zlacker

Megaupload is a weird one. He hosted in it the USA, giving USA jurisidction. Also it's still going through the courts in New Zeland and USA and hasn't been proven hes guilty. And if I recall he did alledge he followed the DMCA, which if he ever is extradited might save him if it is in fact true.

>>naderm+(OP)
> And if I recall he did alledge he followed the DMCA, which if he ever is extradited might save him if it is in fact true.

It 100% won’t; there is no DMCA safe harbor for criminal conduct, only for a narrow category of civil liability.

>>dragon+y5
You are misapropriating. Copyright infrigment can become criminal if you willfully violate it. If you then take earnings from the willful infrigment and launder them, it becomes other crimes. But if you follow the DMCA and qualify for safe harbor, what copyright crime have you commited that would go to criminal?

Or to give you another example in backpage the founders where aquitted since the judge could not trace that the money came from a "criminal source" https://www.courthousenews.com/backpage-executives-acquitted...

>>naderm+f9
> But if you follow the DMCA and qualify for safe harbor

Yes, it is only possible to qualify for the safe harbor, if you haven’t committed criminal infringement.

But, as criminal infringement is not part of the DMCA, following the DMCA has no probative value against accusations of criminal infringement. Criminal infringement means you aren’t qualified for DMCA safe harbor regardless of whether you follow the DMCA, but following the DMCA doesn’t mean you aren’t guilty of criminal infringement.

> Or to give you another example in backpage the founders where aquitted since the judge could not trace that the money came from a "criminal source"

Backpage has no relevance to criminal copyright infringement. About the only connection between this case and that is that Backpage was also a nexus for a lot of misinformation about a (completely different, Section 230 rather than DMCA) safe harbor provision.

>>dragon+zc
Backpage is on point as well as the overall point is the same, you cant be liable for crimes related to the inital crime if its not actually a crime. Ie if the gains are not ilgotten, you can't be tried for laundering them.

If you follow the DMCA (e.g., honor takedown notices, register an agent if you’re a platform, and act quickly when notified), your exposure to criminal liability is essentially zero.

>>naderm+(OP)
> And if I recall he did alledge he followed the DMCA,

They didn’t even completely follow the DMCA, though. They had active features to detect duplicate uploads via file hash and link them together via deduplication, but a DMCA takedown request would only remove one link to the file rather than actually remove the content.

They claimed a lot of things and tried to ride a wave of internet populism, but their case wasn’t really as controversial as they tried to make it.

>>Aurorn+is
The DMCA doesn't require you do take down more than requested whether you have the means to easily do so or not. And it doesn't necessarily make sense to do so for services like Megaupload where the URL is a kind of authorization mechanism - one publicly shared URL pointing to copyrighted content might be infringing while one not shared publicly but pointing to identical data might be OK legally.