Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Martin Roberts,
Is there anything to the Racketeering and Money Laundering charges other than openly carrying on an international business that you know is illegal? I expect those words to imply secrecy and deception, but only found money being openly moved across borders like any business might do these days.
I believe it's based on the allegation that the money was obtained through criminal copyright infringement and would therefore be proceeds of a criminal act. Any attempt to transfer that to another jurisdiction would be counted as money laundering, I think (Graeme may like to comment).
As far as the racketeering, from the indictment:
persons employed by and associated with the Enterprise, which Enterprise engaged in, and the activities of which affected interstate and foreign commerce, did knowingly, willfully, and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other, and with other persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (hereinafter the “Racketeering Violation”), that is, to conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of that Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, as that term is defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(1) and (5), involving multiple acts indictable under:
a. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2319(b)(1) & 2319(d)(2); 17 U.S.C. §§ 506(a)(1)(A) &
506(a)(1)(C) (criminal copyright infringement);b. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), 1956(a)(2)(A), 1956(h), 1956(f), and 1957
(money laundering).So it's about conspiring together to build an operation that makes money illegally, in my reading.
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
Since it’s a bit difficult to test (ahem) the functionality now, was it possible to search for content if you didn’t have the URL?
No, they specifically did not provide a search tool on the site to protect themselves under the DMCA. The indictment states that they did have an internal search tool for staff use.
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Dylan Reeve,
Removing public access to the content is effectively the same as removing it
Good thing you're not a lawyer, then ;-)
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Samuel Scott,
One thing that no one seems to be mentioning is http://megavideo.com/ which was basically the streaming/youtube version of megaupload.
Megavideo is mentioned in the indictment 79 times, often in relation to the "Mega" people pillaging YouTube to start the site off.
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Dylan Reeve,
If one bit is different in a copy of a file, it will generate a different hash from the original. Would you then say "that's near enough, we'll dump the copy and link to the other one"? No, you wouldn't because it might be a completely different file which coincidentally contains a similar number of bits. Every CD/DVD/TV rip will be slightly different, as different people will be managing the process with different software, different systems, different codecs, etc.
To differentiate between copies of the same show/film/software you would have to review every file individually, and compare it with all other files. And you would have to do this using humans, which would have huge cost implications and probably make the operation barely profitable. This is implicitly recognised in the DMCA, IMHO, by only requiring an operator to take action when notified. But it is specific in the action that must be taken - you must take the content down. It is alleged that MU did not do this but continued to make it available through other links.
Your presumption that MU deduped is founded in the understanding that that is how you would do it, as it makes sense here in NZ where online storage costs a damn fortune. It's not the case in the US. Storage is extremely cheap there.
You have no evidence that MU deduped and the allegations make no mention of it. I can quite easily see 53 copies of Game_of_thrones_S1_Ep1.mp4 being accommodated by MU (not an accusation, merely a hypothetical) rather than 53 links pointing to the same file. Given the volume of daily traffic, I can't see how it would be otherwise.
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Russell Brown,
I imagine other cyberlockers will follow suit until they see which way the shit falls.
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Dylan Reeve,
If a given file is accessed by a specific URL only (which is how MU works generally) then removing or deactivating that link is effectively removing it.
Nope. The content is still there and it’s the content that infringes. The DMCA requires you to remove the infringing content, not just access to it. Potentially, you’d make it worse for yourself if you didn’t, as you would then be, as owner of the server, personally infringing the copyright of the content owner and thus personally liable.
As to why YouTube keeps the content alive but inaccessible (unless you have awesome Tube-fu), they have an appeal period in which you can challenge a DMCA takedown. It’s relatively easy to reinstate a reserved URL but trying to recreate a specific URL in a system that dynamically assigns random IDs to new uploads? Fuggedaboutit.
EDIT: (Okay, it can be done but on an effort vs. result calculation, lots harder)
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to James Butler,
IIRC there are reports that the Feds have messages between Megaupload employees discussing in detail the particular content uploaded by new premium members.
The email segments are included in the indictment.
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Russell Brown,
This is what intrigues me. Does anyone really believe YouTube management has no idea it’s hosting potentially infringing content until explicitly advised by the owners?
They will know, statistically, that there is content on their system that is infringing. They’re not required by the DMCA to do anything about it until advised.
edited
-
Hard News: The Mega Conspiracy, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Why would you assume that the charge couldn't be under s 131, with a maximum of 5 years?
Yes, I was thinking that's the relevant section.