Your compliance claim, to me, is absolutely false. I've dealt with both Megaupload and Filesonic with DMCA requests. Megaupload not only disabled them promptly but went a step further and would remove links to identical files that I hadn't even found yet (and would tell you about it).
I just checked and I've sent 15 DMCA requests to Filesonic and had them all removed within 24 hours.
Yes they comply with DMCA complaints on the surface. No that's not enough to run this kind of business above the board. What you see in file sharing forums are the same people uploading large amounts of pirated media to these sites, DMCA complaints trickle in over the next few days/weeks, and then the very same people "re-up" the files to the same sites and post the new links in the same thread. Over and over.
To be protected by the safe harbor laws in most nations you need to not have actual knowledge of infringement. If files in someone's account are being flagged on a regular basis, you have a hard time arguing you don't know what they're doing anymore. The indictment against Megaupload says that there's physical evidence of exactly this occurring -- the site owners know that much of their traffic is from users uploading pirated content, even looking into their file lists, yet they reward these users instead of blocking them.
Is there a legal requirement to shutdown the account as well ?
Or is it enough under the DMCA to just remove files/links?
Common sense does not apply if you are not forced to do something by law. (loophole)
My argument was that if an account is repeatedly uploading files that are flagged as infringing, then it becomes hard to argue that the ongoing infringement is not apparent to the service provider. So it's not a direct requirement to close accounts, but an effect of the law nonetheless:
> Under the knowledge standard, a service provider is eligible for the limitation on liability only if it does not have actual knowledge of the infringement, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, or upon gaining such knowledge or awareness, responds expeditiously to take the material down or block access to it.
And as the Megaupload indictment showed, these sites are not taking efforts to stay unaware of what their users are doing -- they're looking into their accounts, seeing that the top shared files are DVD rips and commercial software, then rewarding these users instead of removing the content. That's illegal.
it would be very interesting to watch whether FBI/officials will go only after Megaupload (big fish) or they will make a case out of each and everyone who had their account and illegal uploads hosted there.
That'd be nearly impossible. To build a case against each user, they would have to:
1) Identify potentially infringing files of sufficient value to constitute criminal copyright infringement
2) Identify accounts that uploaded those files
3) Verify that the account holder is a US citizen (jurisdiction)
4) Track down where that user distributed the links in order to collect evidence proving:
a) The infringement was willful
b) The infringement was of commercial advantage or private financial gain
5) Obtain a court order for each account to subpoena the identity of the account associated with the ISP of the uploader's IP address
6) Track down the current copyright holder of each potentially infringing work, and verify that the person identified was not licensed to reproduce or distribute the work (i.e. don't sue the label marketing agent for uploading a demo copy of their artist's song)
1. if someone stored plenty of movies that were "shared" within Megaupload network, it would mean they got the copy online (ergo illegally). even if you rip a digital BluRay disc twice, its impossible to get the same filesize/hashtag if its encoded (not a bit by bit copy).
2. dont see a problem with this one.
3. lets skip this one; a UK student is almost on its way for breaking US law and be deported to US, so juristiction doesnt matter anymore -- especially if you can narrow your search down to people who hold hundreds of files.
4. I think once you prove the file was downloaded from a different IP than your (owner) then its enough of an evidence. you uploaded from California, bunch of guys downloaded in Europe. Unless you can prove you went to Europe and lived in all the cities download took place from, you are cooked.
a/b) your infringement does not have to be willfull AND you dont need to make money off of it to be charged with owning illegally obtained files.
5. dont see problem here either. the justice system has all the time and money to persecute.
6. with a 5 or 6 biggest hollywood studios it shouldnt be a problem, should it?
> your infringement does not have to be willfull AND you dont need to make money off of it to be charged with owning illegally obtained files
At this point it's clear that you haven't actually read the copyright law of your country. Merely having illegally obtained files is never criminal in the US. Not under USC Title 17 (our copyright act) or the amendments (NET Act of 1997) that weakened the requirements of the financial gain clause. Without these elements, "owning illegally obtained files" is a civil matter only. A federal prosecutor has nothing to charge you with.
Why waste peoples' time debating law when you don't know what the law is?
I just checked and I've sent 15 DMCA requests to Filesonic and had them all removed within 24 hours.