Uploaded.to blocked U.S. visitors as a response to the MegaUpload takedown(uploaded.to)
uploaded.to
Uploaded.to blocked U.S. visitors as a response to the MegaUpload takedown
http://uploaded.to/
12 comments
I was wondering why more websites weren't already doing this when SOPA/PIPA were on the horizon.
The US has a problem with politics and when that problem endangers the internet, to me at least, the simplest solution is to block US users.
It has got to be tempting now for site owners, especially considering how US courts do not seem to have much trouble seizing websites. If the site isn't US facing surely that would put a big dent in any legal action made stateside.
The US has a problem with politics and when that problem endangers the internet, to me at least, the simplest solution is to block US users.
It has got to be tempting now for site owners, especially considering how US courts do not seem to have much trouble seizing websites. If the site isn't US facing surely that would put a big dent in any legal action made stateside.
The problem is still the huge percentage of American traffic on the web. E.g. on Iconfinder.com about 50% are US users, so blocking them would hurt ad income by about the same amount.
But that's also changing - North America had the least growth in internet usage from 2000-2011: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
But that's also changing - North America had the least growth in internet usage from 2000-2011: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
The US population is roughly 11% of all internet users.
If the current political trends continue to the point it jeopardizes my business, and creates unnecessary risk, I would have no problem blocking ±10% of my users, right then and there.
If the current political trends continue to the point it jeopardizes my business, and creates unnecessary risk, I would have no problem blocking ±10% of my users, right then and there.
I sell a Windows app. Americans may be only 11% of the population, but they're about 50% of my customer base. They buy licenses, which gives me incentive to continue working on the software. The Russian and Indian bloggers (for example) who have reviewed my app positively have moved the needle very slightly, if at all. No chance I'd give up my US customers willingly.
(Edit: I'm from South Africa, not the US.)
(Edit: I'm from South Africa, not the US.)
I really hope that we do wake up. A cynical view might be that we'll instead force everybody else to adopt our draconian ip laws (we're trying really hard at least), in which case this exact scenario will depressingly become a non-issue.
Speaking of waking up, having three emergency vehicles truck by your window at 2 am with sirens blazing is a really unpleasant way to wake up. At least I got to see this interesting topic :)
Speaking of waking up, having three emergency vehicles truck by your window at 2 am with sirens blazing is a really unpleasant way to wake up. At least I got to see this interesting topic :)
Unless the American hegemony collapses in the next few years, I think that it is a realistic view rather than a cynical one.
US is certainly going on a trend of isolation by either bullying other countries or putting sanctions and such on their imports.
Right, punish the users for the failings of their government. What are they supposed to do?
It's not about punishing the user's, but about keeping yourself out of jail.
Why should the operators of a site risk getting extradited to the US, when what they are doing is perfectly legal in their home countries and lots of other countries?
If you are a user and want to access this site just buy VPN access in the free world and enjoy uncensored browsing.
Why should the operators of a site risk getting extradited to the US, when what they are doing is perfectly legal in their home countries and lots of other countries?
If you are a user and want to access this site just buy VPN access in the free world and enjoy uncensored browsing.
Change their government.
As a European who constantly runs into the same "go away, foreigner" notices on US sites, I find this way funnier than I should.
Yeah it's weird going to a site you expect to see blocked and seeing that it works just fine. Anyone have a screenshot of what it says to US visitors?
arn posted this screen below: http://imgur.com/BJJOs
In a way, you're still blocked from seeing US-only content. It's just that the US-only content is a region-blocking notice.
When I was still living in France, I used to rent a vps in the US, so I could tunnel my connections via ssh, and get access to those websites. Well this was not the main reason for my renting the vps (I hosted my website, and played around with it), but it was a nice bonus anyway..
Now having the vps inside the US has become useless to me, and I'm seriously considering moving it back to Europe, just in case..
Now having the vps inside the US has become useless to me, and I'm seriously considering moving it back to Europe, just in case..
It's funny how legal content is blocked outside of the USA (every other movie/music/tv site) and the illegal one is getting blocked in the USA.
Isn't that because the content is only legal to stream in the USA? (e.g. what you'd find on Hulu) It'd technically be illegal to stream it outside of the USA, so it is blocked. That's how I've always assumed that online streaming contracts with the content providers worked. I'd love to know if it works differently
What could possibly be illegal about it? The TV companies just don't want to let non-US people watch.
