Archive for the ‘File Hosting Services’ Category

U.S. Govt: Megaupload Users Should Sue Megaupload

The U.S. Government says it’s in no way responsible for the millions of Megaupload users who have lost access to their files due to the criminal proceedings against the file-sharing site. Responding to a motion from one of the site’s users, the Government explains that no “irreparable harm” has been done. Instead of targeting the Government, disadvantaged users should sue Megaupload or its hosting company Carpathia for damages.

Nearly half a year has passed since Megaupload’s servers were raided by the U.S. Image is Loading....Government, and still there is no agreement on how former users can retrieve their files.

This prompted Megaupload user Kyle Goodwin, a sports reporter who used Megaupload to store work-related files, to take action. Helped by the EFF, Mr. Goodwin filed a motion in which he demands that the court finds a workable solution for the return of his data, and that of other former Megaupload users.

Previous attempts to come to a solution have all failed.

Hosting company Carpathia agreed to sell Megaupload the servers for $1,000,000 earlier this year, but the U.S. authorities objected to the plan. The Government did not want to unfreeze Megaupload’s assets so the data can be saved.

The MPAA also spoke out against the agreement, but stated last week that users could get their files back as long as copyrighted files remain inaccessible.

The U.S. Government, however, is asking the court to deny the motion of the Megaupload user. Mr. Goodwin has accused the Government of violating the constitutional rights of many innocent Megaupload users through the overbroad seizures of domains and servers, but the Attorney General Neil MacBride disagrees.

“The government does not possess any of Mr. Goodwin’s property, nor does it seek to forfeit it,” MacBride writes.

“The government also does not oppose access by Kyle Goodwin to the 1103 servers previously leased by Megaupload. But access is not the issue – if it was, Mr. Goodwin could simply hire a forensic expert to retrieve what he claims is his property and reimburse Carpathia for its associated costs.”

In other words, the Government says it no longer has control over the servers and that Megaupload users can access them whenever they want. The only problem is that this would cost thousands of dollars, if not more.

The Government doesn’t want to pay for a user data retrieval and doesn’t want Megaupload to pay for it either. The authorities already made backups of what they consider crucial data, and don’t mind if the severs are wiped clean. That Megaupload users lose their files is unfortunate, but the financial loss Mr. Goodwin claims is not considered to be “irreparable harm.”

“One reason that monetary loss does not constitute irreparable harm is that Mr. Goodwin has a legal remedy to recover any monetary losses,” MacBride writes.

“For instance, if Megaupload (by failing to maintain its leased servers with data he uploaded) or Carpathia (by terminating Megaupload’s lease and choosing not to continue to provide access to the servers) violated a term of service or other contract with Mr. Goodwin, he can sue Megaupload or Carpathia to recover his losses.”

Effectively, the U.S. Government is blocking the plans of Megaupload and Carpathia to reunite users with their data, and suggests that affected users like Mr. Goodwin should sue these parties to claim their losses. A rather unusual proposal.

The result is that a user data retrieval looks farther away than ever before.

Unless the court intervenes all existing 25 petabytes of data hosted by Carpathia may have to be destroyed. Currently, the hosting company is losing $9000 per day to keep the data intact.

Aside from the loss of user files that this mass-deletion brings along, Megaupload will also lose access to data that may help the company in its defense against the U.S. Government.

MPAA: Megaupload Users Can Have Their Files Back, But…

Almost half a year has passed since Megaupload’s servers were raided by the U.S. Government, and still there is no agreement on how former users can retrieve their files. Previously the authorities and MPAA have objected against such a mass retrieval, but in a filing at the court today the movie industry changed its tone. The MPAA states that users can have their files back as long as access to copyrighted files is blocked.

In the wake of the January shutdown of Megaupload, many of the site’s legitimate users Image is Loading....complained that their personal files had been lost.

Among these users are many people in the U.S. military who used the site to share pictures and videos with family. Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom previously informed us that least 15,634 soldiers had accounts at Megaupload, between them sharing hundreds of thousands of files.

But as of January those files were rendered inaccessible and attempts by the parties involved to come to a solution have failed miserably.

Last month one of Megaupload’s users, represented by the EFF, filed a motion asking the court to facilitate such a user data retrieval. Today, the MPAA filed a response to this motion in which they appear to be more open to the request.

“The MPAA Members are sympathetic to legitimate users who may have relied on Megaupload to store their legitimately acquired or created data, although the Megaupload terms of use clearly disclaimed any guarantee of continued access to uploaded materials,” MPAA’s lawyers write.

But along with this sympathy comes a caveat. The movie studios don’t want users to have access to copyright-infringing files.

