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 <p...@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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -
