They were publically accessible (as in no authentication was required) regardless of how you want to spin it. But if that's not good enough for you...
It's my understanding that megaupload (and it's other sites) links were of the form: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XXXXXXXX
I could be wrong, but the links I've found so far all have 8 characters.
Notice it's a somewhat easily searchable space. You can enumerate all links starting from point1 to point2 (I think they assigned sequential numbers so no need to search the entire space).
Hence the slew of public MegaUpload-search websites that you could go to and search for every file in the index.
The point of the response was that if you needed private backups of your Amazon MP3 you should use a service that is a true lockerbox, and not a pseudo sharing site thats designed for sharing content. Otherwise, you need to take the blame for 1) losing access to your backups, and 2) knowingly sharing it even if you did not give the link out.
A lockerbox service that requires some authentication, or a very large GUID type link that can't be enumerated.
MegaUpload was designed for sharing.
The case of someone losing their legitimate Amazon MP3 upload is an edge-case that inconveniences one person, but takes down the sharing of hundreds, or thousands, of copies of illegitimate copies.
> MegaUpload was designed for sharing. > Notice it's a somewhat easily searchable space. It would be nonsensical to store two copies of the same file as a service like MU or Dropbox. That file might legitimately be owned by user A and illegitimately owned by user B. Just because a DMCA takedown request was filed against user B's link doesn't mean user A should lose their legitimately owned file. This is analogous to someone storing stolen cash in a bank. Just because there was a stolen $20 in the vault, doesn't mean all $20 notes in the bank are stolen.
It will be interesting to see the outcomes of these events, it may make me lose all faith in humanity.
In of itself? Nothing.
In combination with all other factors. Everything.
> Just because a DMCA takedown request was filed against user B's link doesn't mean user A should lose their legitimately owned file.
As a copyright holder, that's not my problem that 1 in a million decided to upload some questionable copy of my work to a publicly accessible pseudo-sharing site that violates my copyright over and over and over again.
If you upload it to MU, then cry to someone else when that same criminal enterprise gets shut down and you lose the one copy you had.
Your right weren’t violated. Mine were.
Anyone crying about this is just playing a victim card here after making a bad decision. Or can't come to grips with reality after assuming that since copyright infringement is so easy to do, it must not be a bad thing to do, and it must be part of your entitlement.
I can understand if you're mad about copyright infringement, but why does that person who recorded all of their child's sports matches deserve this merely for using MU? They were sharing their own movies with the rest of the team, true, but that's all the more reason to use a site like that in the first place.
Instead of edge-cases, how about a common one? Or does that not count?
So yes, if any of the above is true, what happened to MU was good.
And as far as that loaded question about the person losing his child's sports matches... You can frame it however you want, it does not change the facts we know about MU. MU was most likely a criminal enterprise.
And all US phone numbers have 7 digits. (It's easy enough to figure out the relevant area code.)
Are you claiming that there are no private phone numbers in the US?
What the fuck.