“If the Court is willing to consider allowing access for users such as Mr. Goodwin to allow retrieval of files, it is essential that the mechanism include a procedure that ensures that any materials the users access and copy or download are not files that have been illegally uploaded to their accounts.”

In addition, the MPAA doesn’t want any Megaupload people to have access to the servers.

“In no event should any Megaupload defendants or their representatives who have not generally appeared in this proceeding, and who are not subject to the control and supervision of the Court be allowed to access the Mega Servers under such a mechanism designed for the benefit of third-party Megaupload users.”

Previously the MPAA said it was concerned that Megaupload would relaunch in a “foreign jurisdiction” should they regain access to their data.

Considering the above, one has to wonder whether the MPAA is seriously concerned about returning data to Megaupload users. It is practically impossible to separate copyrighted from non-copyrighted files on the servers, and an administrative nightmare in waiting for anyone tasked with enforcing the MPAA’s wishes.

With all the different states and wishes, there appears to be no other solution than for the court to decide what should happen to the data.

RapidShare Publishes Anti-Piracy Manifesto for Cyberlockers

Swiss-based file-hosting service RapidShare has released an anti-piracy manifesto to serve as a guideline for cyberlocker and cloud hosting sites. Partly motivated by the criminal indictment of Megaupload, RapidShare stresses that they will do all they can to counter piracy, even if this is at the expense of user privacy and convenience.

In the aftermath of the Megaupload shutdown, people have been keeping a close eye on Image is Loading....other file-hosting services, RapidShare included.

As a company, RapidShare sees itself operating in the “cloud hosting” business, offering a service comparable to the likes of Dropbox. And since people are moving data from local drives to the cloud at an increasing rate, these companies will undoubtedly host some copyrighted material too.

During the past several years RapidShare has made tremendous efforts to cooperate with copyright holders and limit copyright infringements. The Swiss-based company is trying to position itself as a front-runner when it comes to responsible dealings with copyright infringers.

Emphasizing this role, the cyberlocker has just published an anti-piracy manifesto for cyberlockers, or a “responsible practices for cloud storage services” as they call it.

“RapidShare has always embraced our obligation to protect the intellectual property and copyright interests of creators. Today’s announcement takes that obligation to a new level,” said RapidShare’s general counsel Daniel Raimer commenting on the release.

The four page document is a summary of what RapidShare believes cyberlockers should do to assist copyright holders in preventing copyright infringements. While some of the suggestions are already baked into the US DMCA, several of the suggestions go above and beyond existing law, with inevitable consequences for the privacy of users.

It includes basic recommendations such as making files private by default, but it also goes further by granting copyright holders the power to get account holders disconnected when they are merely suspected of copyright infringement.

“Services should terminate account holders or subscribers not merely upon proof that they are infringers but when sufficient copyright holders have called their conduct into question,” RapidShare writes. Or in other words, account holders are guilty until proven innocent.

In addition, RapidShare also makes it mandatory for account holders to use valid email addresses, so these can be shared with copyright holders when there’s a legal dispute.

“Services should require valid e-mail addresses of subscribers and account holders in order for them to register new accounts. In the event a copyright holder seeks account holder information through valid legal procedures, the service should have access to valid e-mail address information to furnish in response, which may facilitate an inquiry to the e-mail service provider. “

The above is bad news for privacy loving anons, but there are more concerns on this front. RapidShare also suggests that all cyberlockers update their privacy policy to make it possible for them to inspect the personal files of those who are accused of copyright infringement.

“Privacy policies should establish that service providers retain the right to inspect files of repeat accused infringers or accused violators of the service’s terms of service who, after reasonable notice to them by the service provider, have made no good-faith counter notifications or efforts to justify their conduct as non-infringing or as not violating the service provider’s terms of service.”

Also, RapidShare recommends that cyberlockers operate from countries that respect copyright law.

“Service providers should either reside in a country that belongs to the Hague Convention for the Service of Process Abroad or should voluntarily comply with requests to waive service of process with respect to subpoenas for user information. They should also reside in a jurisdiction that shows respect for copyright law.”

In his announcement of the manifesto Raimer once again emphasized that his company is doing all it can to eradicate piracy.

“We want all stakeholders in the debate over online copyright infringement [...] to understand that RapidShare recognizes that piracy is a serious problem, that we’re reinforcing our efforts to eradicate it, and that we’re calling on other data logistics companies to do the same,” he said.

The company itself goes even beyond its own recommendations, by monitoring third-party sites and forums that post links to infringing material on RapidShare. In addition, the cyberlocker also decreased the download speeds of free users to drive pirates away.

Thus far the entertainment industry is quite content with RapidShare’s efforts, but whether the average RapidShare user is happy with these changes is doubtful.

The Manifesto

Megaupload Seizure Order “Null and Void” Says High Court

In another astonishing development in the Megaupload saga, a judge in New Zealand’s High Court has declared the order used to seize Kim Dotcom’s assets as “null and void”. The blunder, which occurred because the police applied for the wrong type of court order, means that the Megaupload founder could have his property returned.

Just when it seemed that the handling of the Megaupload case couldn’t get any more Image is Loading....controversial, a development from New Zealand has taken things to the next level.

Following the raids on Kim Dotcom’s mansion in January, police seized millions of dollars worth of property belong to the Megaupload founder. But thanks to a police blunder, he could now see all of those assets returned.

On Friday, Justice Judith Potter in the High Court declared the order used to seize Dotcom’s property “null and void” after it was discovered that the police had acted under a court order that should have never been granted.

The error dates back to January when the police applied for the order granting them permission to seize Dotcom’s property. Rather than applying for an interim restraining order, the Police Commissioner applied for a foreign restraining order instead, one which did not give Dotcom a chance to mount a defense.

According to New Zealand Herald, on January 30th prosecution lawyer Anne Toohey wrote to the court explaining that the wrong order had been applied for and detailed five errors with the application.

Justice Potter said that police commissioner Peter Marshall tried to correct the error by applying for the correct order after the raids were completed and retrospectively adding the Image is Loading....items already seized.

Although the correct order was eventually granted albeit on a temporary basis, Potter said she will soon rule on whether the “procedural error” will result in Dotcom having his property returned.

The Crown is arguing that since the new order was granted the earlier error no longer matters, but Dotcom’s legal team framed it rather differently by describing the seizure of assets as “unlawful”.

Whether the assets are returned will rest on Dotcom’s legal team showing a lack of “good faith” in connection with the blunder. A hearing to decide if the assets will be returned will take place next week.

#1

Court Orders RapidShare to Filter User Uploads

A Higher Regional Court in Germany has ruled that file-hosting service RapidShare must proactively filter thousands of files uploaded by its users. The Court confirmed three separate verdicts by a lower court, in cases that were started by book publishers and a music rights group. RapidShare has yet to decide whether it will appeal the verdicts, and informs us that there’s also positive news to report.

In common with every file-sharing service, RapidShare is used by some of its members to Image is Loading....host infringing material.

During the past several years the Swiss-based cyberlocker has made tremendous efforts to cooperate with copyright holders and limit copyright infringements. But for some their efforts don’t go far enough. This has resulted in a variety of rightsholders starting legal proceedings against RapidShare, and not without success.

The most recent win came yesterday when a Higher Regional Court in Hamburg confirmed three rulings of a lower court. According to these verdicts, the file-hoster hasn’t done enough to prevent copyrighted material from being uploaded to its servers.

The cases, which involve thousands of titles, were started by music rights group GEMA and book publishers De Gruyter and Campus.

The Higher Regional Court in Hamburg reportedly ruled that RapidShare has to monitor user uploads to ensure that none of these titles are put onto their servers, which implies a mandatory filter and monitoring of all user uploads.

While a written copy of the verdict has not yet been made public, the book industry celebrated the outcome as a landmark victory.

“Internet sites can no longer avoid their responsibilities, and profit from copyright infringing uploads of anonymous users,” says Alexander Skipis, chief executive of the German Booksellers Association.

RapidShare is irked by this early celebration, which its spokesman Daniel Raimer describes as unprofessional.

“We consider it as unprofessional to assess a judgement before the written reasons for the judgment are available. Only then you can determine which party can indeed celebrate a verdict as a success,” Raimer told us.

Raimer explains that the copyright holders are leaving out essential details that are actually quite positive for the cyberlocker. Previously the lower court described RapidShare’s entire business as unlawful, but that decision has not been overturned.

“There is a possible reason for the rushed approach, particularly that of the Booksellers Association. In the hearing, the Higher Regional Court indicated that it would deviate from its former position according under which RapidShare’s business model was not tolerated by the legal system.”

“That shows that the release of a ‘jubilation announcement’ by the plaintiffs after the publication of the reasons for the judgment would simply not be possible anymore. We are relaxed and look forward to reading the written reasons for the judgment that are expected to be published within the next few days,” Raimer said.

It’s worth nothing that the German verdicts appear to contradict an earlier ruling by the highest European court. In February the European Court of Justice ruled that hosting sites can’t proactively filter copyrighted content as that would violate the privacy of users and hinder freedom of information.

RapidShare further informed us that they have yet to decide whether they’ll appeal the verdicts. Considering the European Court of Justice ruling, this might not be such a bad idea.

#1