Slashdot Mirror


Megaupload Drops Lawsuit Against Universal Music

bs0d3 writes "Not so long ago, a legal video was taken down by repetitive DMCA requests to YouTube. In response, Megaupload filed a lawsuit against Universal Music. This past week, Megaupload was raided by U.S. authorities and forced offline, which is costing Megaupload millions of dollars in damage. Today; while employees are in U.S. custody, Megaupload has mysteriously dropped their lawsuit against Universal Music."

439 comments

  1. Not Surprise for MegaUpload by FreeCoder · · Score: 5, Informative

    With the ton of information about the multi-year investigation about MegaUpload and all the evidence gathered they practically have zero possibility of winning the case. They really got it handed down on them and are most likely looking for a long time in jail.

    Not only did MegaUpload not delete the actual files when sent DMCA notices (but did when sent abuse letters about illegal content like child porn), they also paid the uploaders cash in exchange to send downloaders to their site. This was almost all the times used for spreading copyright infringing material and MegaUpload was notoriously known for being good site for such use. As the internal emails show they were also fully aware of this fact. It also seems like the feds are now in possession of the top affiliates on the site which most likely will lead to more arrests for criminal copyright infringement, as they made lots of money by doing it.

    Also another fact: not only did MegaUpload staff know about this activity and try to get around DMCA notices and laws, they did copyright infringement themselves. For example they used to populate their MegaVideo site by downloading and adding videos from YouTube. This was also videos created by people like you, not only mega-corps. This and much more was revealed in the arrest and their internal emails.

    1. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by j35ter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But only if NZ actually extradites them. Please also note the DMCA is valid for the US only., the rest of the world (rightfully) wipe their asses with this piece of legal sh**.

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    2. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by hedwards · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but when you operate servers you have to comply with the laws in the countries you have servers. In this case Megaupload had equipment in the US and as a result falls under American law. They most certainly should be extradited as that's the only way in which it can be determined if they broke the law.

      We don't do in absentia bullshit in the US like they do in some other parts of the world, so this is really the only way that it's going to be resolved. They could easily have avoided this by not having any servers in the US.

    3. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by snowgirl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But only if NZ actually extradites them. Please also note the DMCA is valid for the US only., the rest of the world (rightfully) wipe their asses with this piece of legal sh**.

      Hah... you're silly because you think that the US seems to accept that their laws don't apply universally. Most of the US government seems to be of the attitude that if it's on the internets, then it's US jurisdiction.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    4. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by symbolset · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It would seem very unusual for a nation to permit extradition of a person for acts which are not in that country illegal - even if they're unquestionably illegal in the country requestion extradition. Since violating the DMCA is the foundation of all the other acts in the indictment (if there is no other crime, financial transactions cannot be money laundering; there cannot be some conspiracy to not break the law) and NZ doesn't have the DMCA it seems to me they're unlikely to grant extradition. But I could be wrong.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    5. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by DesScorp · · Score: 2

      But only if NZ actually extradites them. Please also note the DMCA is valid for the US only., the rest of the world (rightfully) wipe their asses with this piece of legal sh**.

      New Zealand has extradition treaties with the United States. So does most of the "rest of the world".

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    6. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For all the nerd-rage it caused at the time, the DMCA was a remarkably balanced and far-sighted law. Some other nations have copied it, and others haven't, I don't know if NZ has such a law or not, but it doesn't matter much - the MegaUpload guys are also accused of plain old copyright infringement, which is certainly illegal under laws and treaties NZ has signed.

      Oh, and they're also accused of money laundering, which again would be considered an extraditable crime. I don't personally pay much attention to accusations of money laundering because those laws are extremely vague, poorly thought out and there's no distinction between actually hiding the sources of illegally gained funds and simply failing to follow the byzantine regulations intended to make value flows trackable - they are both considered "money laundering", although plenty of innocent people with no criminal intentions can fall foul of the latter. As a result convictions purely for ML and nothing else are very rare and have often been overturned by courts. That's one reason it usually comes attached to accusations of other crimes.

      Re: the DMCA. Like I said, in hindsight I think it's actually worked out very well for the net. The lightweight framework of copyright enforcement it created kept huge workloads away from the courts without creating unworkable levels of abuse (there is some, but there's abuse of the regular legal system too). It has made copyright enforcement available to the little guy, again without huge legal fees. It has protected sites like YouTube and search engines. And whilst measures like making circumvention systems illegal caused a lot of fuss, their impact was trivial - last time I checked this part of the law has neither prevented circumvention software being readily available nor wiped out Linux. In fact its impact on both sides of the copyright fights have been negligible.

    7. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by FreeCoder · · Score: 0

      Exactly correct. It's funny that people always point out that The Pirate Bay and other torrent sites are hosted in Sweden and therefore it's Swedish law that applies to them, but now it's somehow different when they hosted in the US. On top of that they also worked with US companies, and as another point, usually these sites pay more for US visitors than for example visitors from China or Russia (as they make more revenue). This clearly shows intent target US persons.

    8. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And most of the world's governments agree with them.

    9. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by WaffleMonster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not only did MegaUpload not delete the actual files when sent DMCA notices (but did when sent abuse letters about illegal content like child porn)

      This is not necessary. If you read the DMCA it is enough to simply remove *access* to the content.

      This was almost all the times used for spreading copyright infringing material and MegaUpload was notoriously known for being good site for such use.

      The Internet is notoriously known for being a good method of transporting such material. What is your point? I've used megaupload many times over the years but never to download movies or cracked software.

      As the internal emails show they were also fully aware of this fact.

      This is problematic...

      not only did MegaUpload staff know about this activity and try to get around DMCA notices and laws, they did copyright infringement themselves

      Very problematic...

    10. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      RE the removal of the file.

      Mega upload used a hashing function so if a file was uploaded 5 times, they only stored it once. When CP was flagged the file is removed because CP is always CP. Copyright however is only a violation when the person uploading it does not have authority to do this. EG if I make a song and upload it, and you upload it too. Then I can send a DMCA to take down your upload, with the expectation that mine will be the only one there.

      Here is the kicker, we aren't talking about hypothetical or edge cases here. Artists were uploading their own tracks since they would get 90c in the dollar of the advertising revenue: http://rapfix.mtv.com/2012/01/20/swizz-beatz-megaupload-case-diddy-busta-rhymes-tweet-support/

      If you want to know why big media hated megaupload so much re read that link. Artists were by-passing their publishers. Add to that the announcement of licensed media streaming and purchases being available on megaupload from February, and you can see why action had to be be done swiftly before hand.

      Cheers
      Kactus

    11. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Barbariandude · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'll just leave this here for you. http://cato.org/pubs/pas/pa564.pdf

    12. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by snowgirl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And most of the world's governments agree with them.

      Oh... :( you made me sad.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    13. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by BlakJak-ZL1VMF · · Score: 5, Informative

      Any Extradition from NZ will be under the terms of the Extradition Treaty and won't be for DMCA violations, but for other charges - such as the Money Laundering and so on which is indeed covered by the Treaty.

      Some interesting reads:

      Provision Warrants: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26216.html
      Extradition Offenses http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM25681.html#DLM25681
      How Extradition Request must be made http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26211.html?search=ts_act_extradition_resel&p=1#DLM26211
      Minister may request warrant http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0055/latest/DLM26215.html?search=ts_act_extradition_resel&p=1
      The Extradition Treaty Itself http://newzealand.usembassy.gov/uploads/images/o16y8MOyHW2l-jJTxaMpeQ/ExtraditionUSNZ.pdf

      --
      -.-. --.-
    14. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by FreeCoder · · Score: 1

      Not only did MegaUpload not delete the actual files when sent DMCA notices (but did when sent abuse letters about illegal content like child porn)

      This is not necessary. If you read the DMCA it is enough to simply remove *access* to the content.

      However, it matters because MegaUpload used hashes on all the files and if someone uploaded the same file again, they only made a new reference to it. At the same time when they got DMCA notice they didn't remove all the urls associated with the file, but only the one that received the notice. That clearly shows intent of keeping as many copies of the file online while only removing the one that has been detected by the copyright owner. Even more problematic is the fact that they did have this system in place because they did it for files such as child porn. But because copyrighted content was such a major income stream for them, they tried to get away with it in that special case.

    15. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      Promoting copyright infringement is a crime in quite a few countries (hence one reason why MegaUpload was blocked in a few countries even before this happened). The DMCA is just a specific law that attempts to set rules for what is and isn't copyright infringement on the Internet.

      Also, it depends on the exact circumstances. It doesn't necessarily have to be illegal in the extraditing country (although it usually is), but that would be determined on a case by case basis, I believe.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    16. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      The part of the DCMA that you mention is not the part that I object to - it is the lack of ability to crack encryption that gets folks around here riled up.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    17. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by synoniem · · Score: 0

      I see you repeating this message from a earlier thread. Looking at your arguments makes me wonder who is paying you to repeat this message over and over again?

    18. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 2

      Just because you have a customer (even a preferred customer) in a given country, doesn't mean you must be subject to that country's laws.

      That's silly.

      You can absolutely be prevented from doing business in that country, but you cannot be arrested for violating that country's laws if you do not commit crimes there

    19. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      First, let's not confuse the recent raid with MegaUploads lawsuit against Universal. Universal took down MegaUpload's advertising video from YouTube by abusing YouTube's system for DMCA takedows. When faced with the fact that MegaUpload's ad contained no infringing material, Universal turned around and denied that it was a DMCA takedown. Clearly, Universal does not want to take responsibility for its actions.

      Second, MegaUpload is right to keep the actual files when being sent DMCA takedown notices, since some of the copies may belong to non-infringing users. In many countries, it's legal to download and share media files for private use. Contrary to what the American media corporations want us to believe, American law does not decide what a Swedish user can do when they upload files to a Dutch server owned by a New Zeeland company. Their greedy corporations have no right to delete my perfectly legal files, just because an American user happened to upload the same files illegally.

      Third, the internal e-mails mentioned in the news so far only prove that MegaUpload knew about the existence of infringing material on their servers. They cooperated fully with the media corporations to delete the infringing links as they were made aware of them (while keeping he non-infringing links, as they should).

    20. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It's not silly at all, they've been arrested for activities connected with operations in the US. Any criminal activities that they've allegedly committed with those servers represent criminal activities in the US.

      It would be a completely different matter if the servers were all outside the US as they wouldn't have any control over the location of the people downloading from those servers.

    21. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by FreeCoder · · Score: 2
      Then why did their internal emails show that they were fully aware of the copyright violations? From the indictment:

      r.

      On or about February 5, 2007, VAN DER KOLK sent an e-mail to ORTMANN entitled âoereward paymentsâ. Attached to the e-mail was a text file listing thefollowing proposed reward amounts, the Megaupload.com username, and the contentthey uploaded:

      100 USD [USERNAME DELETED] 10+ Full popular DVD rips (split files), a fewsmall porn movies, some software with keygenerators (warez)
      100 USD [USERNAME DELETED] 5845 files in his account, mainly Vietnamesecontent
      100 USD [USERNAME DELETED] Popular DVD rips
      100 USD [USERNAME DELETED] Some older DVD rips + unknown (Italianserries?) rar files
      1500 USD [USERNAME DELETED] known paid user (vietnamese content)

      On or about February 21, 2007, VAN DER KOLK sent an e-mail toORTMANN entitled âoe2 reward payment files.â Attached to the e-mail was a file containingMegaupload.com usersâ(TM) e-mail addresses and reward payments for that time period, whichranged from $100 to $500. For one user that was paid $300, VAN DER KOLK wrote, âoe30849files, mainly Mp3z, some copyrighted but most of them have a very small number of downloadsper file.â For other users, all of which were selected for reward payments of $100 by the MegaConspiracy, he wrote the following: âoeOur old famous number one on MU, still some illegal files but I think he deserves a paymentâ; âoeLoads of PDF files (looks like scanned magazines)â; âoelookslike vietnamese DVD ripsâ; âoeThis user was paid last time has mainly split RAR files, howevermore than 50% deleted through abuse reports.â

    22. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The only flaw with the DMCA is the ability for the content owners to use infringement notices with impunity. There needs to be a provision to allow content sites such as YouTube to start ignoring abusive notices.

      The simple fact that a DMCA notice is submitted automatically causes content to be removed immediately and subject to lengthy proceedings regarding the rights of that content.

      Various members of the RIAA have been notorious in submitting DMCA takedown letters for content that is very clearly covered by things such as fair use and sometimes even for content they don't even remotely have the rights to. But the creative individuals creating these parodies, or even original material, have limited recourse and the recourse they do have is time-consuming, difficult and sometimes expensive, not to mention it destroys their business (if the content is related to a business).

      There is little argument for a business conglomerate having the power to shut down smaller competitors for a short period by simply writing a letter.... and for there to be no recourse for these smaller competitors from it happening repeatedly other than lengthy legal arguments and possibly litigation. That's absurd and anti-competitive.

      But the remainder of the DMCA... yes, not bad, not great, but not bad.

    23. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by TFAFalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is this even a criminal case? Why not leave it to the civil courts. When the music industry was ripping off artists in Canada, all that happened was a settlement. No people were arrested and extradited.

    24. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because you can't extradite people over civil matters and you can't confiscate property on foreign soil to cover the award.

      In this case though, the money laundering and other charges are pretty much always going to be felonies. And apparently if you distribute one or more work worth $1 000 or more during a 180 day period you're committing a felony. I don't agree with it, but that is what the law says.

