Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lemon10]

hurdur megaupload has pirated files on it's site, when it cannot feasibly monitor every single download.
ARREST DEM!

seriously, the US government appears to be getting more and more touchy (and retarded) about things posted on the web.
*gets dragged off by FBI*
INTERNET FREEEEEDDDDDOOOOOOMMMM!

Actually, if you read the indictment, you would see that A) they do have the power to keep stuff off their servers (the way it works is that they have hash-tags for files, and the same file is only actually stored on the computer once, someone else adding the same file will result in another link being added to the original file, it would be fairly simple for them to stop anything with the same hash-tag as something removed for copyright reasons from being added, it wouldn't completely stop ALL IP violations, but once a file was reported it would stop it from being added again by anyone), and they do it for some file types currently (terrorist propaganda, child porn). B) The vast majority of users use megaupload for getting copyrighted stuff for free, although some people DO use it as a locker for their stuff, I bet only a very small percentage do so.
And C) Read the indictment, megaupload isn't exactly trying to keep pirated software/movies/songs off their site, and actively try to prevent it from being easy to see how much copyrighted things there are there, while the indictment might be lying/exaggerating about some things, megaupload isn't innocent at all in this.

[GlyphGryph]

A few things:
One, they could remove the files for everybody. But if someone is simply using it to store files for themselves, why isn't that just as legal as copying the music to their ipod or usb stick? (I think it is, actually) I know I've used the site to send myself material before. What you're describing would disable files for legitimate users as well. Megaupload can and should only act if they are aware the content is being distributed - what you're discussing would have involved destroying a legitimate use for the site. And it is, seriously, not that easy - sure, they could do it, but there are technical costs. And it would be trivial to work around. And the law certainly wasn't clear on the issue.

Two, Any numbers for your second claim? Because that sounds pretty unsubstantiated.

Three, because they can't and it isn't their job beyond responding to DMCA requests? Fuck, a ton of the members of congress have failed to keep illegal copyrighted material off their respective sites, but they aren't being prosecuted, are they? And since they actually PUT IT UP, themselves, on purpose, they seem significantly more culpable. Oh, but wait! They only steal from people too poor to bring them to court, so its okay...

[MorleyDev]

So much for the safe harbour...

[Aklyon]

In pre-derail news...

[PTTG??]

What we need is a distributed, redundant, peer-to-peer locker.

Imagine if your data is broken into compressed, encrypted chunks. The encryption and compression is done in such a way that, without all of the chunks, it is impossible to decrypt- any one chunk is statistically identical to noise.

These chunks are distributed to several peers on the network. No peer has more than one chunk of anyone's data, and each chunk is copied to several peers.

You keep the encrypted identity of all these chunks in a "key" file. You can only access your data with this key file, and then only with a password.

Now your data is absurdly secure, and can be accessed from anywhere you have the key file. Of course, you must contribute storage space, but the data you are holding could be absolutely anyone's, and is just as thoroughly encrypted. Downloading files could be faster than modern systems, since you will have several direct links to your target peers.

This may require a central server to assign chunks to peers and distribute load as some peers go a away and reappear. However, it may also be possible to make an entirely p2p network by having peers communicate about what sort of load they are on. Popular chunks might be distributed automatically to other hosts. Files that are accessed rarely might be moved to servers with high uptimes and storage but low connection speeds, thus opening more space elsewhere. All this would of course require updating the key files... perhaps a central server would be needed. Nonetheless, this central server would not only never contain any of the files, no one, anywhere, besides the end user, knows the contents of the files, making it utterly impossible to censor.

[Sergius]

internet blog

Don't expect much.

Oh wait, I meant Internet Forum.

I agree, internet forums are shit.

[sneakey pete]

A few things:
One, they could remove the files for everybody.

Except they didn't, which is the entire point. They kept the physical file on there and just disabled the one of many unique links to it that was complained about

what you're discussing would have involved destroying a legitimate use for the site.

