paul at paulgraydon.co.uk
Fri Jan 20 13:37:16 CST 2012
On 01/20/2012 09:11 AM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:34:33 -0500, Michael Painter
> <tvhawaii at shaka.com> wrote:
>> I quickly read through the indictment, but the gov't claims that when
>> given a takedown notice, MU would only remove the *link* and not the
>> file itself.
> That's actually a standard practice. It allows the uploader to file a
> counterclaim and have the content restored. One cannot "restore" what
> has already been deleted.
> However, never going back and cleaning up the undisputed content is a
> whole other mess of dead monkeys.
From what I understand about MegaUpload's approach, they created a hash
of every file that they stored. If they'd already got a copy of the
file that was to be uploaded they'd just put an appropriate link in a
users space, saving them storage space, and bandwidth for both parties.
Fairly straight forward. Whenever they received a DMCA take-down they
would remove the link, not the underlying file, so even though they knew
that a file was illegally hosted, they never actually removed it. That
comes up for some argument about the ways the company should be
practically enforcing a DMCA take-down notice, whether each take-down
should apply to just an individual user's link to a file or whether the
file itself should be removed. That could be different from
circumstance to circumstance.
More information about the NANOG