      Considering that nobody forced them to locate a server in the US, I'm not sure whom they can reasonably blame other than themselves. It remains to be seen whether the allegations lead to any convictions, but the US certainly does have the right to try them for those felonies.

    25. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is this even a criminal case? Why not leave it to the civil courts. When the music industry was ripping off artists in Canada, all that happened was a settlement. No people were arrested and extradited.

      Exactly.
      In almost no other case does the US government get involved in protecting private property to the extent they rush in and protect the music and film industry. Have your patent ripped off, or your house broken into, they won't even listen to you. Its up to you to defend your patent at your own expense, and you can file a police report about the burglary, but you will likely never see your property again.

      Why is the US government acting as a mob enforcer for the Media Giants?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    26. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be touched in the head if you believe "Dotcom" is unlikely to be extradited.

    27. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by renegadesx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is a provision its just not enforced. Whenever someone files a false DMCA claim they are guilty of perjury (which carreis a 5 year jail term). So when Viacom went after YouTubers who were covered by the fair use provisions, Viacom committed perjury, but nobody pressed charges against Viacom. If people used MPAA and RIAA content that were strictly under fair use (and lets face it, they do it all the time) somebody needs to charge them, not sue (as they drag it out) but proceed in criminal charges (which legal work is done by the prosecutor) against these organisations. That way you could see Dodd go to jail.

      --
      Make SELinux enforcing again!
    28. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but when you operate servers you have to comply with the laws in the countries you have servers. In this case Megaupload had equipment in the US and as a result falls under American law.

      Nonsense. They also have servers in the Netherlands, so why does it fall under American law and not Dutch?

      USA *might* claim jurisdiction in this case because the *victim* of the alleged crime is an American corporation. However, that depends on where the alleged crime is viewed as taking place. If the New Zeeland courts decide the alleged crime took place in the country where the company was based, not the country where the servers were situated, they should be tried according to New Zeeland law. And in that case, there's little that the USA can (legally) do.

      They most certainly should be extradited as that's the only way in which it can be determined if they broke the law.

      "Only" way? Do you believe the United States is the only country in the world with competent police and due process? If they stay on New Zeeland, I trust they'll receive just as fair a trial as they'd receive in the United States.

    29. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by DarkOx · · Score: 0

      Not only did MegaUpload not delete the actual files when sent DMCA notices (but did when sent abuse letters about illegal content like child porn)

      This is not necessary. If you read the DMCA it is enough to simply remove *access* to the content.

      The trouble is in what constitutes removing access. There are documented cases where MegaUpload had multiple URIs pointing at the file, they used a form of dedupe if you will. When they got a complaint about the file, they only removed the URI in the complaint, when they knew or reasonably could have known they were still making the same content available on another part of their site.

      As much as I hate to argue on behalf of the syndicate, I think one could honestly interpret that as not complying with the DMCA, especially because a complaining content owner no simple way to know there exist many links to their same supposed IP elsewhere on MegaUpload.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    30. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The lightweight framework of copyright enforcement it created kept huge workloads away from the courts without creating unworkable levels of abuse

      Lightweight framework of enforcement? You mean like having the entire DOJ work for the media giants leaning on every country in the world to violate their own laws and arrest people and surrender them to US authorities?

        No unworkable levels of abuse? You mean like millions of take down notices filed every day against thing that have no pirated content what so ever, beyond simply mentioning a word in the title?

      Tell me, what hole have you had your head in for the last 5 years?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    31. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Promoting copyright infringement is a crime in quite a few countries (hence one reason why MegaUpload was blocked in a few countries even before this happened). The DMCA is just a specific law that attempts to set rules for US citizens for what is and isn't copyright infringement on the Internet.

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    32. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by FreeCoder · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. They also have servers in the Netherlands, so why does it fall under American law and not Dutch?

      Depending on Netherlands laws, I guess it might. Do you want them to be prosecuted in both USA and Netherlands?

    33. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by bfandreas · · Score: 0

      Given Kim Schmitz was involved I wouldn't be surprised if the money laundering accusation stuck. He is a convicted fraudster and deemed unfit to run a business in Germany.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Schmitz The lawyer he hired has just dropped the case.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Bennett

      Here's to hoping Kim Schmitz is going down for good. I don't want that turd to surface in sight anymore.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    34. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by FreeCoder · · Score: 0

      First, let's not confuse the recent raid with MegaUploads lawsuit against Universal. Universal took down MegaUpload's advertising video from YouTube by abusing YouTube's system for DMCA takedows. When faced with the fact that MegaUpload's ad contained no infringing material, Universal turned around and denied that it was a DMCA takedown. Clearly, Universal does not want to take responsibility for its actions.

      And since it was a deal between YouTube and Universal, there was no DMCA laws involved. If the deal included Universal's ability to remove any file they wish, so be it. If not, it's to be resolved between YouTube and Universal. Not that I like that deal, but regarding to law, there is nothing wrong being done.

    35. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      No, not having servers in the USA would probably not make any difference. The USA wants them arrested, they will find a way.

    36. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      "last time I checked this part of the law has neither prevented circumvention software being readily available"

      Please show me a US based vendor for software which allows ripping my purchased BluRay or DVD media. Better yet, show me a ripping service, like moondogdigital, for DVDs and BluRays so that I don't have to spend months ripping my personal collection of several hundred discs.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    37. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Renraku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who are you going to jail? Do you pierce the corporate veil and order the person that signed off on it? They'll just point to their boss who ordered them to do it or they'd be fired. If you say they shouldn't have complied, there's 10,000 people waiting just outside the building to fill in their position when they get fired. If you go for the boss they'll point to their boss, right up to the CEO who simply gave the vague order to profit.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    38. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When they got a complaint about the file, they only removed the URI in the complaint, when they knew or reasonably could have known they were still making the same content available on another part of their site.

      Child pornography is illegal, in the sense that nobody is legally allowed to have it or distribute it. Copyrighted material, on the other hand, isn't inherently illegal. Just because one person is not legally allowed to distribute a copy doesn't mean that nobody else is. Nor is this hypothetical, given the number of musicians who are noting that they distribute their own work via Megaupload.

      That's not to say that those who ran Megaupload didn't deliberately bend and/or break the law. Just that this, taken by itself, is arguably neither illegal nor morally wrong.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    39. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 2

      The grandparent is right in that extradition is normally not granted if the alleged act is not a crime in the country extradition is requested from.

      I.e: If what they did is not illegal in New Zeeland, it's unlikely New Zeeland can extra dite them.

    40. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "It's funny that people always point out that The Pirate Bay and other torrent sites are hosted in Sweden and therefore it's Swedish law that applies to them"

      The operators of said sites are also located in Sweden so it isn't exactly analogous.

    41. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money...

      It's who you know and how much you can pay them.

    42. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But as the grandparent points out, the other charges are dependent on the alleged DMCA violations. If that's not a crime in New Zeeland, then the money they got from it are legal, and there's no money laundering.

    43. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      This will be an interesting precedent if they extradite someone for a civil violation. Extradition is generally for things like capital murder and significant money laundering operations, not copyright violation.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    44. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shaitand · · Score: 1

      If a US citizen had a server in China and shared copyrighted content on it I guarantee you US authorities would prosecute them in the US. So I call BS.

      At the end of the day its just whatever argument serves the interests of the copyright cartel and that is almost always persecution in the US.

    45. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "In this case though, the money laundering and other charges are pretty much always going to be felonies."

      But its only money laundering if the first place if the civil copyright issues are treated as criminal issues. You can't 'launder' money that didn't come from criminal activities, even if that money was supposedly made from an activity which gave you civil liability.

    46. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Promoting copyright infringement is a crime in quite a few countries

      If "promoting copyright infringement" was a crime, then all broadband providers would be shut down long ago. There needs to be a criminal intent, which is very hard to prove.

      Also, it depends on the exact circumstances. It doesn't necessarily have to be illegal in the extraditing country (although it usually is), but that would be determined on a case by case basis, I believe.

      It's not decided on a case-by-case basis; the extradition treaty outlines exactly which crimes may lead to extradition even if they're only criminal in the country requesting extradition.

    47. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shaitand · · Score: 1

      They pay better than the people... and even if they didn't, whatever they do pay is pure gravy. Also, try getting elected to a government office when the media cartels cut you off, news, radio and television are all part of the same cabal with movies and music.

    48. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They really got it handed down on them and are most likely looking for a large fine way less than what they made

      There fixed that for you.

    49. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      That's a huge document. I'll read it fully some other time.

      Suffice it to say, I find the premise (from the introduction) to be flawed, or at least, not balanced. It argues that the DMCA is "anti competitive" because it seeks to protect DRM systems, which are typically not open.

      I have a few problems with this argument. Firstly, it assumes that DRM systems are by definition "closed systems" without interoperability. This is an intellectually vague argument that can be sliced any way without reaching resolution, due to imprecision about what "open" is. Take the BluRay protection system. You can't just download a few PDFs and make a working BluRay player. That isn't possible. So from that perspective BluRay is a closed system. But if you sign some contracts and pay some licensing fees you certainly can, and there is a highly competitive market of both player manufacturers and content creators. Typically we'd say an infrastructure in which there is a free and competitive market, is an open infrastructure.

      The paper argues that the "interoperability" provision of the DMCA is self contradictory because the purpose of DRM is to prevent unauthorized devices interoperating with it. That's a good argument and one the framers of the DMCA should have addressed. But I think the question of open vs closed in DRM systems is something that'll become clearer with time. Technological progress is solving some of these issues, it's letting us have our cake and eat it to some extent. Trusted computing systems mean you can have hardware that runs anything (is open), but can cryptographically prove what it's running to third parties and seal encryption keys under those verified states. So it sets up a framework where two parties can trade without having to fall back on slow, expensive and overworked law courts to ensure both sides follow the agreed contract.

      The PS3 was, for a long time, a good example of this. It ran copy-controlled games, but also Linux (just not both at the same time). Sonys big mistake was to take that away and thus incentivize people who want to run Linux on all their hardware. Also, their hypervisor was weak and their code signing contained serious mathematical flaws - but I guess in their next generation (assuming there is one) they'll fix those issues.

      With TC in a regular PC, in theory, you can use Linux or FreeBSD or an OS you wrote entirely yourself, AND you can gain access to highly DRMd content, IF the other side is willing to trust your software. The platform itself is both open and entirely neutral. For that reason it even has non-DRM applications in areas like intelligent agents, virtual currencies, etc. The big remaining question is how to make certification of custom platforms really really cheap, so you can prove that your Linux/BSD/whatever will follow the rules required by the content creators (if you're willing to do that). Intels LaGrande technology had some interesting approaches to this, by avoiding the need for the host OS to be trusted at all, but it was unfortunately never finished. So I suspect we'll see either/or approaches dominate in the coming years.

    50. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Old+Wolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This SOPA thing must be really awful if it's making people say the DMCA is good!

    51. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking EXECUTE people in absentia in the US so dont give us any more of your bullshit.

    52. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by FreeCoder · · Score: 2

      Note that Dotcom is not originally New Zealander. Countries sometimes refuse to extradite people born in their country, but such usually isn't the case with foreign nationals.

      And I'm pretty surprised you would support him either, especially when you slashdotters usually talk about the media executives wanting to grab lots of money and live great life with yaches and other things. Does his house and parties look like he was a honest guy wanting common good? What about the cars with license plates like "GOD", "GUILTY", "HACKER," "MAFIA," and "STONED"? Or his past convictions of inside trading and criminal hacking?

    53. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shaitand · · Score: 0

      This story is dominated by more shills than I've seen in some time. The DMCA serves no legitimate function whatsoever. All uses of the DMCA represent abuse and there is MASS abuse across the board. Almost every content provider censors anything with a DMCA takedown request and almost all universally ignore legal reply by the content poster.

      "And whilst measures like making circumvention systems illegal caused a lot of fuss, their impact was trivial - last time I checked this part of the law has neither prevented circumvention software being readily available"

      So your argument in favor the law is that the illegal provisions are commonly broken anyway and most people who do so don't get caught?

      "It has protected sites like YouTube and search engines."

      Youtube and search engines were safe as common carriers before the DMCA created a "safe harbor" the only thing the DMCA has done for them is cause them to implement expensive procedures for taking down content, so expensive that they have built AI systems to detect content before a takedown request could be issued.

    54. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by FreeCoder · · Score: 1

      If "promoting copyright infringement" was a crime, then all broadband providers would be shut down long ago. There needs to be a criminal intent, which is very hard to prove.

      I don't know any ISP that does such. Care to point out who openly promotes copyright infringement?

    55. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by j35ter · · Score: 1

      The Iranians don't, the North Koreans don't, the Iraqis don't ... oh wait, you got them to agree...

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    56. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 2

      Exactly correct. It's funny that people always point out that The Pirate Bay and other torrent sites are hosted in Sweden and therefore it's Swedish law that applies to them, but now it's somehow different when they hosted in the US.

      You're quite correct that US law applies to the servers which are situated in the US. If you want to raid or shut down those servers, it's US law that applies.

      However, the person(s) operating the servers normally fall under the jurisdiction of their country of residence. Since the "person" in this case is a company, MegaUpload, based in New Zeeland, it's likely that the alleged crime will be considered to have taken place in New Zeeland, and New Zeeland law will apply.

      Basing jurisdiction on where the servers are situated wouldn't have worked anyway, since MegaUpload also have servers in other countries, like the Netherlands

      In the case of Pirate Bay, both the servers and the people behind them resided in Sweden, so Swedish law applied to the whole case.

