It's pretty embarrassing that tech blogs are even covering this. Copyright law is about intent, not about technical specifics. The idea that new megaupload is ok because it encrypts illegitimate content before storing it is absurd.
Morally ok? That is subject to opinion. I don't have a problem with them now, and I never did.
Legally immune? They very well could be. Certainly any action against them is going to be much harder this time, if only because a bunch of people in New Zealand are still pissed about what happened last time without the revisions that were made. If their system works as they claim, and renders them unable to govern content, then how could they be considered culpable for content? If I start posting nasty stuff encrypted with PGP to HN, would HN be to blame for failing to recognize the nasty stuff and remove it?
And if mega is de-duping content then that could technically eliminate "whack a mole" for the copyright holders (except for people re-encoding the file and re-uploading). I had heard in the past that mega would only take down one link.
And presumably, unless they think they can legally get away with ignoring it, they will.
What they won't be able to do is respond to a request that says "Delete all copies of [Big movie of the year], and continue to delete all of our movies as they pop back up."
I feel like a goddamn broken record.
It would kind of function like hard links on linux file systems.
This is the important bit. Files can be shared between private groups, using Mega as an intermediary, without them ever becoming indexed on the public web. Previously, files shared in this manner could still be a target of a takedown, because Megaupload would know they had them, even if nobody else did. Now Mega can make a stronger guarantee about keeping this kind of sharing "safe", because they have no idea whether they're hosting this kind of file or not.
As soon as the sharing group got big enough to notice, then there could be agents in the group reporting infringement.
Is the line about intent rather than technicality? For example how driving a bus that a drug dealer is on is not illegal, but driving the getaway car from a robbery is? If it is, then how does one prove that Dotcom wants to support copyright violation, rather than his official stance of just believing that there is a level past which he can not be expected to police his customers?
Enforcement of the standard you're promoting would require pervasive surveillance of every data storage and transfer method in the world, and backdoor access for all forms of encryption.
Freedom of information and communication is orders of magnitude more important for a healthy and free society than copyright of digital goods, and you can't have both--they are fundamentally incompatible.
To address your latest spurious post, dropbox, gmail, etc. Facilitate file sharing on a small scale. Public links to megaupload listed on public aggregating websites that list the latest 'releases' are an entirely different matter. You obviously know that but are willfully blind to it to make stupid arguments.
Let's say you are right. Explain to me how you would justify the pricing scheme we have for digital media to the average person on this planet, who most likely is Indian/Chinese/Nigerian and makes less that $5 a day.
How much should we charge this individual? Do you think they have the same right as westerners to challenging themselves and experiencing other cultures?
No, you assume that piracy is only white people that don't have a large allowance, which is a childish view perpetuated by the media. Most people don't have a computer, and if they are lucky enough to get one they should be able to have access to a large variety of the same digital goods.
tl;dr show some goddamn empathy.
Don't you have it in your head that danenania's position is incorrect and it's therefore a waste of time to argue the subject with you? It certainly seems so, specially since danenania isn't actually arguing for piracy, just that (s)he considers the steps of eliminating piracy to go against more important values.
As an analogy, the fact that I defend almost absolute free speech doesn't mean I'm in favor of all speech, it just means that eliminating said speech is worse than allowing it to exist freely.
Hm. This makes it sound like your point stands regardless of personal ethics; as though
> profitting off of the distribution of other peoples work, without their permission, is not something that should be encouraged or tolerated
is a provable, obvious, non-debatable stance. I don't think it is.
I don't think profiting off it changes the basic ethics; if something is morally okay to do as a hobby, it should generally be morally okay to do as a business until proven otherwise.
I wouldn't agree you always need the permission of someone upstream to share ideas or content. That's something we can discuss. Don't make it sound like you have the answer sheet in front of you.
Because clearly they profit off the distribution of other peoples work without their permission every day.
What do you have to say to those of us who disagree completely and fully with the entire concept of intelectual property?
With the way I feel about copyright, I believe distribution of other peoples work, with permission or otherwise is something that should be actively encouraged and praised.
Whether they profit off of it or not is completely irrelevant.