aka "deduplication". In Viacom vs. YouTube it was pretty successfully argued that there was no way for YT to know that *every* instance of a work was illegally uploaded. However they *were* able to produce 'smoking gun' evidence of Viacom agents uploading material. j On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Paul Graydon <paul@paulgraydon.co.uk>wrote:
From what I understand about MegaUpload's approach, they created a hash of every file that they stored. If they'd already got a copy of the file that was to be uploaded they'd just put an appropriate link in a users space, saving them storage space, and bandwidth for both parties. Fairly straight forward. Whenever they received a DMCA take-down they would remove the link, not the underlying file, so even though they knew that a file was illegally hosted, they never actually removed it. That comes up for some argument about the ways the company should be practically enforcing a DMCA take-down notice, whether each take-down should apply to just an individual user's link to a file or whether the file itself should be removed. That could be different from circumstance to circumstance.
Paul
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -