Latest ads
-
Handmade Character Soft Toy Bluey Bingo- anil1961
- Updated:
-
Colombo Dahua POE Switch 8 Ports (DH-PFS3010-8ET-65)- hashaz2012
- Updated:
-
Singapore V2Ray VPN for Tunneling
- hu KANNA
- Updated:
-
Dating Website & Online Chat Room- hotvideo
- Updated:
-
DJI Mini 4 Pro Drone Combo Plus- Hawaka
- Updated:
අදින් පසු Megaupload නෑ
- Thread starter gihand4r
- Start date
just as I thought FILESONIC also disabled sharing files..now FILESERVE and FIILESONIC both are dead as MEGAUPLOAD..
"All sharing functionality on FileSonic is now disabled. Our service can only be used to upload and retrieve files that you have uploaded personally.
If this file belongs to you, please login to download it directly from your file manager."
"All sharing functionality on FileSonic is now disabled. Our service can only be used to upload and retrieve files that you have uploaded personally.
If this file belongs to you, please login to download it directly from your file manager."
FileSonic has disabled file sharing in wake of Megaupload takedown
By Ryan Paul | Published about 16 hours ago
Some filesharing sites are reining in their services in the aftermath of the recent high-profile shutdown of Megaupload. FileSonic has disabled all file sharing functionality on its website, restricting access so that users may only download their own files.
Megaupload was a popular file locker service that allowed users to upload files and share them with other users. The FBI pulled the plug on the Megaupload website last week when seven of the company's top personnel were charged with conspiracy. The 72-page indictment claims that Megaupload willfully distributed pirated movies and other copyright-infringing content.
The law enforcement effort against Megaupload, which was carried out in collaboration with authorities from several countries, has raised questions about whether competing services could face a similar fate. Amid the climate of legal ambiguity, various file locker services have responded in different ways.
RapidShare, which is one of the leading file locker providers, told us last week that they aren't concerned about a raid. According to RapidShare, legitimate hosting providers have nothing to fear—as long as they comply with requests from rights-holders and don't turn a blind eye to piracy conducted with their service.
FileSonic, which is another leading file locker provider, is apparently approaching the matter differently. The company disabled its sharing services entirely, potentially reducing its exposure to legal risk. The content hosted by FileSonic is no longer generally accessible to download. Users can only download files that they have uploaded themselves.
It's worth noting that FileSonic, like RapidShare, already has strong procedures in place to combat piracy. FileSonic uses digital fingerprinting technology from a content identification firm called Vobile to detect copyrighted material on its network and prohibit unauthorized sharing.
FileSonic also responds to takedown requests issued under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by removing pirated content and blocking users who repeatedly infringe. The company has a designated DMCA agent and provides instructions for submitting a claim. They also allow individual users to report abuse.
Despite all of these precautions against piracy, FileSonic is going a step further by disabling its sharing functionality in entirety. When a user attempts to access content that is hosted on FileSonic, the site will display a message which explains that sharing has been discontinued and that only the original uploader can access the file. The company has not yet issued a full statement regarding the change in service.
FileSonic's decision to voluntarily discontinue its sharing services will likely be welcomed by content industry trade groups, who will undoubtedly view it as evidence that the Megaupload shutdown is generating a deterrent effect. In light of FileSonic's active efforts to comply with the DMCA and proactively police its own network, however, it also raises the question of whether law enforcement activity against Megaupload is having an unintended chilling effect on legitimate hosting services.
Photograph by Dan Machold
By Ryan Paul | Published about 16 hours ago
Some filesharing sites are reining in their services in the aftermath of the recent high-profile shutdown of Megaupload. FileSonic has disabled all file sharing functionality on its website, restricting access so that users may only download their own files.
Megaupload was a popular file locker service that allowed users to upload files and share them with other users. The FBI pulled the plug on the Megaupload website last week when seven of the company's top personnel were charged with conspiracy. The 72-page indictment claims that Megaupload willfully distributed pirated movies and other copyright-infringing content.
The law enforcement effort against Megaupload, which was carried out in collaboration with authorities from several countries, has raised questions about whether competing services could face a similar fate. Amid the climate of legal ambiguity, various file locker services have responded in different ways.
RapidShare, which is one of the leading file locker providers, told us last week that they aren't concerned about a raid. According to RapidShare, legitimate hosting providers have nothing to fear—as long as they comply with requests from rights-holders and don't turn a blind eye to piracy conducted with their service.
FileSonic, which is another leading file locker provider, is apparently approaching the matter differently. The company disabled its sharing services entirely, potentially reducing its exposure to legal risk. The content hosted by FileSonic is no longer generally accessible to download. Users can only download files that they have uploaded themselves.
It's worth noting that FileSonic, like RapidShare, already has strong procedures in place to combat piracy. FileSonic uses digital fingerprinting technology from a content identification firm called Vobile to detect copyrighted material on its network and prohibit unauthorized sharing.