That's not correct. You have to license different works for different purposes, and there are many, many stakeholders whose permission you have to get. This varies by country. For example, a network may by the exclusive rights to air a show in the US. They only pay for those rights. Then someone else buys the exclusive rights in the UK. And someone else buys another country. Then, when it comes time for internet streaming, you not only have to get licenses from the original owner, plus perhaps this organization or that organization, and then you have to get licenses from....
You get the point. So with all of that work involved they look at the revenue potential of smaller countries and, frankly, it's just not worth it in many cases. They don't know what the demand is there. They don't have a marketing plan, and they have bigger opportunities available to them by working on yet another show's licensing for the US or other large country, so they just don't go to all of that trouble to make things available in smaller markets.
You get the point. So with all of that work involved they look at the revenue potential of smaller countries and, frankly, it's just not worth it in many cases. They don't know what the demand is there. They don't have a marketing plan, and they have bigger opportunities available to them by working on yet another show's licensing for the US or other large country, so they just don't go to all of that trouble to make things available in smaller markets.
I did express that poorly. There can certainly be logistic factors at play.
But my point was that it's not illegal. It's a decision, not law.
But my point was that it's not illegal. It's a decision, not law.
I'm a bit unsure this is actually a good idea.
I think the people behind SOPA are happy that uploaded.to decides to block US citizens. Cause that's exactly what they wanted in the first place.
What i would rather see is that companies move off US soil as a response to US Law. And stay off TLD's controlled by the US.
Also proxying should be promoted to circumvent the censorship that the government puts down over it's own citizens.
The movie industry has to adapt to a new market. The government should not adapt to an industry that has lost it's ability to innovate.
I think the people behind SOPA are happy that uploaded.to decides to block US citizens. Cause that's exactly what they wanted in the first place.
What i would rather see is that companies move off US soil as a response to US Law. And stay off TLD's controlled by the US.
Also proxying should be promoted to circumvent the censorship that the government puts down over it's own citizens.
The movie industry has to adapt to a new market. The government should not adapt to an industry that has lost it's ability to innovate.
If I understood the MegaUpload news correctly, the founders were arrested in New Zealand. So, obviously the US has a much bigger jurisdiction than it geographically should have. I don't think that your suggestions would help.
The reason why I believe uploaded.to did this is not to support/protest SOPA, but to protect themselves from liability.
The reason why I believe uploaded.to did this is not to support/protest SOPA, but to protect themselves from liability.
But if US users can't access the site then the US has no forum to precede with legal action, and then they can't call for extradition either. In the end they would need to prosecute in the target jurisdiction via the Berne Treaty.
No, they wouldn't. You have a nice legal argument there, but JUST THIS WEEK the owners and operators of Megaupload were arrested by US authorities with no extradition, no "prosecution in the target jurisdiction", just arrested in New Zealand for running a company from there.
No judge in the US would allow a grand jury to go ahead against a person that has allegedly breach an US law, that didn't occur in the US, wasn't done by a US citizen, and didn't affect any US citizens. In a way Mega Upload brought themselves within the sphere of US laws, using a .com address, paying money to US companies, hosting within the US, having assets within the US, allowing US customers, registering as a DMCA service provider, etc. These all contribute to allowing a US forum.
If you set up a service like Mega Upload that doesn't have any dealings with US citizens or institutions then an US court has no jurisdiction and a grand jury motion will likely not succeed, and in most countries, other than the sycophantic ones that allow extradition on merely accusation, you can just ignore it.
If you set up a service like Mega Upload that doesn't have any dealings with US citizens or institutions then an US court has no jurisdiction and a grand jury motion will likely not succeed, and in most countries, other than the sycophantic ones that allow extradition on merely accusation, you can just ignore it.
the owners and operators of Megaupload were arrested by US authorities with no extradition
Umm no, they were arrested in New Zealand by New Zealand authorities.
Dotcom, as well as Bram van der Kolk, Finn Batato and Mathias Ortman were arrested by Organised & Financial Crime Agency New Zealand (OFCANZ) as well as New Zealand police earlier today. from http://gizmodo.com/5877779/
Umm no, they were arrested in New Zealand by New Zealand authorities.
Dotcom, as well as Bram van der Kolk, Finn Batato and Mathias Ortman were arrested by Organised & Financial Crime Agency New Zealand (OFCANZ) as well as New Zealand police earlier today. from http://gizmodo.com/5877779/
> Umm no, they were arrested in New Zealand by New Zealand authorities.