    57. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by FreeCoder · · Score: 1

      Not with all the sites. And not with The Pirate Bay either. One of them ran off to Cambodia.

    58. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by j35ter · · Score: 1

      Yes they do, but only for serious crimes. If abused too often, the US will lose its credibility.

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    59. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "But the creative individuals creating these parodies, or even original material, have limited recourse"

      Have limited practical recourse. Content distributor sites like youtube are required to respond to the take down notice which amounts to nothing more than an email. The person who posted the content can send a similar response (asserting ownership or fair use, etc) and the person and not the site is liable if they re-post the content. Unfortunately, they aren't required to restore the content automatically in the same way they are required to take it down and almost none of them do or even acknowledge the reply.

    60. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by FreeCoder · · Score: 1

      If a US citizen had a server in China and shared copyrighted content on it I guarantee you US authorities would prosecute them in the US. So I call BS.

      At the end of the day its just whatever argument serves the interests of the copyright cartel and that is almost always persecution in the US.

      Of course they would. How does that contradict also prosecuting people that do business with US companies and host their servers in the US?

    61. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I guess the bit about kiddie porn is a response to the grandparent post, as to my post your argument seems to be stretched.

      If I understand correctly you are saying that if MegaUpload gets a take down request from rights holder, its okay they only removed the specific link, because they have no way to know it was not the rights holder who uploaded the content elsewhere on their site.

      I suppose it could happen but really down any of those artists using MegaUpload to distribute their stuff were the ones sending DMCA take down requests and if they were I would expect they would note that they were okay with MegaUpload distributing the file on another part of the site. Again MegaUpload knew this was the same content they deduped it! Its not like say it was another file, upload by someone else with a different name, they were pretty willfully continuing to push the same content after getting a take down request.

      I really don't think the safe harbor was intended to protect that sort of behavior.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    62. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only did MegaUpload not delete the actual files when sent DMCA notices

      None of the Megaupload operators were citizens or residents of the United States. Why should they respond to DMCA notices?

    63. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you sign some contracts and pay some licensing fees you certainly can, and there is a highly competitive market of both player manufacturers and content creators. Typically we'd say an infrastructure in which there is a free and competitive market, is an open infrastructure.

      No.. no we wouldn't. We would call a free and competitive market a free market or a competitive market. Or a free and competitive market. An open market is when you can enter and leave the market freely (or relatively so). The contract and licensing fees in order to get in on blu-ray is what makes blu-ray closed. Despite the somewhat rather commodity nature of blu-ray players. Free markets can have contracts, because neither side is required to sign them. Open markets cannot have contracts as a barrier to entry, because the contracts .. well .. bar entry which is something open markets cannot claim to do and remain .. open.

      Open markets tend to be competitive because some group (likely to be an established one) can't keep competitors out of profitable markets. Its .. open. But competitive markets are not necessarily open ones, since competition doesn't require easy entry and exit but merely relatively lots of players currently in the game. And that, permissive license issuance can achieve almost as well as openness.

    64. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      The USA can confiscate any equipment and shut down any operations that Megaupload is conducting within the USA's jurisdiction. There are international laws preventing the USA from taking direct action on anything outside its borders.

      That New Zealand police are cooperating with law enforcement of the USA does not mean that the persons arrested in NZ are destined to be extradited. That will be a matter for the NZ courts to decide, and should depend on whether the USA laws that were alledgedly broken have any NZ counterparts. If there are none, or if the nearest similar law is substantively different between the two countries, then the NZ courts should block extradition. For instance, if the USA punishment for an offense is the death penalty but NZ does not recognize capital punishment, there might not be any extradition even in a murder case. Which this is not; this concerns a lot of "petty theft" where no single violation of the law amounted to more than $20US damage.

      So this may not end up in USA courts at all. It might be that a NZ court could determine that the stupidly inflated fines for copyright infringement in the USA are too far out of line with more rational NZ laws and extradition cannot be done.

      The mafias and the FBI are taking something of a risk with this one.

      --
      Will
    65. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Vegemeister · · Score: 2

      The difference is that there are no circumstances under which a private company can legally possess/distribute child pornography. It is impossible for Megaupload to know that all the people who uploaded the same file did so illegally. Some could be licensed by the copyright holder, or covered by fair use (personal backups), or uploaded by the copyright holder itself.

    66. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by ClioCJS · · Score: 2

      I'd rather be tried in absentia than extradited...

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    67. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the ton of information about the multi-year investigation about MegaUpload and all the evidence gathered they practically have zero possibility of winning the case. They really got it handed down on them and are most likely looking for a long time in jail.

      Not only did MegaUpload not delete the actual files when sent DMCA notices (but did when sent abuse letters about illegal content like child porn), they also paid the uploaders cash in exchange to send downloaders to their site. This was almost all the times used for spreading copyright infringing material and MegaUpload was notoriously known for being good site for such use. As the internal emails show they were also fully aware of this fact. It also seems like the feds are now in possession of the top affiliates on the site which most likely will lead to more arrests for criminal copyright infringement, as they made lots of money by doing it.

      Also another fact: not only did MegaUpload staff know about this activity and try to get around DMCA notices and laws, they did copyright infringement themselves. For example they used to populate their MegaVideo site by downloading and adding videos from YouTube. This was also videos created by people like you, not only mega-corps. This and much more was revealed in the arrest and their internal emails.

      You are a blatant shill.
      Posted the exact same minute TFA was submitted.
      At least wait some time to post your previously redacted paragraphs of bullshit.

      Seriously, whoever pays for this kind of thing is the very reason we see anon masses outrage.

    68. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by CodeReign · · Score: 1

      C-11 is set to pass in Canada. It's DCMA and soo much more. It removes the ability to touch DRM for any purpose including that explicitly aloud by law :-(

    69. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Concerning the MegaUpload-Universal lawsuit, it is irrelevant if MegaUpload has committed copyright violations in other areas. More likely, Universal has people in government that made it clear to MegaUpload that the amount of time they spend locked up will be dependent on whether they continue the unrelated lawsuit. This is the way organized crime works. They make thinly veiled threats.

    70. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only did MegaUpload not delete the actual files when sent DMCA notices (but did when sent abuse letters about illegal content like child porn)

      This is not necessary. If you read the DMCA it is enough to simply remove *access* to the content.

      The trouble is in what constitutes removing access. There are documented cases where MegaUpload had multiple URIs pointing at the file, they used a form of dedupe if you will. When they got a complaint about the file, they only removed the URI in the complaint, when they knew or reasonably could have known they were still making the same content available on another part of their site.

      If the complaint only mentions that URI, how does MegaUpload know that all of the other URIs are illegitimate? One of them could have been uploaded by the copyright holder themself -- since MegaUpload does distribute a share of ad revenue for popular content, it's conceivable that a copyright holder would use it to distribute their content for free, hoping to get those rewards, and take a very dim view of others reuploading it to profit themselves, thus sending takedowns for the other URIs. Yes, in the vast majority of cases, this isn't what happens, but it's likely the case sometimes, and taking down the original uploader's copy as well would seem inappropriate.

      Not that the law necessarily is clear on this point (wouldn't be the first time a law had unintended consequences), and IANAL anyway, but it's possible they have a valid case on this point.

    71. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by bky1701 · · Score: 2

      Actually, criminal court is better for them by far. It means there is actually a burden of proof and requirement of certainty beyond reasonable doubt. Civil court has been manipulated by the copyright industry into a rubber-stamping mill for million-dollar fines on grannies. In fact, and I am sure some lawyer here will jump at the chance to "correct" me, I don't think civil court has any business existing. What is the point of reasonable doubt and burden of proof when you can destroy the life of an entire family in civil court without dealing with either? We have a serious problem as long as that can go unquestioned.

    72. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd have to reread the DMCA, but iirc it's only perjury if you send the takedown notice in bad faith, or in other words you send out a takedown notice that you know is invalid. If you make a robot that autoissues notices whenever it finds something it suspects is infringing you could send out tons of bad notices with impunity, especially if you are media conglomerate because the costs of a suit against you would be too high for the plaintiff. What the DMCA needs is an automatic system that forces companies that repeatedly send out invalid notices to place money in an escrow account to compensate their victims in order to be allowed to continue to issue notices (I'd say that everyone should do this, but I suspect it would never fly because the MAFIAA will dredge up Joe Blow who is an independent producer who knows nothing about fair use and sent out some DMCA notices against some fair use content and would have gone bankrupt if he had to pay a penalty for those notices)

    73. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Note that Dotcom is not originally New Zealander. Countries sometimes refuse to extradite people born in their country, but such usually isn't the case with foreign nationals.

      Doesn't matter - the alleged act still needs to be a crime in the country granting the extradition.

      And I'm pretty surprised you would support him either

      I'm not supporting the person, I'm supporting a company that provided a valuable service to the public. MegaUpload helped people all over the world to exercise their fair use rights.

      For example, in my country, I could rip my music CDs and put them on MegaUpload, and then listen to them anywhere, since format shifting is legal here.

      Of course, the American media companies didn't like that, so they demanded that MegaUpload delete all copies of a file, even the copies that were uploaded legally.

      I'm pretty tired of American corporations who like to pretend American law applies to the whole world. They have no right to ask a New Zeeland company to delete a Swedish users files, just because the files happen to be illegal for Americans.

    74. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      There is a provision its just not enforced. Whenever someone files a false DMCA claim they are guilty of perjury (which carreis a 5 year jail term).

      That's because people keep misinterpreting that provision to mean something that it doesn't.

      Let's say I own the copyrights for a movie called Super Duper Movie 4. I send a DMCA claim to the host of a file you've uploaded called super_duper_code_v4.zip, claiming that you're violating my copyright. I affirm, under the penalty of perjury, that I am, in fact the copyright owner of Super Duper Movie 4. So, it turns out that your file had nothing to do with the movie, and it was some program you've created with a similar name. The part I'm liable for is still something I didn't lie about. I am, in fact, the copyright owner of Super Duper Movie 4, and therefore did not commit perjury as it relates to that DMCA provision.

      That provision is there to protect copyright holders from you and I sending DMCA messages for things we don't own. It's not there to protect you from a DMCA takedown that doesn't apply. There is a recourse for you in that case, and that is to file a counter-notice.

      It sucks, I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    75. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by petermgreen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They'll just point to their boss who ordered them to do it or they'd be fired.

      If they can prove the boss did that then the boss did so he should be jailed too.

      If you say they shouldn't have complied, there's 10,000 people waiting just outside the building to fill in their position when they get fired

      Will there be that many people waiting just outside the building to file bogus DMCA notices after a few people are in jail for doing so?

      Yeah it sucks for the peons who are put in between a rock and a hard place but ultimately to stop psychopaths (and there will always be a certain portion of psychopaths in society) doing something it it necessary to make the punishment for doing it outweigh the benefit of doing it. That applies whether it's filing bogus DMCA notices or fitting dodgy parts to aeroplanes.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    76. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 2

      MegaUpload doesn't openly promote copyright infringement either. They provide a service which promotes copyright infringement - just like the broadband providers do.

    77. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      If you do something that you know is criminal just because your boss tells you to, yes you should go to jail. Your boss should also goto jail as s?he is a conspirator to the crime.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    78. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by LandDolphin · · Score: 2

      I think MegaUpload supporters would follow the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    79. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by fa2k · · Score: 1

      The only flaw with the DMCA is the ability for the content owners to use infringement notices with impunity.

      Nooo! Don't forget about the anti-circumvention rules.

    80. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shaitand · · Score: 2

      The point is that neither the servers NOR the operators were in the US and this didn't stop the US from hunting them down like dogs and finally bribing Swedish officials to get the job done.

    81. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Yes they do, but only for serious crimes. If abused too often, the US will lose its credibility.

      Is there any crime more serious in the eyes of out government's big media overlords than copyright infringement?

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    82. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by hedwards · · Score: 0

      Do you have any actual evidence for that? For all the bitching on /. about the various extraditions from these knuckleheads to Gary McKinnon the crimes they were alleged to have committed were arguably on US soil and until international law is changed to clearly state otherwise, which it had better not be, they're all eligible for trial and potential prison time in the US.

      The easiest thing to do is not poke the bear and then leave your meat and two bits dangling over the cage. That does not typically end well.

    83. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shaitand · · Score: 2

      "Of course they would. How does that contradict also prosecuting people that do business with US companies and host their servers in the US?"

      Other than completely contradicting the argument that legitimate jurisdiction belongs to the nation where the servers are located? Attempting to prosecute cases where the servers AREN'T located in the US is a direct contradiction to this argument.

      It doesn't contradict their real intention of using any flimsy excuse as a thin mask for strong arming the nations and people of the world on behalf of their copyright cartel overlords.

    84. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shentino · · Score: 1

      In this case it is probably more a question of diplomacy and economic might than it is legality.

    85. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shaitand · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry but you are mistaken. Money laundering is BY DEFINITION processing funds from a criminal activity and making them appear to come from a legal activity. Here is one of many sites giving a legal definition and ALL of them agree that the funds must be illegal or illicit. If you engage in the same process but with the intent of committing the crime on the other end, like for tax evasion then that is just tax avoidance not money laundering.

      http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/money-laundering/

    86. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 2

      It's not silly at all, they've been arrested for activities connected with operations in the US. Any criminal activities that they've allegedly committed with those servers represent criminal activities in the US.