FileSonic also responds to takedown requests issued under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by removing pirated content and blocking users who repeatedly infringe. The company has a designated DMCA agent and provides instructions for submitting a claim. They also allow individual users to report abuse.
Despite all of these precautions against piracy, FileSonic is going a step further by disabling its sharing functionality in entirety. When a user attempts to access content that is hosted on FileSonic, the site will display a message which explains that sharing has been discontinued and that only the original uploader can access the file. The company has not yet issued a full statement regarding the change in service.
FileSonic's decision to voluntarily discontinue its sharing services will likely be welcomed by content industry trade groups, who will undoubtedly view it as evidence that the Megaupload shutdown is generating a deterrent effect. In light of FileSonic's active efforts to comply with the DMCA and proactively police its own network, however, it also raises the question of whether law enforcement activity against Megaupload is having an unintended chilling effect on legitimate hosting services.
Photograph by Dan Machold
Why MegaUpload was shutdown
This is an explanation by a user in Redit of why MegaU[pload was shut down in a more simple and easy to understand way
Q: o many services shut-down within such a short time frame. SOPA/PIPA would have been the logical explanation, but they are delayed for now. Since the laws didn't change overnight, what is the explanation?
A: It all really comes down to the difference between sites like youtube and sites like megavideo. The mega sites intentionally attempted to create the legal appearance of being the same as youtube (plausible deniability of copyright infringement from user-uploaded content) but operate completely differently on the inside.
To simplify it - youtube has "safe harbor" because they do not control (or, other than their sponsored accounts, participate at all in) uploading of content from users. They also meet the minimum legal bar of at least being compliant with takedown requests in a timely manner. This is all a site currently has to do to maintain it's legal status; be compliant, and don't specifically encourage the uploading of copyrighted content externally (publicly) or internally (within the day to day operation of your site). The key aspect of this legal situation is that it puts the burden of proof onto whoever is prosecuting you, and gives the site operator a certain amount of plausible deniability.
The MegaUpload sites did not meet this qualification, because the internal workings of the company revealed countless instances of intentional uploading and maintaining of copyrighted content by employees, to the point that it was clear it was part of their day to day operation. When you have chats and emails between employees discussing the most popular content, and encouraging (rather than being intentionally ignorant) to the existence of copyrighted material, you can no longer say you have no control or awareness of it. They were well aware of the content that existed on their site, knew the traffic usage and most common files they hosted, and rather than taking steps to limit it, they took steps to encourage and insulate it from the effects of DMCA takedown notices. This destroys their credibility as a 'safe harbor' in the eyes of the law. They still would have been fine legally, as long as no one on the outside was able to prove this was going on.
Secondly they weren't actually complying with the DMCA takedowns, according to the allegations. To explain; lets say a given episode of Game of Thrones airs, and is immediately compressed, uploaded, and torrented all over the world. This single copy of the file is turned into thousands or millions of copies, all exactly the same. Then several dozen independent users upload this file to MegaUpload. The file is exactly the same, so a content host like MegaUpload can chose to set up their database in a way that simply maintains a single actual digital instance of the file and provides each user a unique link to it. This basic principle is incredibly common in many cloud services, and is a fundamental form of DRE (data redundancy elimination) which reduces the required storage resources. Now, if MegaUpload used this method, and received a DMCA takedown notice on a given file, then to comply with the notice would require deleting the file, not just the link. One of the primary allegations is that MegaUpload was only deleting the associations between the individual links and the primary file (thus, countless other links to the same file were maintained). If no one outside of MegaUpload knows the difference, it's impossible to prosecute them for it. But, and this is a big but, it appears the prosecutors have somehow gained access to a huge amount of MegaUpload's internal communication, and that this is one of the practices they are being called out on.
The current legal situation provides "safe harbor," aka plausible deniability for these types of sites, as long as they aren't actively promoting copyright infringement (internally or externally). The long-term investigation into the MegaUpload sites collected large amounts of evidence (emails, chat logs, etc) which showed a pattern of explicit promotion of infringement, which opens them up to prosecution. Kim Dotcom is a larger-than-life personality who played it fast and loose, and MegaUpload was a huge target, so it's not surprising to me that the feds really went after them.
Any site that even mildly resembles the MegaUpload/MegaVideo model is now frantically auditing themselves to ensure they don't get burned as well; checking their email servers, internal policies, and perhaps taking some token measures to distance themselves from MegaUpload (Ex-Fileserve, Filesonic).