At the behest of the US entertainment industry.
At the behest of the US entertainment industry.
And the US law enforcement authorities. Hollywood did not ring up the NZ police and say "Arrest these guys". The US police did not fly over to NZ and arrest them.
> just arrested in New Zealand for running a company from there
> were arrested by US authorities with no extradition
> ...
> no "prosecution in the target jurisdiction"
They will apparently[1] have a hearing in NZ to determine extradition.
The investigation was apparently[1] coordinated between multiple governments' agencies, and apparently[1] took 2 years.
[1]: This information is based on what I have read so far.
> What i would rather see is that companies move off US soil as a response to US Law. And stay off TLD's controlled by the US.
The cowboys from the US and the bootlickers in the affected countries have shown again and again that they do not care about jurisdiction or common sense.
The cowboys from the US and the bootlickers in the affected countries have shown again and again that they do not care about jurisdiction or common sense.
If you read the 'evidence' against MU the mere blocking of US traffic to your website could be seen as 'evidence' that you are concealing a crime.
I thought about this a little more this morning and realized that Megaupload was shut down because it was using piracy as a means to fund the owners' multi-million dollar lifestyle. Just because uploaded.to blocks US visitors does this make it safe from being taken down? I think not. Not if it is making $$$. They must be in #denial
I wrote about this a month or so ago. Sites self censoring. Much easier that way isn't it?
http://danielmillsap.com/blog/technology-news/using-game-the...
How about a screenshot for non-U.S. users?
I think mappu meant the block message:
http://imgur.com/BJJOs
http://imgur.com/BJJOs
It's nothing particularly special
http://cl.ly/2R3G1t3l2Z2O2A0x1u08
http://cl.ly/2R3G1t3l2Z2O2A0x1u08
Do you have a US IP? Maybe it's not blocked for everyone.
http://torrentfreak.com/uploaded-to-blocks-us-visitors-12012...
http://torrentfreak.com/uploaded-to-blocks-us-visitors-12012...
When it doesn't work internationally, you guys want to see what U.S. users see. When it doesn't work in the U.S., you guys what to see what U.S. users see. Maybe you just want to be a U.S. user?
Maybe some start-up will establish a foreign VPN service (in China or Iran) to help people in the US to freely connect to these services without fear of reprisal.
This move makes no sense to me. Blocking US users will not stop them from seeking out foreign users uploading 'infringing' content. It's also as easily circumvented as the tactics many Europeans use to access those lame American sites that block Europe.
This is an example of the chilling effect you get when you hold service providers liable for users' behavior.
Are there any other examples of this post Megaupload?
Are there any other examples of this post Megaupload?
Except that in this case Mega Conspiracy (the company behind MegaUpload) is being held liable for their own behavior. I'm used to Reddit being ill-informed but I was not expecting to see this attitude being so prevalent on HN!
Just in the comment thread for this post I've seen assertions that the U.S. avoided extradition treaties (untrue) and that MegaUpload was shut down just because of what their users were doing (also untrue).
Just as an example of things from the indictment (which you should really at least read a summary of):
* MegaConspiracy employees were discussing a way to avoid reposts of child porn by killing any video with a matching md5sum of movies which were deemed by MegaConspiracy to be child porn, but did not employ that same tactic for files uploaded that infringed copyright. Now you and I know that it's trivial to make the md5sum change without making the video look any different, but why does MegaConspiracy 'try harder' for some categories of illegal material and not others that just conveniently happen to make them more money?
* MegaConspiracy seeded their own website with videos copied straight from YouTube (thing wget --mirror) without so much as bothering to verify the license of those videos. This wouldn't be acceptable with open source software, why should this be acceptable for Mega Upload?
* MegaConspiracy distributed known infringing videos internally to staff (so it's not "just the users" doing it)
* MegaConspiracy rewarded uploaders monetarily for uploading popular videos despite the lack of authorization on the part of those users to redistribute the video (so it's not "just the users" asking for it)
So while I certainly appreciate that the movie/music industry are hopelessly out-of-tune with digital distribution, that doesn't make MegaConspiracy a bunch of good guys, and it doesn't make their behavior defensible.
Just in the comment thread for this post I've seen assertions that the U.S. avoided extradition treaties (untrue) and that MegaUpload was shut down just because of what their users were doing (also untrue).
