No? (2)

fenskinator (1629895) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776013)

I agree with you on most of your points, but copyright itself isn't the problem. It's the insistence that someone needs to be paid well beyond their lifetime for a work they created that's the problem with copyright.

Re:No? (1)

FreeCoder (2558096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776175)

Don't you think its a little bit abusive to not allow the original content creators and artists to determine themselves the terms of the trade?

Re:No? (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776257)

If they want it all to be all by themselves, no I don't think that is abusive. So, we extinguish copyrights and rely on contracts for now on?

Royalties for Shakespeare? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776311)

Don't you think its a little bit abusive to not allow the original content creators and artists to determine themselves the terms of the trade?

Let's bisect [wikipedia.org] this policy debate: start by taking the idea to an extreme and working in from there. Do you think William Shakespeare's heirs and John Milton's heirs should still be collecting royalties?

Re:No? (3)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776303)

Fuck 'em all. I don't give a shit about copyright anymore. I hate it all.

Goddamn right.

I have no more respect for the MAFIAA than I do for the fucking Mexican Cartels or any other criminal organization at this point. The fact that our government legitimizes their bullshit is immaterial to me. After SOPA/PIPA and now this Megaupload bullshit, I've got a new motto: Pirate all the things!

Fuck 'em.

SOPA lovers would love to take them down. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775849)

Here's a guy who looooves SOPA--I'm sure he'd be all for shutting more web sites down.

http://johndegen.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-your-kids-were-taught-to-hate-sopa.html [blogspot.com]

Re:SOPA lovers would love to take them down. (2)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775917)

There are lots of supporters of SOPA. If you are going to declare war on them why don't you start with Teamsters and other unions (especially entertainment industry related ones) who openly supported it. Perhaps you trust them to know what's good for American jobs?

Re:SOPA lovers would love to take them down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775959)

If I were American perhaps I would start with them. Since I'm not, however, that would be rather rude.

Re:SOPA lovers would love to take them down. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776153)

Bullshit - all the people from other countries who keep claiming that this is a U.S. issue are just burying your heads in the sand. Start standing up for global rights already before it's too late.

Re:SOPA lovers would love to take them down. (5, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776125)

I support the core idea of SOPA while opposing the bill, and I suspect many others do too. If you don't read the damned thing, SOPA sounds like "let's reduce the rampant unchecked piracy online." Sure, that's great. There are many reasons why people should have to really look if they want a pirated copy of The Hangover 2.

BUT: it's all the details that make SOPA / ProIP terrible ideas. Taking down sites on suspicion without a proper day in court is a TERRIBLE idea. We already have examples of legitimate sites caught in the crossfire, who never had due process before being destroyed. Breaking our DNS is a TERRIBLE idea. Giving law enforcement powers to US Companies is a TERRIBLE idea. And all of this is to take power away from our courts, bypassing what they can already do anyway. Oh, let's not forget that the distinction between a "US" site and a "foreign" site is ill-defined.

I'm sure there are many intelligent people who support the idea of reducing online piracy. I just wish they had read the bill.

Re:SOPA lovers would love to take them down. (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776243)

There are many huge corporations which spent good money to try to push through SOPA and here you are hurrsterbating over a Union which supported it, combined with your derptastic sig you must be nothing more than a right wing bootlicker.

US Gov't "Funding" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775865)

I pretty sure it depends on whether any of SOPA's kin are past. If so, pretty much any website should worry.

Probably not (5, Informative)

Zeikcied (1630059) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775867)

Not unless they're paying users for posting popular pirated content like Megaupload was.

Paying pirates for pirating stuff is illegal, and it left MU without the excuse of "We didn't know." At least the other sites, as long as they don't reward pirates, can claim they're doing all they can to keep the site clean.

Re:Probably not (4, Insightful)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775899)

I agree. Evidence collected for megaupload include emails that specifically mentioned paying users that uploaded the most popular movie. Note it was not a "file", but specifically a "movie". Rapidshare and dropbox are safe as long as they dont explicitly support piracy (unlike megaupload). If all they care about are files and even if they pay users for uploading most popular files, the would get a free pass. Atleast under current laws.

Re:Probably not (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775919)

Sorry for the self reply, but missed an import piece: They also have comply with DMCA request, apart from treating all files equally; and they are good.

Re:Probably not (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776203)

Not Rapidshare, they are in Switzerland

Re:Probably not (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776329)

If Megaupload was paying for downloads of popular videos, how is that different from YouTube's partner program paying for views of popular videos, if both would honor authentic-appearing notices of infringement?

Re:Probably not (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776335)

The U.S. Constitution originally was not a copyrighted material, but many books companies claim as from them when they are selling those U.S. Constitution books. It's a trade business and profitable under the businesses's rules.

SOPA/PIPA that leads the copyright conspiracy does simply to be more dirty the U.S. Constitution.

Can the "U.S.'s Court House" shutdowns the entire cloud of "Germany's RapidShare"?
Will it cause a provocation of a "nazi ire" against the northamerican imperial domain (Hitler did similar in the past, german instead northamerican)?

Why many people claims the following magic phrases?
Don't feed the trolls.
Don't feed the pirates.

JCPM: now, the trolls and pirates were well feed, and almost they are giant as ogres.

Doubt it (5, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775889)

Megaupload was the very blatant in it's disregard for copyright. I wonder why pirates don't post their stolen movies on youtube? Perhaps because Google is extremely diligent in removing copyrighted material and banning users who post it. If Megaupload did the same it would still be up.

Re:Doubt it (1)

fenskinator (1629895) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775931)

If Megaupload did the same it would still be up.

Based on what we've all been reading, I'm fairly sure they were never going to be diligent like any responsible website.

Re:Doubt it (1)

Fishbulb (32296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776093)

This is exactly it. Megaupload's entire business model was advertising views and click through for any file that generated traffic.

Most of the other "cloudbox" providers charge you for space, which to me is more like a self-storage unit.

Re:Doubt it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776197)

I wonder why pirates don't post their stolen movies on youtube?

When reading the above, I can't be the only one getting a vision of some guys running out of a video rental store with a bunch of stolen DVDs, ripping them and posting them on youtube...

Seriously, the whole "stolen" hyperbole just does not work

Are highways and public storage facilities next? (1)

wrwetzel (543389) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775925)

Are the MPAA and RIAA next going to target highway administrators (e.g. NJ Turnpike, Garden State Parkway) to control what is carried on their roads? Are they going to target public storage facilities to control what is stored therein? Safe Harbor must be protected. And while we're at it let's protect all linking.

Re:Are highways and public storage facilities next (2)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38775977)

They are not targeting those sites for storing but for distributing, so storage facility analogy doesn't work. A store that distributes stolen goods would be a better one.

Re:Are highways and public storage facilities next (1)

wrwetzel (543389) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776083)

Good point.

Re:Are highways and public storage facilities next (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776347)

A store that distributes stolen goods would be a better one.

No, such a store would be charged with crimes related to theft:

http://www.redding.com/news/2011/jan/21/redding-motorcycle-owner-arrested-chop-shop-charge/ [redding.com]

Garyâ(TM)s Motorcycle Services Center owner Gary William Kenerson, 61, was arrested Thursday on drug- and theft-related charges.

On the other hand, Megaupload was charged with:

  1. Conspiracy to commit racketeering
  2. Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement
  3. Conspiracy to commit money laundering
  4. Criminal copyright infringement
  5. Criminal copyright infringement by electronic means

As anyone who bothered to read the actual indictment would have known:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment [scribd.com]

Re:Are highways and public storage facilities next (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776009)

Are the MPAA and RIAA next going to target highway administrators (e.g. NJ Turnpike, Garden State Parkway) to control what is carried on their roads? Are they going to target public storage facilities to control what is stored therein? Safe Harbor must be protected. And while we're at it let's protect all linking.

If a public storage facility start paying people to spread illigal content from open storage boxes and profit from ensuing activity, like Megaupload paid users to post the most popular pirated movies, then yes, I do believe that storage facility will be targeted next.

Encryption everywhere... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38775979)

If you are going to use any of these sites, make sure you keep a backup somewhere under your personal control, and then encrypt the data BEFORE it is uploaded to the site. If you are going to share it, provide some means for trusted downloaders to get the key. That makes it pretty/very difficult for anyone to know exactly what was uploaded without the key - not impossible, just expensive and time-consuming.

Re:Encryption everywhere... (2)

jrminter (1123885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776191)

Uh, this is done by default with DropBox. There is a DropBox folder on each local PC. It the site just goes down, it will just stop synching. Now if the feds force them to delete local copies and then shut down, that would be a bigger problem. I think the same is true with iCloud.

Safe Harbour (3, Insightful)

bpkiwi (1190575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776019)

Megaupload was targeted because they did the absolute minimum they could to comply with the DMCA and other US legislation. It's probably true that they quietly encouraged uploading digital copies, even when they knew that material was illegal, and they were slow in taking it down. Things such as having de-duplication in place, but only removing the one specific link to a file, not removing all the copies, when a takedown notice was sent. It's those actions that will mean they might lose in court unfortunately.

I'm sure Dotcom is hoping to get other tech companies to support his case though. Dropbox, Amazon, even Google will be asking "First they came for the dodgy upload sites .... will we say nothing and hope they don't come for us too?"

Re:Safe Harbour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776155)

Megaupload was targeted because they did the absolute minimum they could to comply with the DMCA and other US legislation.

Why should a non-US company comply with US legislation?

Surely US legislation is only in effect within the US, and outside the US the laws of whatever country you're in apply, right?

Just curious how that works, the US DOJ closing down a company registered in Hong Kong.

Re:Safe Harbour (4, Informative)

Alan Shutko (5101) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776271)

They had more than a thousand servers in the US, they collected money through US-based paypal from US customers for premium accounts, they made money through US-based ad networks, and they paid money to top up loaders in the US. In other words, they were doing substantial business in the US and therefore come under US law.

Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] goes into it in more detail.

Re:Safe Harbour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776367)

Why should a non-US company comply with US legislation?

Surely US legislation is only in effect within the US, and outside the US the laws of whatever country you're in apply, right?

Just curious how that works, the US DOJ closing down a company registered in Hong Kong.

If a company has operations in the US, it's subject to US law. Look up "jurisdiction" if you're really that curious.

Re:Safe Harbour (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776189)

Since when is it a crime to do the absolute minimum you can to comply with a law? Accountants get rich advising their wealthy clients and corporations on how to do exactly this.

Re:Safe Harbour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776221)

It's those actions that will mean they might lose in court unfortunately.

Just what, exactly, would be unfortunate about that? What you describe is Megaupload NOT complying with the law, and in fact circumventing it to profit from piracy.

I dislike big content and their complete infection of governments worldwide as much as the next guy, but I shed no tears for Megaupload and the douchebags who ran it.

Re:Safe Harbour (3, Insightful)

X.25 (255792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776371)

Megaupload was targeted because they did the absolute minimum they could to comply with the DMCA and other US legislation. It's probably true that they quietly encouraged uploading digital copies, even when they knew that material was illegal, and they were slow in taking it down. Things such as having de-duplication in place, but only removing the one specific link to a file, not removing all the copies, when a takedown notice was sent. It's those actions that will mean they might lose in court unfortunately.

Did you even think before writing that nonsense?

I recently purchased Ronald Jenkee's "Disorganized Fun" in FLAC format. I stored it on Megaupload and (protected with password), since I wanted to have a backup.

Another guy now purchases the same album in FLAC format(from the same place, obviously), and decides to upload the whole album onto Megaupload, and share the links with the world.

So, why exactly do you think my copy should be deleted?

No subject. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776035)

Apologies for the spam but since this is related (for the most part) to the article, this video needs to be seen by as many people as humanly possible.

---- Mega Upload Dangerous Secrets affect YOU, Mike Mozart JeepersMedia ACTA / PIPA / SOPA ---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tD1yaE0 ... AAAAAAAAAA

Please spread this to as many websites/forums as you can as this affects YOU!

Re:No subject. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776085)

Broken link, here is the corrected one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tD1yaE0GfQ&feature=g-logo&context=G2ffe35dFOAAAAAAACAA

Now go and get the word out!!!

Rapid Shit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776047)

Rapidshare (or Rapidshit, as it's so affectionately called) is a site run by Nazi Enthusiasts, and is a tool commonly used by /b/tards to pass along giant amounts of CP. It also holds the title for the website with the most ironic name EVAR. After Moot introduced a 100 image limit in threads, the use of Rapidshit increased, due to Moot forgetting what 'imageboard' even means. The logic behind this is questionable, since Rapidshare also has a 200 MB limit for uploads, due to Germans being too poor to afford reliable server space.

Megaupload however has a slower time limit between uploads (and also allows uploads of up to 1GB per file), and you should thus use it at the same time to increase the amount that you can download.

Rapidshare is currently made of fail and AIDS, as it keeps on being totally ghey. Waiting times before downloading a file seem to increase every 10 minutes as well, so boycott it and use Mediafire, Megaupload, Megaporn, Filefactory, Sendspace, Badongo, and whatever other things you can find to maximise the amount of pr0n that you can download. Unlike Rapidshit, the sites mentioned above do not treat their non-premium users like worthless trash pieces of shit and fuck them over at any given opportunity, which is unfortunate, because those people are asking for it.

Rapidshare maybe, Dropbox definitly not (-1, Troll)

photonic (584757) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776051)

I am not sure about Rapidshare and others, but I think that Dropbox [db.tt] has not a lot to fear. I guess most people (including myself) only use it primarily as a backup service or to synchronize stuff between computers, occasionally to share things with friends and even rarer to share things with the general population (using the Public folder). Of course this could be used to share movies with friends, but this is not much different than sharing them via USB stick. Using it to share illegal stuff with the general public could be done (it has been tried [forwardfeed.pl] in the past), but this is easily detected and people caught are likely expelled from the service. This can not be done for anonymous services like Megaupload or Rapidshare. Dropbox is thus largely used for innocent activity (as seen by the RIAA/MPAA), while in case of Megaupload it was the contrary (mostly illegal stuff and the occasional innocent use).

Re:Rapidshare maybe, Dropbox definitly not (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776099)

Good try with affiliate link. Let us know how well you do ;)

HD porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776147)

How am I suppose to download free HD porn without a site like megaupload?

Do they filter your private content like Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38776157)

Then I guess they won't have problems.
(try placing a picture of a nude person in your private folder on skydrive and see what happens)

Forget services, what about users? (2)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38776185)

How you prove that you don't have copyrighted content? Giving access to all private files and show that there is no private content there. They could require that kind of services that they get full access to the files, and the information about their users.

Probably they have a copyright on the phrase "who watches the watchers" so will end closing any media that dares to complain about the abuses that this kind of policy will enable them to do.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?