Hacker News Reader

> The wiki DMCA Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act states "To qualify for the § 512(c) safe harbor, the OSP must not have actual knowledge that it is hosting infringing material or be aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent." IANAL but it was pretty damn apparent that MegaUpload was being used for infringing activity to me.

I believe it applies to specific acts of infringement, not a general knowledge that a certain service is used for infringing activities. Otherwise, the entire internet you're using right now would be illegal.

(EDIT) More on that point here: https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Copyright:_Digital_Millennium_...

Scroll down to "Actual or “Red Flag” Knowledge" and look at the cases interpreting it. (END EDIT)

Almost everything online is copyrighted. It only becomes copyright infringing when you lack the copyright holder's permission. Unless the copyright holder has said otherwise, you don't know what has and has not been authorized by them. You can probably guess for things like Hollywood movies, but that's why the DMCA puts the burden on them to identify data they have not authorized.

It's their property and they're the only ones who actually know what they have and have not authorized. It may be an impossible burden, but shifting that to people less able to bear it won't help anyone.

Also, can you provide a source for the claim that "Premium users could spend money to "clone" files by generating a new link without having to upload a single byte."?

I find that allegation more troubling than the rest because I can't see a need for it, while all the other parts have substantial legitimate uses. I mean, there's nothing wrong with letting people monetize their own files or with driving traffic to MU, it's only when the content is infringing that there's a problem. But I've also never been a premium member of that (or any other) site so I've never seen that sort of clone feature before. And if there's no good use for it, it would support the claims that it was designed to skirt the DMCA.

I find the claim surprising because I read the indictment against him and I don't remember seeing it in there. But it was a very long indictment and I might have missed that part, which is why I'm going to ask for a source.

AFAIK they didn't do anything illegal, and it wasn't their job to care - it was their job to comply with takedown notices, which it seems like they did.

However, the real reason HN cares about MegaUpload is fear that heavy-handed law enforcement can destroy tech companies. Many of us are here because we have or are interested in having tech companies.

Cognitive dissonance. Deep down, people know what they're doing is wrong, but don't want to admit it. The same reasoning that allows them to perceive that they're not doing anything wrong has to be applied to guys like Kim Dotcom; otherwise, they have to admit they're doing something wrong.

Yes, we should remain subservient to an abusive, quickly antiquating industry and it's politically subversive methods.

Or, we can accept that while piracy is wrong, it's not the boogeyman that these luddites have made it out to be, and it's certainly not worth the vicious punishments doled out by Governments.

Do the creators of these wonderful cultural works deserve to be paid? Absolutely. And you'll notice that the same pirates are more than willing to crowdfund through Kickstater or directly a la Louis CK.

But as long as the organizations controlling the legal rights to these cultural works continue to actively subvert our democracy, you won't find sympathy from me or many others.

I consider it civil disobedience. YMMV.

"Yes, we should remain subservient to an abusive, quickly antiquating industry and it's politically subversive methods."

You say that as if I said that and you're sarcastically agreeing. I don't know where you get that from my comment.

I agree with you. I also don't think he was being completely honest with his answers. A few examples:

According to his recent history [1], he still has a larger than life lifestyle, even though he has a family now. He claims he's no criminal but he doesn't mention his criminal history. He mentions he didn't see any reason in his past to "wear a suit and be stuck up", yet before he made it big, this was exactly the image he gave off [2]. Also, there's the obvious illegal activity on MegaUpload, the over-the-top security at his premises [3], and his hostile reaction when the police arrived, yet this was "completely unexpected".

I agree that MegaUpload has legal uses, and that he's fighting an outdated business model, but I still don't support him.

[1]: http://www.youtube.com/user/MrKimDotcom

[2]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Kim_Schmi...

[3]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020430140457717...

You are using words like "blatantly", "profiteering" and lump all of HN together, saying that all of HN supports MU and its bosses and that you don't understand this at all.

This smells all too much of a biased statement without any depth in order to influence the public opinion of MU negatively. But I'll bite anyway.

---

The thing is that you are missing the point completely:

Copyright infringement on MU was apparently only committed by third parties (aka The Internet), as is done on sites like YouTube, every other file sharing site, video, audio and similar sites.

Yet you don't see the Google bosses in jail and their houses raided and assets frozen do you? They are blatantly profiteering off of copyright infringing materials on YouTube as well, you know.

The DMCA regulates what these services have to do to protect copyrights and them selves. MU apparently did just that.

One other point I will make here is that studies have shown that pirating on the internet has no negative effect on the profits of the copyright holders. Explain to me why pirates are being hunted like the worst offenders anyway.

Now, do you still not understand why some people here seem to have a different stance on this topic than you?