Just as an example of things from the indictment (which you should really at least read a summary of):
* MegaConspiracy employees were discussing a way to avoid reposts of child porn by killing any video with a matching md5sum of movies which were deemed by MegaConspiracy to be child porn, but did not employ that same tactic for files uploaded that infringed copyright. Now you and I know that it's trivial to make the md5sum change without making the video look any different, but why does MegaConspiracy 'try harder' for some categories of illegal material and not others that just conveniently happen to make them more money?
* MegaConspiracy seeded their own website with videos copied straight from YouTube (thing wget --mirror) without so much as bothering to verify the license of those videos. This wouldn't be acceptable with open source software, why should this be acceptable for Mega Upload?
* MegaConspiracy distributed known infringing videos internally to staff (so it's not "just the users" doing it)
* MegaConspiracy rewarded uploaders monetarily for uploading popular videos despite the lack of authorization on the part of those users to redistribute the video (so it's not "just the users" asking for it)
So while I certainly appreciate that the movie/music industry are hopelessly out-of-tune with digital distribution, that doesn't make MegaConspiracy a bunch of good guys, and it doesn't make their behavior defensible.
For you 1st point: because in most jurisdiction CP is absolutely forbidden and typically you are not protected if you don't proactively act to eradicate CP on your service with reasonable dilligence, whereas an upload of a film might or might not be problematic, given that it can be for private use or public distribution.
For the third point who are you kidding. Technically this is problematic. In the real world even representatives and people in grand jury exchange ripped films, most probably most judges do it too. So this is both technically a reason but an highly hypocritical one.
For the third point who are you kidding. Technically this is problematic. In the real world even representatives and people in grand jury exchange ripped films, most probably most judges do it too. So this is both technically a reason but an highly hypocritical one.
> For you 1st point: because in most jurisdiction CP is absolutely forbidden and typically you are not protected if you don't proactively act to eradicate CP on your service with reasonable dilligence, whereas an upload of a film might or might not be problematic, given that it can be for private use or public distribution.
That's not at all the point though. It would be one thing if MegaConspiracy had a policy to only "full ban" videos that were targets of DMCA-complaints if it was clear to them that the content was actually infringing. Then they'd have a plethora of excuses (e.g. no time to sort through all the DMCA requests, "investigations" revealed it was unclear material was infringing, etc.)
Instead what the judge and jury will see is that MegaConspiracy had a "permaban video" tool which they didn't even attempt to use.
> For the third point [MegaConspiracy distributing infringing material internally] who are you kidding. Technically this is problematic.
Well, this is the best kind of "technically", given that it's exactly what they're being accused of! If the grand jury was as sympathetic to that as you think then why did they hand down the indictment?
Either way it's not very hypocritical given that some naïve users might be able to claim ignorance of the progeny of videos from the Internet, but MegaConspiracy went out of their way to establish DMCA protocol so they have no excuse for ignorance of the "safe harbor" provisions at all.
That's not at all the point though. It would be one thing if MegaConspiracy had a policy to only "full ban" videos that were targets of DMCA-complaints if it was clear to them that the content was actually infringing. Then they'd have a plethora of excuses (e.g. no time to sort through all the DMCA requests, "investigations" revealed it was unclear material was infringing, etc.)
Instead what the judge and jury will see is that MegaConspiracy had a "permaban video" tool which they didn't even attempt to use.
> For the third point [MegaConspiracy distributing infringing material internally] who are you kidding. Technically this is problematic.
Well, this is the best kind of "technically", given that it's exactly what they're being accused of! If the grand jury was as sympathetic to that as you think then why did they hand down the indictment?
Either way it's not very hypocritical given that some naïve users might be able to claim ignorance of the progeny of videos from the Internet, but MegaConspiracy went out of their way to establish DMCA protocol so they have no excuse for ignorance of the "safe harbor" provisions at all.
Might the US wake up one day to find itself secluded on the internets? Just like the average Nigerian, who has exactly 0% chance of successfully ordering a product on eBay.
What happens when the world becomes fed up with the horrendous US legal system? I can easily see a file-sharing site (e.g. megaupload) blocking all US IP addresses from accessing its service. Essentially annulling any trace of liability against a corrupt and rotten legal and political system.
Granted, we're still pretty high up on the slippery slope. But, it still would be very interesting the moment the US becomes the country with 'unfavorable political climate'.