      That's up to the New Zeeland courts to decide. If they rule that the alleged crime was committed in the country where the company is based (i.e New Zeeland), then the operators should be tried on New Zeeland under New Zeeland law.

      It doesn't matter if American courts believe the alleged crime was committed in the USA. The extradition is tried by New Zeeland courts according to their interpretation of the extradition treaty.

      I don't know the specifics of New Zeeland law, but in my country (Sweden), the crime is normally considered to have taken place in the alleged perpetrator's country of residence, not the country where the servers reside.

      Of course, Americans are free to shut down the American servers if they like. But they can't make laws that magically apply to people on the other side of the world.

    87. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

      I imagine the personal copyright violations are illegal under NZ law.

    88. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shaitand · · Score: 2

      Better than the legal definition is the statute.

      18, U.S.C., Section 1956, shown here:

      "
        1956. Laundering of Monetary Instruments
      (a)
      (1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity—
      "

    89. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shentino · · Score: 1

      Here's an idea.

      You know how counter-notices are required to be under penalty of perjury? How about requiring the original complaints to do likewise?

      I think getting disbarred and locked up for 5 years is a nice incentive not to file a false notice.

    90. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      They don't need to extradite him, just deport him. When US Marshalls are standing there at the jetway of a plane getting ready to fly to the US.

      Most countries deport non-citizen criminals with warrants on them when they're arrested.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    91. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      whatever it is, they don't just get to pick off people around the world like that, this puts the anti back in americanism for maybe too many people again i'm afraid. spineless sacks of shit like britains cameron ain't helping. This 'godgiven' right to liberate and defend their country on the other side of the world destabilizing possible threat coincidentally like oops you got civil war now, sorry, we gotta move back, there's a new war overthere is not helping to build a sympathetic image. I brace for what could happen if they decide to go god bless america on ahmadinejad's ass ... i also have this thing like : who did MU piss of really. I mean there's how many other filesharing companies out there? Are we being hippiecrite about this, i'm sure the people here arent but who elects those guys overthere? Here its like you vote on a party and then they just divide the cosy seats amongst themselves so you dont really vote on anything, it's a particracy, not a democracy but i don't know exactly how a government gets elected in the states ... maybe i need to read up on it

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    92. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      It would seem very unusual for a nation to permit extradition of a person for acts which are not in that country illegal

      Unfortunately not true, at least for the UK it would seem.

    93. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      They could still theoretically be found guilty of criminal copyright infringement, which is illegal and carries a term greater than 1 year which is the minimum sentence for which extradition can be considered.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    94. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Kalriath · · Score: 5, Informative

      MegaUpload is a Hong Kong company. One subsidiary (MegaStuff) is a New Zealand company.

      And for the love of all that's holy can you learn to spell our country's name right.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    95. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Kalriath · · Score: 0

      Copyright violation above a certain value is automatically criminal copyright infringement. And when they made hundreds of millions of dollars off it, it definitely counts.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    96. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      Because you can't extradite people over civil matters and you can't confiscate property on foreign soil to cover the award.

      Of course you can confiscate property on foreign soil. How do you think people get back money from frauds or embezzlement - it's not lost forever just because the perpetrator transfers them to a foreign bank. You just need the cooperation of the local government, just as with criminal matters.

      And you don't need to extradite someone for civil cases, since, if they don't show up in court, the court can make a default ruling.

      In this case though, the money laundering and other charges are pretty much always going to be felonies. And apparently if you distribute one or more work worth $1 000 or more during a 180 day period you're committing a felony. [...] the US certainly does have the right to try them for those felonies.

      Contrary to what many Americans believe, American law does not apply to the whole world.

      New Zeeland can only extradite someone if what they're accused of doing is a crime according to New Zeeland law. That's how extradition works. Google "dual criminality".

      If extradition treaties forced you to follow the law of every country your country had a treaty with, it'd be absurd. A legislative change in one country could suddenly make people in a hundred other countries criminals and subject of extradition.

    97. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that we automatically reject extradition for capital offences out of hand, and consider whether the requesting country's penalties are similar to ours in other cases.

      Unfortunately, our government can intervene directly in the justice system, and John Key could easily direct extradition which he is highly likely to do if the court finds against the DoJ - you know, because he really wants that Free Trade Agreement (that the country does not want, because FTAs with the United States are retardedly one sided).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    98. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I hadn't seen this document. Now I know why; it's an incoherent mess. The author has no clue how to construct a cogent argument, but even if he did he'd still fail because he writes about a concept in one paragraph and then in the very next paragraph blatantly twists it.

    99. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 0

      No, they should be prosecuted on New Zeeland, where the company is based.

      The American and Dutch governments are of course free to shut down the servers in their respective countries. They just can't expect other nations to hand over their citizens because they did something which is a crime on the other side of the world.

    100. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i am sure that is a well reasoned , rational document....oh wait its from the cato institute

    101. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Hell, he was initially denied entry into New Zealand until he bought $10 million of government bonds (yes indeed, our scummy right wing government sells residency to the highest bidders). He was still denied permission to purchase property even after that.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    102. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shentino · · Score: 1

      MegaUpload got taken out simply because it pissed off a very well connected lobbying group.

    103. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      We don't do in absentia bullshit in the US like they do in some other parts of the world...

      Yeah, the US just cuts to the chase and kills them... Don't need no steenking trial..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    104. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's very rare for criminal charges to be filed in the US for copyright infringement. (Patent infringement is equally almost always civil, so the government does not act on your behalf.) There are a few laws that are unfairly useful to the media companies, but for the most part they add weight to or expedite civil complaints. For the most part, the media companies do defend their own IP at their own cost -- it's just that their position in this matter is much better than your position when you're defending your patent at your cost.

    105. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you are clearly flame bait I'll respond anon.

      All ISPs, common carriers, in fact the entire net infrastructure actively promotes copyright infringement. Without file sharing of games, movies, music why would any consumer need 50-100 MBs Internet connections? This has been the case for a decade at least. Only in the last few years has there been legitimate use for such bandwidth and still for most people the legal media services would be unused if they couldn't also fill the gaps with torrent feeds.

      Nobody is paying $150/ month to get less than what a $50/month TV package gets them. No, they are paying to get three times as much legal or not.

      ISPs know this and any investigation into Verizon, Comcast, AT&T would uncover emails and other communications to this effect.

    106. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Jail nothing. You can fine the hell out of a company for perjury. They'd care about that.

    107. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      Contrary to what many American believe, extradition treaties do not make their laws apply to the rest of the world. That'd be absurd, since it would also work in reverse - Americans would need to follow the laws of every country in the world they had extradition treaties with.

      Normally, a person needs to be accused of something which is a crime in both the country requesting the extradition, and the country granting it, for extradition to take place.

    108. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      Why is the US government acting as a mob enforcer for the Media Giants?

      Kind of a silly question considering the nature of politics, don't you think? But one of the reasons might also be that the media giants act as the state's propaganda machine in determining what people see and hear for manipulating public opinion, while at the same time propping up the illusion of freedom and providing 'great' entertainment.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    109. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      They're also covered by dramatically different laws. Hopefully they employed a lawyer that recommended that removing a link complies with the letter of the DMCA. Also, the DMCA is only in the US, while they're not, so it's a bit safer. Child porn is not legal to possess under, more or less, any circumstances and is illegal in pretty much every country. You're pretty much screwed if anyone ever finds out you knowingly allowed it to remain on your server.

    110. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by adolf · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you go for the boss they'll point to their boss, right up to the CEO who simply gave the vague order to profit.

      In the beginning was the plan, and then the specification.
      And the plan was without form, and the specification was void.
      And darkness was upon the faces of the programmers.

      And they spake unto their project leader, saying:
      "IT IS A CROCK OF SHIT, AND IT STINKETH."
      And the project leader went to the manager, and he spake unto him saying:
      "IT IS A CONTAINER OF EXCREMENT AND IT IS VERY STRONG,
      SUCH THAT NONE MAY ABIDE BEFORE IT."
      And the manager went unto the Director, and he spake unto him saying:
      "IT IS A VESSEL OF FERTILIZER, AND NONE MAY ABIDE ITS STRENGTH."
      And the director went unto the vice president, and he spake unto him saying:
      "IT CONTAINS THAT WHICH AIDS PLANT GROWTH AND IT IS VERY STRONG."
      And the vice president went unto the president, and he spake unto him saying:
      "IT PROMOTETH GROWTH, AND IT IS VERY POWERFUL."
      And the president went unto the board of directors,
      and he spake unto them saying:
      "THIS POWERFUL NEW PRODUCT WILL PROMOTE THE GROWTH OF THE COMPANY."
      And the corporate board of directors looked upon the product,
      and saw that it was good!

      (courtesy of some random *nix fortune file, somewhere, that I remember from long, long ago.)

    111. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by muon-catalyzed · · Score: 1

      No, what matters here is whether you are serving to US audience or not (the location of the server is irrelevant), they would need to block all US originating request IPs including Google bots.

    112. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by hedwards · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you had bothered to read a little further down you'd see that I am in fact right about this.
        1956.
      a
      2
      (B) knowing that the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that such transportation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or in part—
      (i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
      (ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law, ...

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001956----000-.html

    113. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      The copyright infringement case is very weak, since they only have proof that a few individual employees knowingly traded copyrighted material. There's no proof the leadership knew about it. And please note that it's the New Zeeland standards for copyright infringement which are relevant when the New Zeeland courts decide about extradition.

      (The leadership of course knew there existed infringing material on their servers, which they also allowed the media companies to remove as they became aware of them. MegaUpload was right in only removing some copies of a file when the meida companies asked them to, since the other copies may have been uploaded legally according to the fair use laws in the uploader's country.)

      Likewise, if the US and New Zeeland laws define money laundering differently, it's the New Zeeland laws which are relevant when deciding about extradition.

    114. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by hedwards · · Score: 0

      As I replied before there is no requirement that the money be illegally obtained in the first place. There are definitely times such as trying to skirt taxation where you can be found guilty of money laundering even if the source of money was legal to begin with or if you're trying to obscure the source of money to avoid reporting requirements.

    115. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So when Viacom went after YouTubers who were covered by the fair use provisions, Viacom committed perjury, but nobody pressed charges against Viacom.

      Unfortunately, only the part about being or representing the copyright holder is made under penalty of perjury. So I can't issue a takedown for, say, Shrek, because I don't own that copyright. However, I could claim to be the copyright holder of something I actually own, then claim that a copy of Shrek infringes upon my copyright and not be under the perjury clause, even if the claim was completely ridiculous. Yes, there's also a "good faith" requirement, but so far no court has touched that. Any half-baked excuse seems to work, so long as you find a way to blame the pirates. But don't try that at home: get a lawyer. The deck is stacked against normal people enough already.

    116. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Whenever someone files a false DMCA claim they are guilty of perjury

      No, it is only perjury if they lie about being the copyright holder of the work allegedly infringed. There are some rules of "bad faith" takedowns, but they are much weaker and you must prove the identification was not only incorrect, but made in bad faith. Good luck with that.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    117. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by BlakJak-ZL1VMF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure they are, but that's not a crime covered by the Extradition Treaty.

      --
      -.-. --.-
    118. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is no different than eBay, taobao, paypal, google adsense, etc. Look at the wording of SOPA, it was designed specifically to take down any revenue generating site.

      eBay, when sent DMCA requests, removes the listings, which in turn makes more work for eBay, because the members retaliate because they perceive it as "eBay" hitting them with a baseball bat, when it was really Warner Bros or some other rights holder making the demand. Howevever, eBay won't proactively remove anything, because it creates bad will on their members. If you want it gone, you have to report it, and you have to report it correctly. Many retaliation efforts involve spamming eBay's emails which get deleted, because they don't get sent through the listing review software.

      PayPal is routinely used for sending funds for copyright infringing materials. Users just don't say that they are doing so. For all eBay knows, Paypal is used to pay for prostitution.

      Google Adsense, routinely has advertisements for pirate materials, this is less Google's fault and more the individual advertisers fault, as many advertisements are "chained", causing no-fills to be passed to other networks, which may have nothing to do with Google. Unfortunately, there is no way to identify who is doing the actual advertising, only identifying the ad. Sites that use ads of any sort, are bombarded with with user complaints when they exhibit bad behavior (interstitial and popup/popunder)

      In all cases, it's impossible for the site operator to know if something is "bad" unless it's reported.

      The problem with MPAA and RIAA is that they do not want to assume the cost of policing, they just want eBay and Google to "make it go away" without knowing anything about the content. Google and eBay have their own olive branches out to the MPAA, RIAA and some IP holders like Tiffany and LVMH to proactively allow these companies to bulk report. They don't have to do this, and should take them away when abused (and routinely they are.)

      I have countless examples, but I'm not a lawyer, and I honestly don't give a damn about enforcement of parallel import laws, and those are the most difficult laws to interpret. Basically from the perspective of the MPAA, if they are selling a DVD in the US for 24.99, and they don't want anyone in the UK, Japan or China from buying it from the US for 24.99, rather they want you to wait for it to be licences for that region, which may result in a higher cost in Japan, or a lower cost in China. This is where things get complicated, because there is no central MPAA authority, and some companies in the US do not also own the rights in other countries. So when you have something put up on the US eBay site, it may be legal in the US, but it's not licensed for sale in the UK, so the UK MPAA might take it down.

      But (as many /.'ers know) this is just the tip of the rights holder abuse iceburg.

