
Dotcom: "We've hit the jackpot" - weisser
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10849627
======
linuxhansl
This is wrong on so many levels:

* Why is the DHS tracking down copyright infringers?!

* The FBI shuts down a site with hundred of thousands of user because of 36(!) infringing files

* These files were ordered by the DHS not to be deleted

* (From other articles) megaupload's users still do not have access to _their_ data

* (From other articles) the ISP running megaupload's servers is not allowed to shut them down (or repurpose them) and has to foot the bill.

There's probably some other stuff going on that we do not know about, but this
looks like a big clusterf*ck.

~~~
dangrossman
> Why is the DHS tracking down copyright infringers

When DHS was established, a bunch of existing government agencies were rolled
into it. One of them was Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is
the federal agency with the most staff handling international IP law
enforcement (traditionally, mostly counterfeiting). Copyright also falls under
that category, so now DHS ends up being the one that investigates copyright
infringement at the federal level.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I'd guess the GP's point was why are the DHS getting involved in what is
primarily a civil action (tort) between a rights holder and an alleged
infringer.

------
powertower
> When the FBI applied to seize the Megaupload site in 2012, it said the
> company had failed to delete pirated content and cited the earlier search
> warrant against the continued existence of 36 of the same 39 files.

1\. It's been 3 years, I'm sure the warrant in reference did not impel MU to
keep those files after the case against NinjaVideo was done and over with.
This probably goes all the way back to "how" MU stored files... 1 copy for
1000s of uploads (as long as the hash/finger-print matches). And each of those
videos was uploaded over and over, and MU kept them around / did not block
transfers. And are now trying to make it seem like they had no choice but to
keep sharing those videos FOREVER, letting everyone and anyone upload them,
and letting everyone and anyone download them. I'm sure MU/KimDotCom has the
original order to preserve the evidence in the NinjaVideo case, why not share
it with us and let the media see the details of what was asked of them?

2\. Are those the ONLY files referenced in the indictment against MU? Probably
not... All the FBI has to do is prove at least one of the files listed in the
warrant is valid and was brought in good faith, and then show the judge/jury
the other 97% of MU traffic revolved around sharing pirated content.

That article and KimDotCom's story seems to leave a lot out.

~~~
weisser
I'm curious about all of this too. I submitted the article because I want to
see what others think about the new information. The 1 copy for 1000s of
uploads may have some interesting implications.

~~~
gizmo686
My guess is that they could succsefully argue that the 1 for 1000s is simply a
technical optimization.

------
Hupo
I've seen many people bring up the fact that MegaUpload had the same file for
multiple links and that they only took down links reported as infringing. Many
people seem to come to the conclusion that this is automatically somehow
representative of bad behavior, but I strongly disagree. Just because
something is covered by copyright and is on MegaUpload, does not automatically
make it infringing, even if some of the links to it might be.

Consider that someone legally backs up his own files to MU and never shares
links to them with anyone. Then someone else uploads the same content in an
infringing manner. Should the first guy with his completely legal backups have
his stuff deleted just because someone else did something infringing with the
same files? He most certainly should not. Assuming that all links of the same
file that was uploaded are automatically infringing is basically "guilty until
proven innocent", and is very much not the way they should be treated. Hell, I
have music and other copyrighted content perfectly legally backed up in the
cloud myself, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to see it deleted just because
someone else might have used the same service for infringing sharing of the
same files. (and what cloud provider _wouldn't_ want to optimize their service
to only have one copy of each file in their back-end instead of wasting space
with duplicates?)

And, of course, this is very different to something like child porn, which is
_always_ illegal under US laws (where the stuff was hosted in case of MU).
There can be no "non-infringing" use there, so it makes sense to delete all
and every link to it. Not so much with just copyrighted content. And as we
also know, deducing whether something is infringing or not isn't very clear
cut either, like with Viacom issuing takedowns for Youtube videos its own
employees had legitimately uploaded for marketing purposes.[1]

[1] [http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/18/youtube-viacom-secretly-
upl...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/18/youtube-viacom-secretly-uploading-
content/)

 _Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well
that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting
or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded
the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to
sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that
Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself._

~~~
DanBC
> Consider that someone legally backs up his own files to MU and never shares
> links to them with anyone. Then someone else uploads the same content in an
> infringing manner. Should the first guy with his completely legal backups
> have his stuff deleted just because someone else did something infringing
> with the same files?

How likely is that though? I have no idea what hashing they used to compare
files. But if I rip a CD track to MP3 and you rip a CD track to MP3 are we
going to get files that have matching hashes? (Even if we use the same
settings, and the same meta information.)

~~~
iamben
Devil's advocate: what if we've bought our MP3s from the same place?

~~~
DanBC
That's an important point that I forgot about.

------
epa
The FBI does whatever it wants. The US government bends the law how it wants.
I'm sure they will fabricate some sort of evidence to ensure this set back is
not a set back.

------
flxmglrb
Yeah? Well the FBI owns the casino. Good luck with that.

------
ommunist
It seems that the US government is illegally using the infringed copy of
justice. I strongly believe that such organisation must delete itself and its
illegal copies from the wetware of all abused customers.

------
DuskStar
If this is all the FBI had as part of it's indictment, I wish Dotcom luck in
getting damages...

------
pebb
We are all Kim Dotcom now.

~~~
aluhut
..because he ate us.

I don't trust this guy and I never will. That is not the first time he becomes
Super Kimble before he rips everybody off.

~~~
Ziomislaw
and the alternative is FBI/US, are you sure you want to trust them?

personally I don't cate if the guy gets rich, if he makes life unpleasant to
FBI/US

~~~
aluhut
As I said and history has shown, he will make money AND sell everybody out to
FBI/US.