Don't think that's legitimate under the DMCA act, though feel free to have a read and prove me wrong, i might not be correct.

Three, because they can't and it isn't their job beyond responding to DMCA requests? F

The point is they failed to abide by the DMCA request. They didn't do their job. Hence the charges.

[GlyphGryph]

Except they didn't, which is the entire point. They kept the physical file on there and just disabled the one of many unique links to it that was complained about

How about you not quote me out of context with quote snipes? That's what that whole fucking paragraph was about, after all - the fact that they didn't, and its possible to argue it was justified.

Don't think that's legitimate under the DMCA act, though feel free to have a read and prove me wrong, i might not be correct.

The details vary. It is allowed, explicitly, under certain conditions, and not under others. However, there is no way for MegaUpload to make that distinction.

The point is they failed to abide by the DMCA request. They didn't do their job. Hence the charges.

Again, if you actually read the DMCA, this is a legal grey area - does removing the link to the content remove it from their website?
The language of the DMCA explicitly states that the file does not need to be removed - that disabling access is enough. After all, users can file counter-notices, and if they actually delete the content they'll be held liable. I think there's enough of a legal grey area there that it is perfectly possible for MegaUploads system to end up being legally in the right (ultimately, it's going to be up to a judge, of course).

[jester]

I gotta say I wouldnt be too shocked if these guys get some heavy legal representation and get off, the laws around this sort of thing seem about as airtight as my underpants and access to that sort of cash/potential cash can buy alot of justice.

  That said, I also dont think id be shocked if the whole thing is an obvious show trial from day 1

[hermes]

Drawing analogies with car manufacturers or MP3 makers isn't really logical.  A better analogy would be shifty-Pete who sells ripped off DVDs and the contents of his grandma's purse to neighborhood buddies.  Yes, there is a grey area here because all they are doing is "enabling", in the same way Pete "enables" us to buy his grandma's china.  But basically the legal system (so far?) goes after people who are profiting from selling information they do not own.

Secondly, lobbying is an integral part of the US as a global *capitalist* democracy.  As much as we may not like it, money creates a unbiased playing field.  Yes, most of us are poor (but not in any real sense) - however we all still have a vote, and if you really gave a damn about politics and wanted to lobby for a cause there are a million paths one might take to a position of wealth or power to change the law to what your bigoted ego wants it to be.  Right?  We don't live a feudal age, or even a neo-feudal age; you want to be a congressman or a CEO yourself you can damn well go out there and try.  Because of lobbying, (most) any company in the world can lobby the global hegemon for policy changes, the international reach of US law is reflected in international access to the legal system - how awesome and (economically) liberal is that?

[jester]

Secondly, lobbying is an integral part of the US as a global *capitalist* democracy.  As much as we may not like it, money creates a unbiased playing field.  Yes, most of us are poor (but not in any real sense) - however we all still have a vote, and if you really gave a damn about politics and wanted to lobby for a cause there are a million paths one might take to a position of wealth or power to change the law to what your bigoted ego wants it to be.  Right?  We don't live a feudal age, or even a neo-feudal age; you want to be a congressman or a CEO yourself you can damn well go out there and try.  Because of lobbying, (most) any company in the world can lobby the global hegemon for policy changes, the international reach of US law is reflected in international access to the legal system - how awesome and (economically) liberal is that?

Ive been up all night, is this sarcasm?

[Canalan]

Drawing analogies with car manufacturers or MP3 makers isn't really logical.  A better analogy would be shifty-Pete who sells ripped off DVDs and the contents of his grandma's purse to neighborhood buddies.  Yes, there is a grey area here because all they are doing is "enabling", in the same way Pete "enables" us to buy his grandma's china.  But basically the legal system (so far?) goes after people who are profiting from selling information they do not own.

