Posts by Dylan Reeve
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm still mildly delighted and how definite and specific Vikram was when describing the access history of the files on Mega when we talked to him on Discourse last night...
This story, as lame as it is, fills me with amusement.
-
Hard News: Mega Strange, in reply to Don Christie,
DRMs/TPMs. It’s illegal to provide the means of circumvention and TPP will make it illegal to do your own circumvention, assuming you have created your own means.
I'm not talking about circumvention. I'm talking about a file that I have a legal right to possess that's not encumbered with any specific protections.
The example I used earlier was one of Louis CK's specials - a DRM-free video file that I'd paid for and downloaded. I could store that on Mega (or Dropbox, or Google Drive) entirely legally - as far as I can tell.
-
Hard News: Mega Strange, in reply to ScottY,
Check the terms of the licence.
Yes, but this again gets to the fundamental problem. There are ways to use a cloud service (or a blank DVD for that matter) in both infringing and non-infringing ways.
It's impossible for the service in question to know whether the hosting or distribution of any given file is infringing.
Without knowing an absurd amount of information about the context of the file in question, and the person who's storing it, there is no way for a hosting provider to draw a conclusion about it's legitimacy. That's why a notice-based system is the only viable option. And even then the notice-based systems are frequently abused - look at the thousands of unfounded takedown request Google receives weekly, or the frequent instances of YouTube videos being taken down for non-infringing activity (the recent incident with Day One: Garry's Incident is my favourite at the moment)
-
Hard News: Mega Strange, in reply to ScottY,
If you copy a file onto a USB stick then you may well be infringing copyright unless the terms of your licence permit that copying, or an exception applies under the Copyright Act. (e.g. there is a format-shifting exception for sound recordings, but I can’t see how it would apply to a USB stick)
Assuming I have a right to have a file in the first place (ie. I purchased as a file) then what provision might stop me from storing said file on any given medium for my personal use?
-
Hard News: Mega Strange, in reply to 81stcolumn,
And of course we all encrypt our USB drives so no-one can open them when we lose them…don’t we?
And?
Utilising simply tools to strengthen privacy is a bad thing?
Regardless is makes no difference at all. Dropbox, Google Drive etc all offer no client-side encryption and operate in exactly the same way.
-
Hard News: Mega Strange, in reply to SteveH,
I wouldn’t assume that the law makes logical sense in this regard. It is entirely likely that law draws distinctions between USB sticks and cloud services even though technically there is no difference.
I doubt that in does in the sense that I doubt the law expresses the concept of cloud storage. It would all be down to arguing interpretations of words if it came to a court somehow.
But as you point out there is no difference between Mega and Dropbox and Google in this regard. So why aren’t we seeing press releases decrying those other services?
As far as I can determine it's two-fold. Firstly Dotcom is a high profile name, attach a story to him and it's virtually assured of local coverage. Secondly there is still an interest, I think, among many in the "content industries" in painting Dotcom as a villain.
The more he (and people like him) can be vilified the less we're likely to look at the bigger issues around piracy and access to content in general. Ironically I think that delaying those conversations can only serve to hurt the industries in the future.
-
Hard News: Mega Strange, in reply to ScottY,
Providing a cloud system that allows people to upload files can potentially be an infringing act. Both uploading and downloading involve copying.
How? Like I'm genuinely curious. I have content in my Mega (and Dropbox, and Google Drive) account that is absolutely copyright protected. I can't see how that's any different to storing same files on a USB stick. As long as I don't share the link (or give the USB stick) to anyone else I'm not infringing any copyright as far as I can see.
(The possible exception being where I'm not allowed to have format- or time-shifted the content in question).
-
Hard News: Mega Strange, in reply to Cam Slater,
__"The conclusion I would reach is that Cameron Slater uploaded the file"__
A wrong conclusion…as you often are.
Okay then, so Mega has asserted that the files in question were only ever downloaded by the same person that uploaded them, and you've acknowledged you downloaded them...
What conclusion should we draw? What conclusion would you draw? Are Mega lying? Are you?
-
Hard News: Mega Strange, in reply to Russell Brown,
Bear in mind, though, that that would not have been local in the case of music from CDs before the law was changed to allowed format shifting. And that right still does not apply to video and even music rights owners can, in theory, contract out of format-shifting with a shrinkwrap licence.
If I buy a file from someone is there a restriction on where I can store the file? Can I put it on an external hard drive? What about a USB stick? My Mega account is no different to those things.
I’m not sure how all that applies to books, but I wouldn’t be surprised if backing up your e-books was considered an infringement.
Fundamentally I can't see how it would be possible to sell someone a download file and not allow them to store copies. The very act of downloading does that. Can't say I've ever read any eBook license agreements though.
-
Actually I'd forgot there was a service that indexed (user-submitted) links to files hosted on Mega... There's 390,000 files on there apparently, although the usability is terrible and there's no way to determine how many of those files are still live.
I suppose Mega could (and I think did at one stage) pro-actively remove links featured on that site, but simply being on there is no clear guarantee the file is being pirated, there was definitely some stuff on there that appeared to be much more esoteric (including some conspiracy theory bullshit).
Again it all requires human input and inspection to accurately determine what's legal and what's not on there.