- lucilletwo---------------------------
---- Also Filesonic/Fileserve ran affiliated programs where people could earn money from uploading content..Meaning these sites encourages uses to upload more content by paying them.. According to the above comment..then they encouraged copyright material to be uploaded & paid the uses to do it ..Thats why Filesonic/serve are franticaly trying to damage control while sites like Rapidshare r not bothered as they dont have any such paying schemes
In a way I'm glad that this happened... now u cant earn big bucks off warez which were meant be non-profit..sites like rlslog still uploads to sites like Oron because of this...the owner gets paid by Oron for the number of times the file is downloaded off their server.... thats why rapidshare like sites r safe..they can claim that they r not encouraging pirates & thats why they r still there & others r not
This is an explanation by a user in Redit of why MegaU[pload was shut down in a more simple and easy to understand way
Q: o many services shut-down within such a short time frame. SOPA/PIPA would have been the logical explanation, but they are delayed for now. Since the laws didn't change overnight, what is the explanation?
A: It all really comes down to the difference between sites like youtube and sites like megavideo. The mega sites intentionally attempted to create the legal appearance of being the same as youtube (plausible deniability of copyright infringement from user-uploaded content) but operate completely differently on the inside.
To simplify it - youtube has "safe harbor" because they do not control (or, other than their sponsored accounts, participate at all in) uploading of content from users. They also meet the minimum legal bar of at least being compliant with takedown requests in a timely manner. This is all a site currently has to do to maintain it's legal status; be compliant, and don't specifically encourage the uploading of copyrighted content externally (publicly) or internally (within the day to day operation of your site). The key aspect of this legal situation is that it puts the burden of proof onto whoever is prosecuting you, and gives the site operator a certain amount of plausible deniability.
The MegaUpload sites did not meet this qualification, because the internal workings of the company revealed countless instances of intentional uploading and maintaining of copyrighted content by employees, to the point that it was clear it was part of their day to day operation. When you have chats and emails between employees discussing the most popular content, and encouraging (rather than being intentionally ignorant) to the existence of copyrighted material, you can no longer say you have no control or awareness of it. They were well aware of the content that existed on their site, knew the traffic usage and most common files they hosted, and rather than taking steps to limit it, they took steps to encourage and insulate it from the effects of DMCA takedown notices. This destroys their credibility as a 'safe harbor' in the eyes of the law. They still would have been fine legally, as long as no one on the outside was able to prove this was going on.
Secondly they weren't actually complying with the DMCA takedowns, according to the allegations. To explain; lets say a given episode of Game of Thrones airs, and is immediately compressed, uploaded, and torrented all over the world. This single copy of the file is turned into thousands or millions of copies, all exactly the same. Then several dozen independent users upload this file to MegaUpload. The file is exactly the same, so a content host like MegaUpload can chose to set up their database in a way that simply maintains a single actual digital instance of the file and provides each user a unique link to it. This basic principle is incredibly common in many cloud services, and is a fundamental form of DRE (data redundancy elimination) which reduces the required storage resources. Now, if MegaUpload used this method, and received a DMCA takedown notice on a given file, then to comply with the notice would require deleting the file, not just the link. One of the primary allegations is that MegaUpload was only deleting the associations between the individual links and the primary file (thus, countless other links to the same file were maintained). If no one outside of MegaUpload knows the difference, it's impossible to prosecute them for it. But, and this is a big but, it appears the prosecutors have somehow gained access to a huge amount of MegaUpload's internal communication, and that this is one of the practices they are being called out on.
The current legal situation provides "safe harbor," aka plausible deniability for these types of sites, as long as they aren't actively promoting copyright infringement (internally or externally). The long-term investigation into the MegaUpload sites collected large amounts of evidence (emails, chat logs, etc) which showed a pattern of explicit promotion of infringement, which opens them up to prosecution. Kim Dotcom is a larger-than-life personality who played it fast and loose, and MegaUpload was a huge target, so it's not surprising to me that the feds really went after them.
Any site that even mildly resembles the MegaUpload/MegaVideo model is now frantically auditing themselves to ensure they don't get burned as well; checking their email servers, internal policies, and perhaps taking some token measures to distance themselves from MegaUpload (Ex-Fileserve, Filesonic).
- lucilletwo---------------------------
---- Also Filesonic/Fileserve ran affiliated programs where people could earn money from uploading content..Meaning these sites encourages uses to upload more content by paying them.. According to the above comment..then they encouraged copyright material to be uploaded & paid the uses to do it ..Thats why Filesonic/serve are franticaly trying to damage control while sites like Rapidshare r not bothered as they dont have any such paying schemes
In a way I'm glad that this happened... now u cant earn big bucks off warez which were meant be non-profit..sites like rlslog still uploads to sites like Oron because of this...the owner gets paid by Oron for the number of times the file is downloaded off their server.... thats why rapidshare like sites r safe..they can claim that they r not encouraging pirates & thats why they r still there & others r not
u gotta be fucking kidding me
Respect for Kim Schmitz( MEGAUPLOAD Founder)
"FBI = Fucking Bunch of Idiots! since no one was talking about the agency they said... "lets do something stupid so they dont felt like they are throwing their money away with us"... i can swear for my live even them had something they download from megaupload"
Similar threads
