Joly MacFie joly at
Fri Jan 20 20:06:35 UTC 2012

aka "deduplication".

In Viacom vs. YouTube it was pretty successfully argued that there was no
way for YT to know that *every* instance of a work was illegally uploaded.
However they *were* able to produce 'smoking gun' evidence of Viacom agents
uploading material.


On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Paul Graydon <paul at>wrote:

>>  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.
> Paul

Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - -
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY -

More information about the NANOG mailing list