Piracy Filehosts Latest Trick?
 

I noticed the other day wupload are using geo domains eg wupload.co.uk, wupload.fr
It looks like content removal could become a lot more time consuming as your content could be mirrored over multiple domains and servers.

Anyone else seen that?

Yeah, these dudes are pro @ it. Bastards.

notice that shit too, that means more problems to take down content

That guy is cousins with the guy running Filesonic.

But no worries. Sooner or later their day will come.

Do they remove those links when you send DMCA to the usual wupload.com dmca e-mail? I once found filesonic.es links, sent DMCA to the usual filesonic.com e-mail address and they removed. If that is the case for wupload too (most likely it is since they're cousins and mirror all practices), those new links shouldn't be a big problem.

the cousin lives in montreal as well?

I hope so, are you with, or do you run removeyourcontent takedownpiracy?

You can write a routine to dupe the TLDs. You can also request a publisher removal api and remove instantly. No more time. :2 cents:

Hm as I checked Wupload accepts PayPal (for the premium upgrade). Can you guys (sponsors) just mail paypal that the majority of their shared stuff is porn so they should ban them? Otherwise everyone could just open a 'fake' sharing site for their internal use only and sell content (charge for 'paysite' membership) via it to accept PP...

paypal doesn't give a fuck. maybe i am wrong.

Why don't you lend a hand and do it yourself?

I'm not a content/paysite owner, I'm a small guy... some big guys should do it

I found some of our stuff on their .co.uk domain and sent a DMCA to them bundled in with stuff on their .com one and they never removed it. I sent a further 3 with just the .co.uk one and they still did not remove it so I checked to see the contact addy on the .co.uk and it was the same as the .com one. I mailed them back and told them to get it down pronto as next step was legal action and they removed it.

I just wonder if stuff is indeed mirrored across all geo domains. If so, it would be a good idea for us to put a list of geo domains they use together.

Yeah I think you are right when it comes to an individual raising a complaint as I have tried a few times but never got anywhere. Not even a response from them. Might need a group of us to contact them and throw some weight behind it.

I would reckon PayPal know exactly what they are up to. If we could get PayPal removed from all these filehosts I reckon that would hurt them badly.

I have thought in the past if PayPal were not to play ball then expose them thru the mainstream media. After all, PayPal is a household brand and you could drag their name thru the dirt exposing their seedy side. I am sure some of the major media outlets would love to run a story like that.

lazy fucker

:1orglaugh

fuckers get smarter everyday ...:Oh crap

hehe read above

yeah fuck the legal systems of other countries america should dictate that way all other countries should work

forget the concept of democracy, forget our own laws let all just obey americas laws.

how about you guys respect the laws countries in question rather than expecting them to respect your countries laws.

They said sue them in Luxembourg. Been there and done that.

Try the reverse.. submit on the .com then check the mirror .co.uk :winkwink:

dont they mirror all the domains so domain.com/file.zip and domain.co.uk/file.zip will work?

They can say whatever they want but I'm pretty sure they can be sued in US court since they're US corp by all practical means, despite maybe being formally registered in some other country.

And you're defending wupload for what reason?

Wupload sells - through Paypal, no less - access to content that's taken from other businesses and uploaded to their servers.

In which democratic country can I invite people to sell multiple copies of the goods they buy from (e.g.) WalMart in my warehouse? Yes, I can buy a Walmart shirt and sell it - no problem. I can't buy a shirt at Walmart, make half a million identical copies, and legally sell them in any democratic country.

I'm going to open a business called WUP Warehouse, and let people sell the stuff they buy - and duplicate - from other companies on my showroom floor. That's called a flea market, btw - and they get busted weekly.

According to you, I should be immune from prosecution as long as I comply with WalMart's written request to remove copies of their products from my shelves.

The real world doesn't work that way - the internet shouldn't, either.

Correct.. take out the .com and it shuts down the other tlds. At least that's the result here confirmed by a UK user after taking out the .com, thus, BAU.

The domain extensions doesn't matter, if they point to the same location of the content. Notification of IP or fingerprint should cover all domains.