Secondly, lobbying is an integral part of the US as a global *capitalist* democracy.  As much as we may not like it, money creates a unbiased playing field.  Yes, most of us are poor (but not in any real sense) - however we all still have a vote, and if you really gave a damn about politics and wanted to lobby for a cause there are a million paths one might take to a position of wealth or power to change the law to what your bigoted ego wants it to be.  Right?  We don't live a feudal age, or even a neo-feudal age; you want to be a congressman or a CEO yourself you can damn well go out there and try.  Because of lobbying, (most) any company in the world can lobby the global hegemon for policy changes, the international reach of US law is reflected in international access to the legal system - how awesome and (economically) liberal is that?

Can I say not at all?  Because I want to say not at all.
Just because you can go out and become a CEO or a senator doesn't mean you... can.  You run against people that can outspend you with the lint in their pockets that we call money.  You can get rich and try, but the odds are so stacked against you that it might as well be impossible.  And saying lobbying balances the playing field... In who's direction?  Megarich corporations that don't see you as anything but a small fleshy sack of money?  As an American, your voice means nothing.

And looking back, this has to be sarcasm.  It has to be.

[PTTG??]

...you want to be a congressman or a CEO yourself you can damn well go out there and try...

So the only reason you aren't a CEO is because you don't want to be wealthy?

"Money"- and more generally, material wealth- does create an uneven playing field. However, there is a reason we have government, and that is to make things even. Consider an anarchy. Those who control more resources will soon control ever more, and those with little enough will soon have less. We create governments to protect us, and to ensure that we have more freedom than we would have with no government. What's more, with a government comes infrastructure: resources and capital that are shared, allowing everyone, especially the wealthy, to profit all the more efficiently. With law comes order, so that those who have earned wealth might keep it safe.

It is not, as you put forth, the role of the government to follow the commands of the wealthy. Rather, it is the role of the government to serve the interest of everyone to the greatest extent by making laws that in fact increase the comfort, safety, and freedom of all citizens. I do not believe that corporations creating laws that protect their cartels are an expression of that ideal.

[hermes]

Sorry, not sarcasm, hehe.

I know what you mean about the apparent elitism of the ruling class, I've been friends with those kinds of people and there is a lot to despise.  But for every person born into power, there are two who get there on their own steam.  The world and its power structures are far more diverse and international than the media ever lets on.

It is not, as you put forth, the role of the government to follow the commands of the wealthy. Rather, it is the role of the government to serve the interest of everyone to the greatest extent by making laws that in fact increase the comfort, safety, and freedom of all citizens. I do not believe that corporations creating laws that protect their cartels are an expression of that ideal.

Your conception of government is an idealization.  Yes, economies of size can in many respects be synonymous with cartels.  In principle, I totally subscribe to your description of government.  What we have in reality is the US as global hegemon that is doing - from a historical perspective - a damn better job at *global* integration than anyone else before.  Because the US government is a hegemon, it thinks and acts globally, so it is understandable that individuals may feel sidelined.  But if we put our pride aside, and look at it honestly, things really are pretty good, no?

/reached 2 post limit in internet political discussion, さよ〜なら！

[Frumple]

But if we put our pride aside, and look at it honestly, things really are pretty good, no?

Actually, no, no, it's not. There was a delightful analogy I thought up -- and has no doubt been expressed before -- that really puts forth the problem with that "Oh things aren't that bad" concept.

See, it's like this. When something (probably a particular power group) has been causing your ancestors to have their legs chopped off, you can't really legitimately say it's a good thing when whatever that cause is suddenly decides to only cut off your feet, or, (Rejoice!) your big toes. Maybe they decided on a whim, maybe your ancestors did their damnedest to gnaw on the cause's kneecaps or whatever, doesn't matter. You're still getting a foot chopped off.

Basically, it's not a case of "Pretty good," it's a case of "Not as bad as it could be." It's still net bad. Yes, other people have it worse, but that's not sufficient reason to say the situation is good. In this case, the chance to become part of the problem isn't good reason for those suffering due to the problem to rejoice and sing praise.