Posts by Dylan Reeve
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Mega Strange, in reply to giovanni tiso,
“More so, given its use of encryption.”
Isn’t that kind of the issue? Person who made his fortune by helping people share files they had no right to upload (and I’m passing no judgment on what kind of social ill that may or may not represent) creates service that makes it harder to tell if a user has done so. A service he intends to profit from. Whether or not Mega uploaded the file himself is immaterial (by the time I caught the story, no-one was suggesting he had). There is a broader cui bono issue here. Does Mega, does Orcon or any other ISP for that matter, profit from the volume of illegitimately shared material? How do their interests shape the debate on copyright? The Luminaries just makes the question a bit sharper in the context of local publishing. (It’s harder to feel bad about sharing a Warner Bros film.)
The encryption is only a small part really. There’s no specific way to identify any given piece of content. YouTube manages, to some extent, because everything they host is simple video and audio data. They can apply a range of techniques to figure it out.
A file locker, even without client-side encryption, faces a tougher challenge. Any given file could contain any type of data, it’s not easily possible to identify, with software, what that data is in a practical context.
One of the arguments made in the case against Megaupload, however, is that they didn’t remove all copies of a file when notified. Specifically they appear to have used a de-duplication technique that identifies duplicate files across their service (so if you an I upload exactly the same file, then it may store only one copy of the data, but point both our “files” at that data) – the argument being that if one “copy” of that file was reported as infringing then they should have removed all copies of the same data.
That is a problem because you can’t specifically know that any given file is infringing just because it is certain data.
Imagine I paid $5 to download the DRM-free version of Louis CK’s latest special and store a copy of that file on my Megaupload account so that I could grab a copy of it later from another computer to watch. Imagine then that someone else had purchased the same video file, put it in a Megaupload account and then shared the link to that file on many forums and other sites. If a takedown notice was issued against that user’s copy of the file then it would be justified to delete it, but if my copy were deleted also – that would not be justified, my storage of that file is not infringing.
Mega differentiates itself to users with it’s privacy, but at the same time it also protects the company from a repeat of that same claim. Every user’s file is unique to them – if you and I upload exactly the same file to Mega there’s no way that Mega can know that. It only acts on notices it receives of infringing use (storing a file for personal use is not infringing).
The question of whether Mega profits from illegally shared material is hard to say. Unlike Megaupload and most other free file lockers, there are no banner ads on Mega’s download pages (also no inducements to signup for a paid account for faster downloads etc), and given that you can get 50GB for free on Mega with just an email address it’s hard to see why a pirate would choose to use a paid account to host illegal files. If anything I’d say that illegal sharing costs Mega money.
My understanding is that Mega isn’t even that popular within piracy circles as I believe there are download limits enforced also.
-
Hard News: Mega Strange, in reply to Cam Slater,
And again for your benefit and for all the enablers of Dotcom…I will not be revealing my source or details of how I came by the story.
Yet Cam, I'm sure you understand the legal and technical impossibilities of Mega actually pro-actively preventing copyright infringement?
Unless you're suggesting that Dotcom or some other Mega employee uploaded the file and is sharing the link far and wide then Mega holds absolutely no blame, especially if they responds appropriately to notices which is the only practical way they (or any similar company) can address the issue. I've seen no suggestion that Mega doesn't respond to those notices appropriately.
-
jim.bob1974@gmail.com -- Throwaway or real? Who can say.
It's impossible for content providers to beat this technically. It's been happening as long as companies have allowed users to store files. There were BBSes I regularly accessed in the early 90s where users could share files they'd uploaded with others - they were used for piracy (and non-piracy) but this is not new.
Even before the web users on the early internet were sharing files they shouldn't have been sharing without the knowledge of system administrators. Of course with things on a much smaller scale it was easier to spot, but nonetheless it was necessary to do a fair bit of work to actually check on the content and relevant legality.
And how is a provider to know what's legal and what's not. My Mega account currently hosts a couple of versions of Avid's high-end editing software Media Composer. While currently I am not sharing the links, I may do in the future with people I believe are entitled to access the software (older versions of Avid's software will soon be unavailable on their servers for some silly licensing reason with the installer).
Beyond that, I also have some copies of various videos and TV shows I've worked on in various places online. While I'm not allowed to distribute those, it's not unreasonable for me to hold copies for my personal use.
Without knowing me and my use there is no way for an online provider like Mega to accurately assess my legal right to hold (or even distribute) any given work, even if their system allowed them to do so technically.
Cameron Slater isn't an idiot when it comes to technology, he understands this. He's being unbelievably (but perhaps not unsurprisingly) disingenuous with this issue.
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to Russell Brown,
The thing that strikes me is the counterfactual. If he had refused to provide a reference because of their sexual relationship, and thus hampered her career, that would start to look a bit like sexual harassment.
Yeah, once he decided to have an illicit sexual relationship with someone he also had a professional relationship with, regardless of his being married, it was almost certain to work out badly in one way or another.
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to Steven Peters,
I do not agree they had a ‘legitimate’ working relationship – a married mayor in a sexual relationship with an employee is not a legitimate relationship, working or otherwise. Therefore giving the reference was not legitmate.
What?
The affair was secret. To all those around either of them it obviously appeared they had a legitimate working relationship - i.e. they had reason to see each other for work matters, and to work on project together, or whatever they did.
Therefore, if the sexual relationship had never taken place it wouldn't seem out of place for her to use him as a referee and it wouldn't be unusual for him to recommend her on the basis of the working relationship.
So, had there never been a sexual relationship, only a professional working relationship, would anything have been different in regard to the reference? I'm assuming probably not.
Did their relationship affect the reference he gave her? Probably not given that it was passed through his staff, he's hardly likely to have embellished beyond what would have been reasonable based on their professional relationship and work.
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to Russell Brown,
Hmmm. Brown provided a favourable job reference for Chuang when she applied for a job at Auckland Art Gallery.
The details in that aren't very salacious though. Art gallery contacted mayor's office and got reference from them - not specifically the mayor himself? Presumably it can't have been too unreasonable a situation for it not to raise issues within the office?
I assume Chuang and Brown had a legitimate working relationship if they were able to avoid suspicion at the time. So a reference wouldn't necessarily be out of place.
-
This is interesting - Steven Price argues that Len Brown would have a reasonable case in suing Whale Oil (and Cook, and maybe Chuang) for breach of privacy. Not that he should or would but that he could.
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to Mike O'Connell,
..Len Brown resign before being sworn in, then Palino would become mayor..
From what I've heard and read that would not happen. That would happen if Brown had withdrawn from the election (as all his votes would become invalid) but he didn't.
Apparently what would happen is that the newly elected council would appoint a deputy (as they will anyway) and that deputy would assume the role of interim mayor until a byelection could be held.
But all that is pointless because Brown needn't resign and hopefully he also believes that.
-
Given what we hear about the way this has unfolded, I don't find it at all hard to beleive that the "threatening text messages" received by Chuang, Slater and others were actually sent by someone involved in leaking the story. Slater himself, Wewege, someone from Palino's campaign?
After all, according to Slater's "Why We Broke The Story" post it was the anonymous text messages that "removed all doubt from [his] mind"
The whole story is a creepy and unpleasant pile of shit. It's not even slightly surprising to hear the different side of the story from Chuang.
-
I have to stop now - I can't come out in any positive way.