If a host mirror submitted content on another server with the purpose of making it public (reproduce), then the host has no longer safe harbor.

are you really so stupid that you believe that american companies can operate under their home countries laws when they operate in foreign countries.

Trying selling guns in canada like you allowed to do in the states.

walmart in canada has to follow our privacy laws for example
facebook has to follow our privacy laws

naut was arguing you should be able to DCMA a non US host.

mininova complied with DCMa rather then demand that copyright holders obey their countries laws and they actually lost the safe harbor protection that their countries laws would have provided.

obeying a DCMA request for a non US host is actually plain stupid given that ruling.

you couldn't be more wrong

if you were right cdn would be illegal and they are not.

facebook/flickr/ youtube all use them for their user uploaded content.

so is this fair use gideon?

I didn't claim reproduction itself was illegal. But safe harbor is gone if you reproduce with the intention of avoiding removal upon notifications. Also if you interfere manually with the data, like change of hash values. All that is pointed clearly out in DCMA to avoid abuse.

As usual, you're tripping over your own feet to make your point, and stumbling all the way. Here are the facts.

1. These file servers, no matter where they are located, invoke the DMCA for its safe harbor provision, as a means to seek immunity from infringement claims, including that from EU and other laws that provide similar safe harbor provisions.

(You consistently misstate that because DMCA is a US law those not in the United States are immune, but you conveniently forget the EU and many other countries have their own versions of it, some of which are based directly on the wording of the DMCA.)

2. Regardless of the DMCA, the file servers are in the business to make money from converting surfers to paid users (i.e. "direct financial benefit"), and reward uploaders by paying them a percentage fee based on number of downloads. This is, in fact, against the DMCA and EU laws, and no safe harbor is provided for it in any case.

3. Once a file server agrees to be bound by the DMCA, regardless of jurisdiction, and regardless of whether it actually enjoys safe harbor, it must then comply with all requirements of the DMCA to order to anticipate its protection. The fact that they refuse to comply strips them of any legal defense, in any territory or jurisdiction.

When you send a DMCA.. Send it to EVERYONE that the site deals with.

The site.
the host
The registrar
the upstream provider
the companies they promote
the companies they use such as paypal

After a while those companies get tired of getting the DMCA's

I did exactly that to one site. Only sent 1 DMCA per video they had.. 36 in total. Next day All my videos were gone, the host had replied and the account was suspended and the registrar told them to find a new company.

If your going to spend time doing anything, do it right and 100%

what exactly about the statement

do you not understand



again 100% wrong

obeying the DMCA takedown request for a non US hosting operation doesn't give you any safe harbor protection for non US operations.

and if you "compliance" misses something that your own countries laws requires will actually cost you the protection of your own country

google the mininova court case if you don't believe me. That exactly why they got ass raped.


this "shady" process is a direct result of that ruling so you can blame your copyright monopoly buddies in the mpaa for all the extra work.

totally depends if you give lifetime free access to the content the person paid for, or if you argue that your subscription model is like renting a video from a video store (ignoring the fact that a physical product is removed from the store and there prevented from being available to another person to rent is totally different from subscription model where there is no REAL time based restriction to access.

You either don't read the comments here, or have trouble following basic logic, or both. I already said as much about file locker services trying to invoke the safe harbor provisions of DMCA, thinking they can hide behind them -- they can't. And I already said they don't have safe harbor, PERIOD, because they directly benefit financially. I also said that the EU and many other countries have enacted takedown and safe harbor provisions similar to DMCA, so whether you call it "DMCA" or something else the functionality is the same.

Somehow these simple things allude you.

Mininova is a good example of a service thinking they could outrun copyright laws by relying on safe harbor if they adopted content removal policies. They were infringing from the get-go. They wouldn't have gotten a better shake in the US.

Finally, the MPAA is against the ISP safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, for obvious reasons. Their input was prohibiting reverse engineering of DRM. You are stunningly clueless.

gideon has a strange worldview / ideology that tbh even people in the free culture / pirate movements don't share. he should be taken to an anthropologist and studied.