      When you start taking into account sites like Youtube, Megaupload, and other types of user-content hosting systems (cloud networks) , there is now much much harder to know what content is legal or not.

      MPAA type companies basically have a shotgun to their head "If you want your content protected, you must send it to us first, and what countries it applies to", and they don't want to do this.

      So you see the problem escalates with legislation like SOPA in which MPAA type companies want to simply have these sites banned.

      It's all about control. The RIAA lost control, and had to cede to Apple. In doing so they now make more money and regain some control over the music distribution. Try buying something on the US site when you don't live in the US. It's impossible without creating a US account with a US address and phone number. The MPAA and "hollywood" in general are still fighting tooth and nail against digital distribution, as only in the last 2 years have US bandwidth levels increased to the point where a full DVD (or even BD) movie can be downloaded.

      And this is where Megaupload has drawn the ir

    119. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      However, it matters because MegaUpload used hashes on all the files and if someone uploaded the same file again, they only made a new reference to it. At the same time when they got DMCA notice they didn't remove all the urls associated with the file, but only the one that received the notice. That clearly shows intent of keeping as many copies of the file online while only removing the one that has been detected by the copyright owner.

      Because the other references belonged to other users, who may be legally entitled to access the file according to their respective countries' fair use provisions.

      For example, in my country, I'm allowed to format shift and make a limited number of copies for individual use, so I could upload my music collection to MegaUpload and give the links to my close friends and family. It's not fair if my access to the files is removed just because an American uploaded the same file illegally. MegaUpload is, after all, not an American company.

      Some countries have even more permissive fair use rules, and allow unlimited non-commercial file sharing.

    120. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by mdenham · · Score: 1

      ..."represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity..."

      Right in what you quoted, so... yeah, it doesn't say what you're claiming it says, unfortunately. Try a different section. I believe 3(C) has what you're actually looking for, which is the "avoiding reporting requirements without necessarily involving unlawful activity" bit.

    121. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Whenever someone files a false DMCA claim they are guilty of perjury (which carreis a 5 year jail term). So when Viacom went after YouTubers who were covered by the fair use provisions, Viacom committed perjury, but nobody pressed charges against Viacom.

      I'm not so sure. If you read the relevant section of the DMCA Sec 512 (c)(3)(a)(iv) it says "A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." That sure sounds like the perjury penalty only applies if the complaining party is not authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder.

      i.e. You can lie as much as you like when alleging copyright infringement. You just have to be sure that whatever it is you're alleging was infringed, you hold the copyright to or the copyright holder has authorized you to act on their behalf. If the perjury penalty applied to both clauses, it would've been at the beginning of the sentence. i.e. "Under penalty of perjury, a statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and that the complaining party is authorized..."

      OTOH, if you contest the DMCA takedown notice, you do so under the penalty of perjury. (Sec 512 (g)(3)(C)) BTW, this is one of the reasons why the DMCA is a terrible law. A good law respects the rights of both the accuser and the accused.

    122. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they do, but only for serious crimes. If abused too often, the US will lose its credibility.

      What?! You gotta be kidding me! What rock did you just crawl under from? It is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT we're talking about here!!

    123. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm pretty tired of American corporations who like to pretend American law applies to the whole world. They have no right to ask a New Zeeland company to delete a Swedish users files, just because the files happen to be illegal for Americans.

      A thousand times this. It's about time the rest of the world stands up and tells the Americans to go fuck themselves.

    124. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm pretty tired of American corporations who like to pretend American law applies to the whole world..

      As an American, I'd like you to know that most of us are tired of this, too. The same goes for our government.

      Unfortunately far too few of us have yet to make the connection that we put those assholes there in the first place and maybe we should do something about it. But we're working on it, really. A lot of us are trying very hard.

    125. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Not only did MegaUpload not delete the actual files when sent DMCA notices (but did when sent abuse letters about illegal content like child porn), they also paid the uploaders cash in exchange to send downloaders to their site.

      The first part of that is actually reasonable behavior.

      First, you're talking about content that is probably de-duplicated, and deleting the actual content (as opposed to the reference to it) would make legal uploads of that same content go away. Remember, it's invariably legal to make a copy of copyrighted material for backup purposes, which means that it's also presumably legal to keep that backup on a shared server somewhere. It's just not legal to make it available to anyone else. By contrast, there is presumably no legal copy of child porn, so nuking the backing store might be a reasonable response.

      Second, deleting the content has far-reaching implications, should a media house decide to sue the uploader. If the media house decides to sue and the original data is not retained, they could potentially be held liable for destruction of evidence. It's probably a lot safer if they nuke the backing store only as part of their regularly scheduled cleanup, per their data retention policy.

      So that part is not nearly as clear cut as you make it out to be. Paying uploaders... not so much, which is why they'll probably get spanked with jail time for this.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    126. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      same reason we spend so much money protecting israel

      jews

    127. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      As the internal emails show they were also fully aware of this fact.

      This is problematic...

      Running a service which is used for criminal activity is not illegal. It's only illegal if there's an intent to support the criminal activity. Otherwise, all broadband providers would be criminals, since a large portion of the bandwidth they sell is used for copyright infringement. Even the postal service would be illegal, since they're aware some of they packets they forward are illegal.

      MegaUpload removed the infringing content as they became aware of it, by giving the media companies accounts they could delete files with. The memos only show that a few individual employees traded copyrighted material, not that the leadership was aware of it.

      Remember, the copyright lobby is using weasel language to make MegaUpload sound guilty. You have to read the accusations really carefully.

    128. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      Child pornography is illegal, in the sense that nobody is legally allowed to have it or distribute it. Copyrighted material, on the other hand, isn't inherently illegal. Just because one person is not legally allowed to distribute a copy doesn't mean that nobody else is.

      Precisely. I'm allowed to rip a song or a film and upload it, so I can access it anywhere (format shifting). I'm even allowed to share the link with my close friends and family. But if an American uploads the exact same file, it's illegal, since their fair use laws are more restrictive.

      It makes sense for MegaUpload to only remove the links used for illegal sharing, and keep all the rest.

    129. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If promoting copyright infringement is a crime, then the media companies should be held accountable for distributing torrent software and showing people how to use it, and hosting search facilities allowing the search of copyrighted material, and providing links for it, and actively actually promoting the download and torrenting and sharing of copyrighted material, even keeping lists of the most popular copyrighred downloads as a good thing for over a decade.

      See my source for details.

    130. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      Here is the kicker, we aren't talking about hypothetical or edge cases here. Artists were uploading their own tracks since they would get 90c in the dollar of the advertising revenue

      Let's not forget all the non-Americans who uploaded songs and films legally according to their countries' fair use laws. Their access shouldn't be removed just because an American uploads the same file illegally.

    131. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are lots of people under the jurisdiction of US law who aren't US citizens. So no you didn't fix it.

    132. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      In almost no other case does the US government get involved in protecting private property to the extent they rush in and protect the music and film industry

      Sorry, but where in the list of charges against Megaupload do you see anything having to do with "private property?" Let's see...copyright infringement, conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, copyright infringement via electronic means, money laundering...nope, not seeing anything relating to property rights.

      Have your patent ripped off, or your house broken into, they won't even listen to you

      What do patents have to do with private property? Does your home ownership expire after 20 years?

      Why is the US government acting as a mob enforcer for the Media Giants?

      Probably because America is importing too many things and selling too much of its actual property to people in other nations, and so the only thing we can do to close the trade gap is to export ideas. That and the fact that the media giants have been bribing politicians in this country for decades now.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    133. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's complete nonsense. Renting servers in the US while living in NZ or Iran or China or Europe or anywhere else in the world does not make you subject to be extradited to the US anytime the US thinks you've violated one of their laws.

      It's US law, not NZ law. It's not NZ's problem to enforce laws design to protect American corporations. If he's in violation of NZ law then NZ might decide to prosecute or extradite, but countries are not under a general obligation to let the US police police people inside their borders.

    134. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      Then why did their internal emails show that they were fully aware of the copyright violations?

      The example seems to concern a user in Vietnam. I'm not familiar with Vietnamese copyright law, but I presume the uploads they rewarded him for were legal in Vietnam.

      Remember, MegaUpload is not an American company, so they don't need to follow American copyright law.

    135. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some company, in the US owned some servers and property on which these servers were stored.

      they knowingly rented them to Mega**** knowing that they would be used for pirated content.

      Those people are almost certainly US based, those are the people who should be being charged.

    136. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seen the recent stories about the USA trying to get a British citizen extradited from the UK, for having a LINKING site (no pirate content actually hosted, unlike MegaUpload) that was HOSTED in the UK, on the basis of the DMCA even though the site was not even remotely illegal under UK law?

      America - throwing their weight around, stuck up pieces of shit.

    137. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Moryath · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Of course, Americans are free to shut down the American servers if they like. But they can't make laws that magically apply to people on the other side of the world.

      You obviously have little experience with the standard "America Fuck Yeah, We Are The Greatest Nation On The Planet" morons that come from our side of the pond. They think every single American law applies wherever they go.

    138. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Doesn't matter - the alleged act still needs to be a crime in the country granting the extradition.

      Were you asleep during the fiasco over whether Julian Assange was wearing a condom or not in Sweden? There's also a chemical supplier in the UK who is facing hard time in a Louisiana tent prison for allegedly breaking a law that doesn't exist in the UK.

    139. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      If that's true, then DMCA will certainly lead to abuse and needs to be abolished.

      It means a media corporation (like Universal) can issue a number of DMCA requests to a hosting service (like YouTube). The administrative expense forces the hosting service to give the media corporation an account where they can remove infringing material themselves. If that removal doesn't count as a DMCA request, It means the media corporation is now free to remove any file they want any time they want, with legal impunity.

    140. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by HJED · · Score: 1

      Whilst I agree that the New Zealand legal system is as least a good as the US's, MeagaUpload is based in Hong Kong not New Zealand which makes the matter even more complicated.

      --
      null
    141. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, the DMCA is a guilty until proven innocent law. The fact SCOTUS didn't sanction congress on the spot for this direct violation of constitutional intent(SCOTUS ruled on innocent before guilty numerous times already) shows how broken the whole system is. We're at ammo already, too bad the public has become so sheepy (sleepy sheep) to notice. Just the way the megacorps like it.

    142. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not to beat a dead horse but by definition if you haven't proven that the initial act was a crime there can't be money laundering. If they prove there was a crime then and only then do all resultant funds become laundered money, but until then its income.

    143. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Derosian · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that this justifies Universal Music's abuse?

    144. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Pretty sad evidence against a site with 50 million visits per day, but those quotes actually show a strange respect for copyright! Sounds like they had a clear policy not to pay for uploads that were known to be infringing, but they didn't want screw over users and pay them $0 when only "some" of their uploads were.

    145. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Your first point may or may not be true according to the law.

      But the second (regarding his house and cars) is totally irrelevant. Are you actually proposing that that he be prosecuted because he bought a big house?

      And the 3rd point: that he had prior convictions. OK, so he was convicted of something before, now that (in itself) calls for another round of convictions?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    146. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      All you need is a couple of emails to establish the Media Perjury Conspiracy! You then seize the entire company, arrest of all corporate officers, and seize all of their personal property. Don't even have to worry if you are wrong: you have all their money so they can't use their fancy lawyers.

    147. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      Just because you have a customer (even a preferred customer) in a given country, doesn't mean you must be subject to that country's laws.

      That's silly.

      You can absolutely be prevented from doing business in that country, but you cannot be arrested for violating that country's laws if you do not commit crimes there.

      That's almost, but not quite, correct. Countries can, and often do, exert extraterritorial jurisdiction over their own citizens.

    148. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Zealand probably knows a local trial would be worthless. If we found them innocent or refused to extradite, the US would likely
      make sure we didn't exist for much longer.

      Extradition laws don't matter when one country is a very large bully and the other is tiny.

    149. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      How could they even continue to bring a suit against anyone when all of their cash and possessions have been taken?

    150. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SOPA does indeed make the take-down provisions in the DMCA look good. (I won't defend the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions, or its mandatory Macrovision provisions, as neither should ever have been passed.)

      That's because the take-down provisions in the DMCA provide a measure of due process for the accuser, the person who posted the allegedly infringing item, and the Web site. They also work on an item by item basis. No "we found 1 infringing item on a Web site with 1,000,000 user-contributed items; therefore we get to shut down the entire Web site" nonsense.

    151. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by evilviper · · Score: 1

      When CP was flagged the file is removed because CP is always CP.

      That's not true. The age of consent is massively different between countries. What's CP in the US (18) is perfectly legal in Spain (13). I point this out because the US has most definitely prosecuted 16/17 year-olds for CP, for distributing nude pictures of themselves.

      http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/kids/

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    152. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      So when Hollywood does things like say the movie Lord of the Rings did not make a profit and not pay Peter Jackson they are totally ok, because it was legal? Sorry, this is like two drunks at a bar fighting. Just because hollywood has spent lots of money lobbying the US Government does not make me want them to win in this case. They are just as guilty of stealing.

    153. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by westlake · · Score: 2

      In almost no other case does the US government get involved in protecting private property to the extent they rush in and protect the music and film industry. Have your patent ripped off, or your house broken into, they won't even listen to you. Its up to you to defend your patent at your own expense, and you can file a police report about the burglary, but you will likely never see your property again.

      Civics 101.

      In the American federal system, almost all crimes are defined and prosecuted under state law.

