Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

As soon as a file goes public and anybody can get it, then it seems to me irrelevant that its encrypted on mega servers. They'll have to respond to takedown requests because the contents are known.

And if mega is de-duping content then that could technically eliminate "whack a mole" for the copyright holders (except for people re-encoding the file and re-uploading). I had heard in the past that mega would only take down one link.



> They'll have to respond to takedown requests because the contents are known.

And presumably, unless they think they can legally get away with ignoring it, they will.

What they won't be able to do is respond to a request that says "Delete all copies of [Big movie of the year], and continue to delete all of our movies as they pop back up."


As long as it's the same file, they will be able to do precisely that.


> And presumably, unless they think they can legally get away with ignoring it, they will.

I feel like a goddamn broken record.


> As soon as a file goes public

This is the important bit. Files can be shared between private groups, using Mega as an intermediary, without them ever becoming indexed on the public web. Previously, files shared in this manner could still be a target of a takedown, because Megaupload would know they had them, even if nobody else did. Now Mega can make a stronger guarantee about keeping this kind of sharing "safe", because they have no idea whether they're hosting this kind of file or not.


I would think this type of sharing would not be as much of a concern for copyright holders since a private group is not really mass distribution.

As soon as the sharing group got big enough to notice, then there could be agents in the group reporting infringement.


Tell that to the valid copyright holders hosting their content on MegaUpload. Regardless of whether the system is used for legal or infringing purposes, the reality is that distribution companies have the ability to take down both when they claim some are using it to infringe. The concern for copyright holders is not the encryption per say, but the ability for big business to NOT be able to take down their legal content under the guise of a moral cause.


I dont think the content can be accessed by mega without the full URL. The URL probably contains the information about the location of the data plus a passphrase to unlock the key to decrypt the data. In this way mega could hold the data without knowing the URL to access and decrypt it. The full URL would only be retrievable through the user interface, which mega would not have access to unless their servers are storing your login password. Which I assume they are not for legal reasons. I am making assumptions here.


If they did it correctly then they would keep a reference count to that the stuff only gets deleted when the last reference to it gets deleted.

It would kind of function like hard links on linux file systems.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: