Megaupload Implications are plain scary for Cloud Storage

We need to distinguish between <i>primary storage</i>, <i>syncing</i>, <i>backup</i>, <i>distribution</i>, and other cases. I wouldn't even call MegaUpload "cloud storage"; I would call it more of a CDN. If Akamai went down, people wouldn't complain about losing data, because Akamai isn't used as primary storage.<p>Likewise, the US DOJ makes a distinction between uploader-pays and downloader-pays business models, so we must also.

How about using some common sense? Megaupload was primarily focused on enabling, and even incentivizing, piracy. Although bashing on the government is popular in our community, I don't think there is very much precedent that would indicate they would close something like Dropbox out of the blue.

The author, like many other commenters in the past week or so, is wasting words by saying "this is scary - what if it happened to Dropbox and I lost access to all those files!"<p>Let's not forget Dropbox is just a replica of local storage. That's the whole model. It's more meaningful to discuss whether or not this could happen to S3. I don't see anyone legitimately worried about that, because it's quite obviously a very legitimate business with tens of thousands of legitimate customers (just like Dropbox). Articles like these portend to get you thinking about the broader implications of a takedown, but in truth they cloud clear thinking with what are essentially scare tactics.

<i>The Megaupload indictment reads that they removed links to the illegal file, but did not remove the actual file. To those blissfully unaware of how the internet works, this makes sense.</i><p>It has nothing to do with the Internet. In the context of file-systems, the word "remove" actually <i>means</i> to "unlink". Doesn't this technicality invalidate the indictment?

&#62; I’m the first to agree that any website obviously engaged in piracy (vs. having independent users leverage the platform in unintended ways) should be shut down<p>So if you wanted to start a website like this and maximise your business and legality - the simple answer is to just let people use it for piracy and pretend you dont know it is happening? This seems slightly silly to me..

this assumes that Megaupload will lose in the courts, and it might not. all that we have so far are the claims of a handful of federal agents and their interpretation of the law plus some very weak search warrants with little PC. I agree <i>that</i> interpretation is scary, but I hope it turns out that it isn't right.

Does anyone know if all Megaupload content was defaulted to being publicly available? This seems to me the most obvious signal for suspicious behavior. I'm aware that with Dropbox, you can publicly post things, but in this case it's the individual user which is "choosing" to distribute the content and thus it would make sense that the user would be the one held liable. I'm not a lawyer, just exploring what might appear to clarify some of the distinctions that might help prevent abuse of anti-piracy laws.<p>Edit: Youtube, as a counter example, (I think) makes everything public by default, but they enforce the DMCA pretty heavily.

Summary:<p>a kneejerk reaction inspired by his fear of a legal precedent where a "physical file must be deleted where one of many users with ‘links’ engages in illegal activity"