      Crimes with an interstate or foreign dimension and crimes with a federal Constitutional dimension tend to become a federal responsibility.

      CHINESE NATIONAL PLEADS GUILTY TO ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE AND THEFT OF TRADE SECRETS

      The federal government defends copyrights as a federally granted property right.

      In a sense, all property can be defined as a set of rights and privileges the state is willing to defend. Take your patent case into court and win and the federal government will enforce the judgment.

      The Secret Service was organized to fight counterfeiting.

      Surprising, isn't it, that the federal government should give a damn about such mundane things as the value of the currency, economic development, and a favorable balance of trade?

      The animated feature from Pixar or Dreamworks will cost about $200 million to produce and if succesful may lead to a billion-dollar global franchise like "Shrek."

      Clean industry. Skilled labor. High tech.

      There is the potential political bonus of a viable cultural export. The US has for generations has been a net exporter of culture.

      All of which implies that the entertainment industry will continue to get a hearing whether the geek likes it or not.

    154. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by kiwirob · · Score: 2

      The USA does not have any right to extradite anybody from New Zealand for copyright infringement. http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_reg/esoao1970390/esoao1970390.html That is the reason the feds made up bullshit racketeering and money laundering charges against Megaupload managers.

      As a New Zealander I say, fuck you USA, get the hell off my front lawn.

    155. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Pesticidal · · Score: 1
      From the Extradition Treaty:

      Extradition shall be granted, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, in respect of the following offenses:

      ...
      8. Procuring sexual intercourse.

      Apparently his wife is pregnant. Guilty!

    156. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a different story about MegaUpload, not the story of the arrests.

      The DMCA notices sent by Universal were indeed fraudulent.

    157. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not having servers in the US would not have saved them from prosecution. The DOJ asserts a variety of jurisdictional claims, including using US based payment systems, knowingly serving US customers and receiving US sourced infringing content.

    158. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since violating the DMCA is the foundation of all the other acts in the indictment ... and NZ doesn't have the DMCA it seems to me they're unlikely to grant extradition. But I could be wrong.

      NZ may not have the DMCA per se, but since the DMCA in part implements TRIPS (which NZ being a WTO member is also required to implement), it is likely that their criminal IP provision are sufficiently similar to recognise the American charges.

    159. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >why would any consumer need 50-100 MBs Internet connections?

      Team Fortress 2 has grown from 2.5GB to over 10GB ever since it introduced all those virtual hats.

    160. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Weird because hookers are legal in NZ

    161. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but you have to put up with the funny accents and masses of possums :)

    162. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most mature western countries have very similiar copyright laws designed with the same notion: protect the property rights of a creator of an artistic or intellectual work. Check NZ and Swedish law before you blame the US (unless you've bought that big-Satan thing from Iran, or that big running dog thing from N Korea, or that...).

    163. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It's not magic, it's extradition treaties and I had no idea that Swedes were that ignorant of international law. The crime happens wherever the equipment is located. And with good reason, it's hard enough to prosecute spammers and crackers as it is without having to convince the courts in their home country to convict. The crimes happen where the server is located and that's not a matter of magic, that's the logical extension of previous legal precedence.

    164. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say I own the copyrights for a movie called Super Duper Movie 4. I send a DMCA claim to the host of a file you've uploaded called super_duper_code_v4.zip, claiming that you're violating my copyright. I affirm, under the penalty of perjury, that I am, in fact the copyright owner of Super Duper Movie 4. So, it turns out that your file had nothing to do with the movie, and it was some program you've created with a similar name. The part I'm liable for is still something I didn't lie about. I am, in fact, the copyright owner of Super Duper Movie 4, and therefore did not commit perjury as it relates to that DMCA provision.

      I believe your swearing that you are (or represent) the Copyright holder of the contents of the file. Otherwise, why are you trying to have it taken down?

    165. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I guess the bit about kiddie porn is a response to the grandparent post, as to my post your argument seems to be stretched.

      That's correct, but I also wanted to make the general point that, apart from something like child pornography, there is no such thing as an illegal file. A music track, on the other hand, isn't inherently legal or illegal. That depends on who has it and what they're doing with it.

      I suppose it could happen but really down any of those artists using MegaUpload to distribute their stuff were the ones sending DMCA take down requests and if they were I would expect they would note that they were okay with MegaUpload distributing the file on another part of the site.

      Generally speaking, it's not artists who send DMCA takedown requests. Ever heard of Righthaven? Or UMG trying to take down the Megaupload song?

      Of course, copyright trolls aren't that common; it's usually the middle men, labels and studios, who send DMCA takedowns, sometimes against the wishes of artists. There's also the inter-jurisdictional issue that a work may be under copyright in the USA but not in the country of the user or Megaupload's servers. There is precedent for this sort of thing happening. It's reasonable to assume that Megaupload got its fair share of bogus DMCA requests as well as legitimate ones.

      However, I should reiterate my point: By itself, I consider this practice to be arguably reasonable, but the feds are painting this as one part of a pattern of deliberate bending and breaking of the law. It can and should be understood in the context of everything else that Megaupload may have done.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    166. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "(f ) MISREPRESENTATIONS.—Any person who knowingly materially
      misrepresents under this section—
      ‘‘(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
      ‘‘(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by
      mistake or misidentification,
      shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’
      fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner
      or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider,
      who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the
      service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing
      or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing,
      or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable
      access to it."

      So, if you "misrepresent" that the "material or activity is infringing", you're liable.

      ‘‘(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION.—
      ‘‘(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification
      of claimed infringement must be a written communication
      provided to the designated agent of a service provider that
      includes substantially the following: ...
      ‘‘(v) A statement that the complaining party has
      a good faith belief that use of the material in the
      manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright
      owner, its agent, or the law.

      If they don't know for sure they are the copyright owner (which, of course, they cannot know if they are not the owner), then they have no reason to beleive the use is not authorized.

      ‘‘(vi) A statement that the information in the
      notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury,
      that the complaining party is authorized to act on
      behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly
      infringed.

      If they claim to be the copyright owner when they are not, then that statement is certainly not "accurate". And they are certainly not "authorized to act on behalf of the owner".

    167. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by tokul · · Score: 1

      NZ doesn't have the DMCA

      Are you saying that copyright laws don't exist in NZ. For US it is DMCA, for others it is notification about possible copyright violation.

    168. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by eineerg · · Score: 1

      If only the Americans had thought of this when they wrote up the skynet law for us - but don't worry i'm sure amendments will be applied retroactively and under urgency if they forgot.

    169. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      It's not magic, it's extradition treaties and I had no idea that Swedes were that ignorant of international law. The crime happens wherever the equipment is located. And with good reason, it's hard enough to prosecute spammers and crackers as it is without having to convince the courts in their home country to convict. The crimes happen where the server is located and that's not a matter of magic, that's the logical extension of previous legal precedence.

      Hardly. If the crime was taking place where the servers were located, it'd be even harder to prosecute someone. Then a person in the United States could defraud another person in the United States using a server on, say, the Phillippines, and the victim would be forced to take the matter to Phillippine courts. And the Phillippine courts would be unlikely to waste time and money on a legal process that had nothing to do with them.

      Normally, the crime is considered to have taken place either where the victim or the perpetrator was located at the time. Or, in the case of a crime perpetrated through or against a company, where the company is based.

      Of course, the United States has a tendency to pick and choose principles so the crime always falls under US jurisdiction. That doesn't mean other countries will agree to it, however.

    170. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by baegucb · · Score: 1

      Ira Einhorn was tried in absentia for murder, in the USA. It is allowed under certain circumstances.

    171. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was my point.

    172. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "As I replied before there is no requirement that the money be illegally obtained in the first place."

      Okay, lets ignore the part of my comment that specifically addressed your example, the legal definition, and the actual text of the statute.

    173. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most mature western countries have very similiar copyright laws designed with the same notion: protect the property rights of a creator of an artistic or intellectual work. Check NZ and Swedish law before you blame the US

      I'm very familiar with Swedish copyright law. It explicitly allows people to make a limited number of copies for individual use if they have a licensed original, and share them with close friends and family. Something which is usually illegal in the USA. That means a Swede and an American can upload the exact same file to MegaUpload, and only the American's copy is illegal. If a Swede loses his/her files on MegaUpload, it's definitely because of American corporations.

      I admit I don't know what New Zeeland law has to say on the matter, but in any case, it was American corporations who initiated the shutdown and arrest.

      (unless you've bought that big-Satan thing from Iran, or that big running dog thing from N Korea, or that...).

      I'm perfectly capable of judging US international policy on it's own merits, thank you very much. The so-called Cablegate papers, released by Wikileaks, showed in painful detail how the United States systematically lobbies other countries to adopt their copyright policy. The Swedish government was described in the documents as "very cooperative". Give it a decade, and chances are we'll have lost the fair use rights we still have left.

    174. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I'm the guy who said the proceeds need to come from some form of unlawful activity. 3(c) wouldn't apply in this case either. So bottom line, if their actions weren't a crime, then the proceeds weren't from illegal activity and what they were doing wasn't money laundering therefore money laundering wouldn't be valid grounds to extradite.

    175. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by symbolset · · Score: 1

      What I'm saying is that to get extradition the specific actions the men are accused of must be illegal under NZ law, not just "copyright violation" in general. And that is not clear.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    176. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by shaitand · · Score: 2

      As someone else pointed out, you quoted a section saying the proceeds have to come from unlawful activity. The funds can come from illegal activity or the source and destination hidden for illegal intent but you can't have money laundering without another crime.

      Your definition is incorrect:

      "Money laundering is the process by which funds from source A are made to appear as if they came from source B."

      You omitted the fact that there must be illegal activity happening at some point aside from disguising the source of funds before it becomes money laundering. If I disguise the source of funds to hide activity from my wife that is NOT money laundering.

      Putting this back in context, if the other activities aren't a crime then no money laundering has occurred and that wouldn't be valid grounds for extradition.

    177. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      That, unfortunately, has a lot of truth to it.

    178. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by dokc · · Score: 1

      A thousand times this. It's about time the rest of the world stands up and tells the Americans to go fuck themselves.

      It will never happen because our governments are just a pawns and out countries are just USA colonies (and don't say Americans, most of Americans are just corporation slaves the same as we are)

      --
      In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
    179. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      Julian Assange was accused of tampering with the condom so it broke, when the woman had only agreed to have sex provided a condom was used. He was also accused of trying to have non-consensual sex with the woman while she was sleeping, right after they had had consensual sex.

      Yes, I also think it's questionable if that's a crime in the UK, but that's still the criteria the British courts used when trying the extradition.

    180. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      As an American, I'd like you to know that most of us are tired of this, too.

      Thank you :)

    181. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Xest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Considering that nobody forced them to locate a server in the US, I'm not sure whom they can reasonably blame other than themselves. It remains to be seen whether the allegations lead to any convictions, but the US certainly does have the right to try them for those felonies."

      What a load of bollocks. Most people have no idea where their hosts server's are located, it's been pointed out many a time, that if you had broken Iranian law would you thus be happy to be extradited to Iran? If you signed up for a web hosting package because it was cheap, hosting something about gay rights, only to find the servers were in Iran you'd be happy to be sent over there to face the death penalty would you?

      Sorry, but it doesn't matter if the servers were hosted in the US, all this means the US should be able to do is seize the servers, and any financial assets related to them passing through US financial institutions, it doesn't mean they should be able to extradite foreign citizens over it.

      I know America thinks differently, seeing as it's abducted many hundreds of people over the last decade for things not illegal in their country like funding political viewpoints the US just happens to dislike, but that doesn't make it right, or acceptable, nor does it mean the people involved in any way deserve or should have to blame themselves for being extradited - it's a massively unfair, and disproportional step, and the only time extradition is acceptable is if the crime is both serious (i.e. rape, murder), and actually committed whilst the person is physically on US soil, and has escaped the country, or if the person in question is a US citizen living overseas - and even then it's questionable, but any dispute should fall into the category of an effective asylum request.

    182. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      I imagine the personal copyright violations are illegal under NZ law.

      The leadership of MegaUpload is not automatically responsible for private copyright violations committed by their staff. If the leadership didn't know about it or show criminal neglect, they're not liable.

    183. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I'll do it right from now on.

    184. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by khipu · · Score: 1

      You're mightily confused if you think this "legal sh**" doesn't exist in other places. Europe, for example, has draconian copyright laws and enforcement, and in addition taxes consumers to transfer money to copyright holders whether they use their products or not (on the principle that it doesn't matter whether you're actually guilty of copyright infringement, you have to pay anyway).

      The reason you don't hear more about it is that few places produce anything anybody would even bother ripping off. The number of French or German movies or songs with any impact outside France or Germany is negligible.

    185. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by ewrong · · Score: 1
    186. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      With the ton of information about the multi-year investigation about MegaUpload and all the evidence gathered they practically have zero possibility of winning the case. They really got it handed down on them and are most likely looking for a long time in jail.

      Really? When I look closer at the indictment, I see a lot of innuendo but little actual evidence. See below.

      Not only did MegaUpload not delete the actual files when sent DMCA notices (but did when sent abuse letters about illegal content like child porn), they also paid the uploaders cash in exchange to send downloaders to their site.

      A lot of those files were legitimately uploaded by people outside the USA. The rules for fair use is different in different countries - a file which is illegal for an American to upload, may be perfectly legal for a Swede or Vietnamese. For example, I'm legally allowed to rip a film or song and put it on MegaUpload so I can listen to it anywhere, but if an american does the same thing, it's illegal. I'd be pretty pissed if MegaUpload deleted my legal files just because they're illegal for Americans.

