Megaupload: U.S. ignored the legitimate use of the service to close
Kyle Goodwin, a U.S. businessman affected by the closure of Megaupload and the loss of legitimate personal files, had asked a court to back up your data . As part of this request, the lawyers filed a motion for what warrant used by the government to make service data. This past weekend O’Grady judge has agreed to release orders. The result, is completely ignored in drafting the legitimate use of the service in the cloud by users.
Following the closure of Megaupload in January this year, many legitimate users of the site complained that their personal files were lost. These users found Kyle Goodwin, a video director who had part of his work hosted on the cloud platform and that the closure and seizure of the servers had left without their legitimate work.
Now, after the judge’s decision to release O’Grady applications for search warrants and closure by the U.S. government, you know how it was presented. Some applications where the government describes as a place Megaupload files are used only to infringe copyright by storing them in the service.
The problem is that none of the descriptions mentioned the legitimate use of the site. Put another way, the rights of legitimate users of Megaupload were never taken into consideration.
Before this release, Kim Dotcom was TorrentFreak contacted to give their views. The tycoon has been surprised as it explains that nearly half of all the files stored on Megaupload were never downloaded:
Fair use was completely ignored in applications that justify seizure. Almost 50% of the files stored on Megaupload did not have a single download. There was a massive use non-offending by those who just wanted to store data in the cloud.
And is that a number of the allegations made against Megaupload could be applied to other video hosting services. One of them, made by the FBI, explains in detail how one of his undercover agents were able to upload, watch and download videos with copyright, which is also very common on YouTube.
According to Dotcom, other direct charges against Megaupload are misleading. For example, the team did not erase files Megaupload offenders were asked since 2010. Dotcom explains that many of the files were not touched because it was asked because it was evidence in a criminal case.
To verify this, the tycoon has shown a document TorrentFreak that supports this claim. According Dotcom:
The FBI we had requested information regarding the rise of 39 files and told us to keep confidential their research. We assist and obviously we do not touch the uploaders accounts or files due to the ongoing investigation. Then have used this against us, to tell a judge that the domain seizure of Megaupload is justified because we have not removed those 39 files, something totally immoral and deceitful.
Another example cited by the Justice Department to close the service explains that:
To the copyright holders were led to believe that systems Megaupload retired or blocking access to any infringing content. In practice, however, only the specific URL links identified in the DMCA notifications were disabled.
According to Dotcom, what is not mentioned is that this is a common practice. YouTube for example does not eliminate all videos when they receive a notice by the DMCA. The reason is that files can also belong to a person who actually owns the rights.
A case now seems to open a debate about the ability and ease U.S. government to close domains and online data under an irregular process. In this case, it appears that took precedence over the interests of copyright holders against the legitimate users of their data.Tags: Kim Dotcom, Megaupload