EFF Will Sue US for MegaUpload ShutDownAdded: Tuesday, November 6th, 2012
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extratorrent.com
In the end of October, the EFF, representing Kyle Goodwin, has filed a brief to ask for a court of law to scrutinize the decision of the US authorities to close down one of the major cyberlockers and, which is more important, the denial of 3rd parties to recover their lost content.
Despite the fact that MegaUpload is already dead and buried, its founder Kim Dotcom has promised to relaunch the portal under a new domain, and with extra features. The US Department of Justice commented that this move will be considered as a violation of Dotcom’s bail terms. In the meantime, Dotcom announced that the new website will be simply called Me.ga, moving from .com and .net domains for apparent reason. The site is expected to be launched on January the 20th, 2013.
Dotcom admitted that they cannot work with hosting companies located in the US, because safe harbor for ISPs via the DMCA has been undermined by the Department of Justice with its criminal prosecution of the cyberlocker.
In response to the EFF’s brief, the government of the United States also filed a brief, where it asked for 3rd parties to travel far away to recover the lost information. In addition, the government confirmed that it browsed the seized files, including Kyle Goodwin’s personal data.
It is still not clear whether the search in question was authorized or not, but the fact is that the US authorities could return the seized content to its rightful owners just as easily as they violated it. In addition, the American government pointed out that Kyle’s rights vanished when he opted for cloud-based services. The reason for this claim is the following: the contract between the user and the cyberlocker, as well as the contract between MegaUpload and its hosting company Carpathia, has limited any property interest he might have in his files. It means that cloud-based services aren’t able to protect data against losses, particularly if the authorities come in with a warrant. In the meantime, industry observers wonder whether this theory applies to services like Amazon’s S3, Apple’s iCloud and Google Apps as well.
Anyway, the worrying part is that such tactics call for action – for instance, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is trying to do this by filing the brief. Let’s see what kind of response it will get.
November 6th,2012Posted by:
Tuesday, November 6th, 2012
|posted by (2012-11-06 16:52:14)|
|So let me get this straight, everything that you store on a "cloud server" you automatically lose all rights too? Why would anyone invest in or subscribe to any cloud based services anymore.|
|How to kill progress, way to go DOJ.|
I won't put anything on cloud, I don't trust it anyway, after all anyone can snoop your files and you'd not know a thing about it, Nope! I'll just upload junk files and save anything important to encrypted HDD.
No different then putting stuff on any social media sites, you relinquish all rights, when you sign up. Unless storage devices fade away, I would never put stuff into the cloud, the US gov has shown why. I guess you could always encrypt what ever you store there. Seems to be a one way street, companies own what ever you put on their site, but if you buy their software outright, your only licensed to use it, except they don't tell you that on the package.
|This is why, if Dotcom's Me.ga really performs as described (encrypted files so no one knows what the heck they are), cloud-based computing will take file-sharing and the Internet as a whole into a whole new dimension/realm.|
It would be as if you were staring at a floor-to-ceiling, wall-to-wall shelf full of books, all looking the same, without any delineation with respects to markings, and having to pick out which book would be good to read ("legitimate" files), and which one to remove because it ... does not belong there (read: pirated material).
No one, including the authorities, would be able to know what files were what, effectively anonymizing all files into a homogenous sea of bits and bytes.
Sounds quite tasty and palatable to me, so let's see how things unfold.
|The legitimacy of files seized during an Illegal search and seizure by the Americans and the misuse as well as said appropriation should mean that said act should 1:render all information inadmissible in a court of law 2:when this is done Kim should be able to sue for damages 3:legitimate content which has been seized should all be returned intact and that legitimate users can make substantial claims for losses incurred due to information being taken without their consent.Should the Americans play the game that is, but it looks like they are not going to abide by their own code of search and seizure and play the one law for us and another for you scenario,corporate fascists that they are ,so who has broken the law to the worse degree,those who are supposed to uphold the law or those they seek to persecute.|
|If they rule that owners of digital media online have no rights as to who uses or appropriates said data that in itself should cancel the claims of piracy and copyright infringement by all acts across the board,since all electronic media owners have no rights or control of their intellectual property and so downloading files will not get you incarcerated and once again its back to the one law scenario.|
|@Embolism: Very well put, and your point about the negation of all claims of online piracy is spot-on. Really, any information on the Internet as a whole would really constitute "cloud" storage, as rarely is any digital information or file stored in one place/server only.|
If there are multiple "backup" copies or residual files kept for "veracity" by various sites, then that really does constitute a cloud-based storage-type, and therefore would render (as you said) all digital content online as exempt or not qualified to be considered for copyright claims.
Let's see if the courts and the general populace recognize this point, and whether legal representatives decide to press this point.
Most Popular Stories