      And what exactly is wrong with offering cash for popular uploads? That has nothing to do with piracy, as long as you don't specifically encourage pirated files. In this case, the cash-for-downloads system was in place for musicians who spread their songs via MegaUpload. Those musicians have now been deprived of their income - thanks to the American media corporations.

      This was almost all the times used for spreading copyright infringing material and MegaUpload was notoriously known for being good site for such use. As the internal emails show they were also fully aware of this fact.

      That may very well be true, but there's nothing illegal about it. Broadband providers also provide services which are notoriously good for pirating - almost no one gets 100 Mbit/s just to download legal files, and the broadband providers are aware of this fact. But as long as you're just a neutral service provider, the legal responsibility lies with the user, not the provider.

      It also seems like the feds are now in possession of the top affiliates on the site which most likely will lead to more arrests for criminal copyright infringement, as they made lots of money by doing it.

      There's nothing illegal about making money. It's not even immoral, as long as you provide a valuable service.

      Also another fact: not only did MegaUpload staff know about this activity and try to get around DMCA notices and laws, they did copyright infringement themselves. For example they used to populate their MegaVideo site by downloading and adding videos from YouTube. This was also videos created by people like you, not only mega-corps. This and much more was revealed in the arrest and their internal emails.

      The leadership is not responsible for what individual staff members did, unless they knew about about it or showed criminal neglect. And it doesn't seem like the DOJ has any evidence of that.

      Most of this can't even be called "circumstantial evidence", it's just innuendo.

    187. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      Do you have any actual evidence for that? For all the bitching on /. about the various extraditions from these knuckleheads to Gary McKinnon the crimes they were alleged to have committed were arguably on US soil and until international law is changed to clearly state otherwise, which it had better not be, they're all eligible for trial and potential prison time in the US.

      The problem is that international crimes are arguably committed on the soil of several different countries (the country where the victim resides, the country where the perpetrator resides, the country where the servers reside, the country where the perpetrator's business is based, etc), so why should American jurisdiction win every time?

      And no, there's no set international law regarding this. It's outlined in treaties between the individual countries.

    188. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A thousand times this. It's about time the rest of the world stands up and tells the Americans to go fuck themselves.

      Funny, I feel that way about our government.

      -one of the Americans

    189. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      That's different - that's about requiring one's own citizens to follow certain laws while travelling abroad. For example, to combat child prostitution, some countries prosecute their own citizens if they had sex with a child even if they did it in another country.

      In the MegaUpload case, the United States is trying to make citizens of New Zealand, Hong Kong, etc, follow American law, even when they've been in their home countries all the time.

    190. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's not questionable, it's not on the books at all, just like the second example I gave.

    191. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Why can't the US simply cancel his passport if he's a US citizen?

    192. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by BetterThanCaesar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Strangely, it's only spelt "New Zealand" in English (and languages that don't localize it). The reason everyone else gets it wrong is that the country is named for the Dutch Zeeland, not the Danish Zealand.

      --
      "Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
    193. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      The US has for generations has been a net exporter of culture.

      ROTFL

    194. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by the_arrow · · Score: 1

      So when Facebook opens its new datacenter in Sweden, and they break a Swedish law, we can shut them down globally? Sweet!

      --
      / The Arrow
      "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
    195. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hookers are practically mandatory in NZ ;)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union_positions#Hooker

    196. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      MegaUpload most likely served more than a hundred different countries, so all these countries would have a claim on jurisdiction.

      They're risking extradition because the alleged victim (Universal) is based in the USA.

    197. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Do you pierce the corporate veil and order the person that signed off on it? They'll just point to their boss who ordered them to do it or they'd be fired.

      Why not? It worked at Nuremberg!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    198. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      Not that the law necessarily is clear on this point (wouldn't be the first time a law had unintended consequences), and IANAL anyway, but it's possible they have a valid case on this point.

      They definitely have a valid case, if you consider that the fair use provisions are very different in different countries. In many countries it's legal to copy your media to an MP3 player, a hard drive or a server if you have a licensed original.

    199. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they do, but only for serious crimes. If abused too often, the US will lose its credibility.

      But won't lose its leverage. It is like a teenager group: the leader of the pack determines who is to be shunned by the pack and none dares to fall out of line.

    200. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      And more absurdly, the age for what constitutes CP may not be the same as the age of consent. Here in Sweden, the age of consent is 15, but nudes of anyone under 18 is "child pornography". It's legal for a 40-year-old to hump a 15-year-old, but not to take pictures of it.

      Furthermore, if the age of the model is unknown, it's enough that he/she *appears to be* under 18 to be convicted of child pornography.

    201. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Terrasque · · Score: 2

      who did MU piss of really.

      As has been pointed out before:

      I think what really happened is that UMG realized how powerful our message was, how potent it would become, and how positively it would affect Mega's image. From rogue to vogue. They decided to stop us at all costs, that becomes clear when you see the defense strategy of UMG in court. They have nothing and they don't even care.

      UMG knows that we are going to compete with them via our own music venture called Megabox.com, a site that will soon allow artists to sell their creations direct to consumers and allowing artists to keep 90% of earnings.

      We have a solution called the Megakey that will allow artists to earn income from users who download music for free. Yes that's right, we will pay artists even for free downloads. The Megakey business model has been tested with over a million users and it works. You can expect several Megabox announcements next year including exclusive deals with artists who are eager to depart from outdated business models.

      Source

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    202. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      Remember, it's invariably legal to make a copy of copyrighted material for backup purposes, which means that it's also presumably legal to keep that backup on a shared server somewhere.

      Not only that, outside the US it may be legal to make a limited number of copies and share them with close friends and family, if you have a licensed original. That's what some people in Sweden used MegaUpload for.

    203. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by psiclops · · Score: 2

      you're forgetting the license plates.

      way to rebut all the trivial shit and completely ignore the horrendous crime of personalised plates. shill

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    204. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by delinear · · Score: 1

      Indeed, legally it's not a given that the act needs to be against the law in both the country requesting the extradition and the host country - while this is often the case, it depends entirely upon the terms of the extradition treaty between the two countries, and levels of proof required may differ, too. The UK-US extradition treaty is heavily biased in favour of the US. To extradite a US resident to the UK, the UK government have to establish sufficient evidence of a crime in a US court. In the opposite situation, the US government need present no evidence in a UK court, simply allege the crime, and this is sufficient even if UK courts have alread seen the evidence and ruled that there is no case to answer. It's pretty messed up, really - the rules were drafted in the aftermath of 9/11 supposedly to make it easier to extradite terrorists, yet between 2003 (when the law came into effect) and 2009 (I don't know if more recent figures have been published, these were the latest I found) 63 people where extradited from the UK to the US and only one of those was on terrorism grounds.

    205. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by psiclops · · Score: 1

      if you can explain to me how the US is going to make NZ not exist anymore i would agree with you

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    206. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      So it's for US citizens or residents, whatever. *I* am neither, thank Bob.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    207. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by psiclops · · Score: 1

      when the DNS servers that global ISPs use are based in Sweden and thus under their jurisdiction, yes. unfortunately i can see no way of them leaving US.

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    208. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by simula67 · · Score: 1

      I suppose it could happen but really down any of those artists using MegaUpload to distribute their stuff were the ones sending DMCA take down requests and if they were I would expect they would note that they were okay with MegaUpload distributing the file on another part of the site.

      I read the first time you posted this. The flaw in your argument was easier to catch. I see that you have revised your post to make it more subtle. To think there could be no scenerio where the actual content owners would not object to their content being posted elsewhere on MegaUpload is just too narrow minded. For example someone may have uploaded a file to megaupload and getting paid for users downloading it via the affiliate program. If someone else uploads it the owner is denied his/her money.

    209. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. A) how do you realistically attribute a value (nobody has come up with a bulletproof formula and pretty much everyone outside the labels/studios realises that their valuations are beyond ridiculous) and B) if that were the case then libraries would be massive criminal infringers for providing photocopiers (since fair use is never a defence to an outright criminal act).

    210. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      >. It's about time the rest of the world stands up

      I wish I had funny points. The only people from the rest of the world who truly stand up against Americans are Mujahedeen and we all know how they are treated both in official media and tech sites.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    211. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe your swearing that you are (or represent) the Copyright holder of the contents of the file. Otherwise, why are you trying to have it taken down?

      You're not. You're swearing that you're the copyright owner of what you believe the file infringes. If you're wrong about that belief, that's what the counter-notice provision is for.

    212. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      >Unfortunately far too few of us

      The other way to say it is that majority does not give a rat's ass. The only way to stir wide masses of people is to put them to the miserable conditions fast. Ain't happening in the near future. And even if it will happen. A monkey mother of its capitalist monkey children, US would stand on their heads in the case of the economic worldwide flood.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    213. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry sunshine, in a few more years China will do this for all of us. Perhaps even with the threat of nukes.

      WW III, FTW!

    214. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by fgouget · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty tired of American corporations who like to pretend American law applies to the whole world. They have no right to ask a New Zeeland company to delete a Swedish users files, just because the files happen to be illegal for Americans.

      While I generally agree with you, weren't MegaUpload's servers located in Virginia? That would make them fall under the DMCA jurisdiction no matter where the company is headquartered or where its officers actually live. Then the real question is: why the heck did MegaUpload put their servers in the US?

    215. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Having servers widely distributed is key to any large web site performing well all over the world. Rather than worrying about where servers are we should only consider the location of the operator in potential civil and criminal matters. US servers could still be shut down for violating local law, but merely operating them should not make people in other countries guilty of a crime in the US.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    216. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, but the rest of the world is really depending upon your populace to right this wrong.

      You have the constitutionally protected right to bear arms. You have not only the motivation, but also the means to go toe-to-toe with those who would attempt to suppress you.

      The rest of the world is waiting for you all to take up these arms in anger and overthrow your governmental oppressors. Please don't let us down.

      Help us Obi Wan John Doe-bi, you're our only hope!!!

    217. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apropos: What's the difference between Yoghurt and the USA? If you leave Yoghurt alone for 200 years, it'll grow a culture.

    218. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      Some of the servers were located in the United States. Others were located in the Netherlands, and probably other places too, likely to improve performance.

      Even if we grant that USA had jurisdiction over everything that happened on the American servers, they have no business to ask MegaUpload to delete files globally.

      It's rather arrogant to claim jurisdition over a whole company just because they have servers in your country. It's as if Sweden claimed jurisdiction over Microsoft, and demanded that Microsoft's American operations conformed to Sweden's copyright laws, just because Microsoft has servers in Sweden.

    219. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Xest · · Score: 1

      Yep, I agree completely.

      It's slightly more complex in the case of computer access - i.e. we've still got to consider how we deal with for example, a criminal hacker in France stealing money from a bank in the US - do they face US, or French justice? but certainly for simple legality of hosting issues there's no real argument for extradition.

      I think even in that example though the person in question should be tried in France regardless, we've just got to have faith that friendly countries have reached their own acceptable views on how best to deal with offenders. Unfriendly countries wont extradite regardless, so there's little discussion to be had there I guess. Effectively a request for extradition from a country tells that country "Look, we think your criminal justice system is shit, so we want to use ours" - that strikes me as pretty fucking insulting and I think that's why there is such a backlash in the UK over the UK-US extradition treaty for example. People are offended that America thinks we're not capable of dealing with criminals as well as they are, despite their much worse crime stats.

    220. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MU had servers in the US, therefore fall under US law. The fix would be NOT to put your servers on US soil. I agree that the US overextends, but something this painfully obvious should be included in your rant for clarification.

      Doing something wrong on ANY country's soil, expect to face that country's laws. Simple.

    221. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately far too few of us have yet to make the connection that we put those assholes there in the first place and maybe we should do something about it. But we're working on it, really. A lot of us are trying very hard.

      That's good to hear. First thing is to follow the money and put a stop to the way it's buying your government. That might be difficult.

    222. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe you prefer chinese law that rips off everything and anyone.

    223. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even worse, the settlement is staged over many years and isn't even for the full amount owed.

      They basically said "yeah, we broke the law...here we will give you this much, even though it's drastically less than what we owe. And we'll give it to you over the next 5 years."

    224. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the evidence is so clear, that's stuff for a jury to decide.

    225. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by nazsco · · Score: 1

      not surprisingly, the first poster was a GNAA troll.

      What kind of person would have such a blatantly one sided post ready to paste here in a few seconds of the submission, totally unrelated to the article (article: US was used to force a company to drop a law suit against another company, comment: the company was bad for some other reason so i will ignore the power play)

      what is surprising is that the troll is getting moded up.

      geez. we need a car analogy. what if a chinese car manufacturer that does not answer to the US standards for tire rubber, and does not sell on the US, sues BP for fixing price of gas via scare tactics on small gas stations that are trying to compete on price? we should only thank them, but right after the US gov demands the extradition of the CEO for the car company and arrests him for not adhering to the tire rubber standards.

       

    226. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if they were paying people for views of videos and such then you would need to save the logs of all the viewers to help prove the actual viewers exist. Otherwise i can see how the money laundering charge comes in. it would also be easy to fall prey to criminal organizations that want to force you to work for them as well in that grey area.

    227. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      They're not being prosecuted for violating the DMCA, in this case the DMCA actually gave them a way around copyright law, by allowing them to take down the infringing material without being prosecuted. IINM hosting others' copyrighted material without theor permissioon is still illegal in NZ.

    228. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can assure you that 99% of Americans agree that these laws are total shit and designed to support the 1% at the expense of everyone else.

    229. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have hosted lots of stolen content from me. I asked them to remove the content by providing the information required by law under the DCMA. They told me no and that I needed to meet their requirements and follow their process. I told them I met the letter of the law and they needed to comply. They politely told me to go fuck myself. I told them I'd convey their message to my attorney. I also pointed out that the point in time which the legal requirements have been met for DCMA take down, failure to comply is an complicit action, making them legally liable to the full extent of the law. They said they'd be more than happy to comply without getting attornies involved. In other words, they acknowledged their process violated law and they made it needlessly more difficult than the law required. It was pretty obvious they wanted to drag it out as reasonably long as possible so as to maximize profit from illegal content until the very last minute.

      Let them burn. They have always been a price of shit organization which existed to steal shit from hard working people. They played their role in destroying my company as much as pirates did. Fuck em! Life in jail is too short.

    230. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, now, I'm an American and I want to tell corporations in my country to go get fucked, as well. Let's direct the anger and hatred in the right direction. Yes, it generally should come in this direction, but take a moment to aim at the corporations who own us and our government; as citizens, we no longer have a say.

    231. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We created it. While I don't agree with the stance, I also don't think it unreasonable to require our laws to be respected by those who wish to access it.

    232. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nudes of anyone under 18 is "child pornography"

      AFAIK that's true virtually everywhere in the world, regardless of what their local age of consent is. Why? Because the USA threw its weight around, obviously.

      As a matter of fact, the age of consent is < 18 in more states of the US than it is = 18 in, and there are a decent number where it is = 16. And that's not even considering the close-age exemptions that some states have.

    233. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is the US prosecuting them for money laundering that didn't happen in the US?

    234. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dodd's rear access?

    235. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If "promoting copyright infringement" was a crime, then all broadband providers would be shut down long ago. There needs to be a criminal intent, which is very hard to prove.

      These statements utterly lack internal consistency. The two sentences boil down to "This crime doesn't exist. The crime exists but is hard to prove."

    236. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      No, they boil down to "Promoting copyright infringement isn't a crime" and "Promoting copyright infringement with an intent to do so may be a crime, but that's very hard to prove."

    237. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      That may be true, but the judges reasoned as if it were on the books.

      Los Angeles Times:
      "Assange says the sex was consensual. His lawyers also contend that, even if the allegations were true, the behavior would not necessarily constitute crimes under British law. Swedish laws on sexual assault are more sweeping than those here.

      But British prosecutors, acting on behalf of their Swedish counterparts, said the allegations were sufficiently serious because they involved some physical force. One of the women accuses Assange of using his body weight to keep her pinned beneath him while he had sex with her."

    238. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by jc42 · · Score: 1

      I can assure you that 99% of Americans agree that these laws are total shit ...

      Nah, more like 9.9% ;-) The rest mostly have no clue what copyright or patent or the various acronyms like DMCA or SOPA are all about. This is part of the problem. We can't vote the bastards out who passed these laws, because the few of us who understand the issue at all are swamped by a huge majority whose votes are based on other issues that they can understand.

      It's probably true that a majority of voting Americans would like to stick it to the "1%" and the big corporations. That's why all the propaganda talks about things like the poor, starving artists whose income is being stolen. Americans like those artists, and think they should be paid what they're worth. But most Americans aren't aware that most of those artists get nothing from their works, and the corporations claim all the income (and the copyrights in most cases).

      Ignorance of a topic doesn't mean that people agree or disagree with you. It just means that they're ignorant. If they have an opinion at all, it's mostly formed by the confusing blur of propaganda aimed their way, which they hardly listen to.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    239. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The other way to say it is that majority does not give a rat's ass.

      Then explain the Occupy movement. Your remark about Americans being apathetic says that you've swallowed the media bullshit hook, line, and sinker. Most people do care, but they see two candidates arguaing about shit that doesn't matter to them at all, and with both candidated being on the wrong side of the issues that matter to them -- and have been convinced that a vote for anyone else is wasted.

      Marijuana laws? Both parties far. Stupidly long copyrights? Both parties for. DMCA? PATRIOT Act? TSA? Both parties for. It's not "I don't care", but "I don't count".

    240. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      Kim Dotcom is German and Finnish (and working in Souutheast Asia).

    241. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      I agreed with the last paragraph - "Extradition laws don't matter when one country is a very large bully and the other is tiny". The first paragraph is an exaggeration.

      Sorry, should have been clearer.

    242. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Wtf? I downloaded 200 gigs of games when I bought this computer, and stream live football when a match I want to watch is on. I've been known to download or stream movies too.

      What's that you say? I'm paying under $50/month, and I'm getting the bandwidth needed to use my Steam purchases, Sky TV and LoveFilm subscriptions?

      No, I didn't need 50MB/s before I did all this legitimate streaming. That's why I only had 2MB on my first broadband connection, then 20, and only in the past year 50. It's why I'm not upgrading to 100MB/s even though it's available now, because 50 is meeting my needs.

      still for most people the legal media services would be unused if they couldn't also fill the gaps with torrent feeds

      True only to the extent that WoW and some open source software I use make use of bittorrent technology.

      I don't have high bandwidth because it support illegitimate activities, I use legitimate services because I have enough bandwidth to make them usable. The ISPs gain from this and so do content creators. Is that so difficult?

    243. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 2

      The problem is that several countries can't have jurisdiction over the same matter at the same time. Or to put it in simpler terms: MegaUpload can't be tried for the same crime in both American, Dutch, Hong Kong and New Zealand courts. One jurisdiction has to "win" and the others have to "lose".

      Therefore, it's not enough to have a claim on jurisdiction; you need to have the strongest claim.

      Basing jurisdiction on where the servers are situated is absurd. It would mean a Canadian who shares a file copyrighted by a US company could put it on a Phillipinian server, and be out of reach of both Canada's and the United States' justice system.

      You want to give jurisdiction to either the country where the alleged perpetrator was at the time of the alleged crime, or the country where the alleged victim were. Any other countries have very little to do with it and are unlikely to want to burden their justice system with it.

      Basing jurisdiction on where the servers are situated is just one of many rationalisations the lawyers use to get American jurisdiction, and a very weak one at that. If the servers are outside the US, they'll instantly switch viewpoint and try to base jurisdiction on something else instead.

      And regardless of the issue of jurisdiction, American corporations have no business deleting files which are legal in my country. MegaUpload also had servers in the Netherlands (and probably a few other places too).

    244. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, another high-UID first post with somewhat relevant information. Reeks of a bonching. The writing style is even pretty similar.

    245. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      That's absurd. First, I doubt American law requires video streaming services to prove who watched their videos. Does YouTube do that?

      Second, a company based in New Zealand / Hong Kong has no reason to follow American bookkeeping laws. If you believe that, it's American Hübris to the point of madness.

    246. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Both countries are in the EU, so in this case it doesn't need to be illegal in the country the suspect is in at the moment. the largest number of extradition requests in the UK is from poland for peole exceeding their bank overdraft limit or writing a cheque when their is insufficient funds in their account. That is not an offence in the UK where the most serious thing that can happen to you is you can get a £35 bank charge.

    247. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      >Then explain the Occupy movement

      otherwise known as epic fail. Nothing came out of it. Absolutely nothing just because of that: very small numbers. You don't have to go that far low numbers. Take Iraq war: 21 March, 2003 - 20 M people around the world were on streets. Changed nothign.

      (Bombing and killing works though: example Spain)

      >It's not "I don't care", but "I don't count".

      No. It's how far you go. How far a significant proportion of population will go.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    248. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by makomk · · Score: 1

      That would be because they used evidence of obvious copyright infringement as a reason to not pay out rewards to uploaders - look slightly further down in the indictment or search for forum posts from around that time.

    249. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The alleged act still needs to be a crime in the country granting extradition.

      Well, bully for the rule of law, then! It turns out criminal copyright infringement is a crime in New Zealand.

    250. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by ozduo · · Score: 1

      I agree because from my experience almost every one in NZ is very Nationalistic and hates the way America thinks that it can tell them what to do. Public opinion will sway the NZ Government to tell the US to go jump.

      --
      I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
    251. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Actually, the rule is even dumber than that - go figure. Any copyright infringement performed in the course of business is automatically criminal here, with a 5 year jail term.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    252. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by scurvyj · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA. Heheeeeeeheheeeee, wipes tears from his eyes. You remind me of me when I was young and a COMPLETE NAIVE FUCKWIT. Given the cash Megaupload have I can't see any way they can LOSE. Also, by gods, I hope they take everyone involved in attacking them to the wall the cleaners and the garbage dump.

    253. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      Aha, so that's where I got the wrong spelling from...

    254. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      Well, obviously. But if the United States and New Zealand have different definitions of criminal copyright, it's New Zealand's definition that the judges will look at when deciding if extradition is justified.

    255. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      And visitors, and people doing business in the US (e.g. that have servers hosted there), etc.

    256. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      If "promoting copyright infringement" was a crime, then all broadband providers would be shut down long ago.

      You seem to be confusing promoting with enabling. Here in the UK every broadband advert I've seen that boasts of how quickly you can download music, movies, etc has a small print disclaimer reminding people that they need the copyright holder's permission to do so.

    257. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      You mean like millions of take down notices filed every day

      1,000,000 per day is 11.5 per second all day; millions is thus at least an average of 23/second, every second of the day.

      Are you absolutely sure of that?

    258. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      "Enabling" may be a more correct term. But in that case, MegaUpload is not actively promoting copyright violations either. They simply give cash for popular files, and fail to check which ones are legal and which ones are not.

    259. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      otherwise known as epic fail. Nothing came out of it.

      No? "President Barack Obama is preparing to issue a populist cry for economic fairness as he aims to corral the sympathies of middle-class voters 10 months before Election Day."

      Economic unfairness is what the Occupy movement is (not "was") all about. The media, which is all but the internet controlled by the 1%, would like you to think that there's no Occupy at all, or the numbers are miniscule, when in fact every city in the US, large and small, is being Occupied.

      Back in the sixties and seventies we stopped a war and got environmental protections instituted the exact same way the Occupy movement is doing it.

    260. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      The leadership is liable when the leadership are the ones openly admitting in email that they are violating copyright themselves. Criminal neglect is also a crime, too, otherwise it wouldn't be criminal.

    261. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by CodeHxr · · Score: 1

      As an American, I agree 100%.

    262. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by metacell · · Score: 1

      Where are those e-mails?

      I've only seen quotes from e-mails where the leadership admits there exists infringing material on their servers (which is a no-brainer, since they've received numerous DMCA notices about them).

    263. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The only flaw with the DMCA is the ability for the content owners to use infringement notices with impunity.

      On the contrary, the flaw in the DMCA is that it criminalizes DRM circumvention. By doing so, it makes a device owner's actual property rights subordinate to a copyright holder's "Imaginary Property" rights. (And make no mistake: copyright is 'imaginary' in the sense that it exists only at the whim of Congress, and even then only for the sole purpose to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts," not to confer any kind of benefit for benefit's sake upon the copyright holder!)

      At least that's the most fundamental flaw. All the other flaws, such as the one you mentioned, are incidental to it.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    264. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by DaneM · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty tired of American corporations who like to pretend American law applies to the whole world. They have no right to ask a New Zeeland company to delete a Swedish users files, just because the files happen to be illegal for Americans.

      A thousand times this. It's about time the rest of the world stands up and tells the Americans to go fuck themselves.

      I'm and American, and even I agree with this. A lot of other Americans (though, not the extremely rich ones, typically) feel the same way.

    265. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      ah, so in fact they were paying money directly to the artists instead of letting the leeches suck out 90% first ... i can see how that would be an insult to the world of fossils, that clarifies it a bit thanks

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    266. Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You started out your comment with "Sorry but you are mistaken", instead of "WRONG!" as most people on here would.

      For that, I thank you sir.

  2. Extortion by UMG? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    It wouldn't be surprising for that be the case.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Extortion by UMG? by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      Certainly not. They only bribe governments.

  3. Not Censorship! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I love how slashdot chose to classify this megaupload story as "censorship". How about putting this in the piracy section?

    The definition of censorship is so warped around here. There are troubling aspects to this case, but the blatant bias and advocacy is not needed.

    1. Re:Not Censorship! by snowgirl · · Score: 3, Informative

      I love how slashdot chose to classify this megaupload story as "censorship". How about putting this in the piracy section?

      Because the original legal case was about censorship. That megauploads was also engaged in piracy and such is besides the point. UMG used YouTubes tools to take down a video supporting megauploads without proper due process or anything like that. It was totally about "censorship" (in the wider notion beyond just governments chilling free speech).

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    2. Re:Not Censorship! by DesScorp · · Score: 0

      I love how slashdot chose to classify this megaupload story as "censorship". How about putting this in the piracy section?

      The definition of censorship is so warped around here. There are troubling aspects to this case, but the blatant bias and advocacy is not needed.

      "Censorship" around here is often defined as "My guy can't continue to say or do whatever the hell he likes", very often in cases where it has nothing to do with speech in the constitutional sense at all. If someone can't raise funding for an anti-RIAA documentary, then that's censorship. If an activist can't legally be allowed to hack onto someone's website and change the homepage, that's censorship. In short, if "my side can't get away with it", that's censorship.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    3. Re:Not Censorship! by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the original legal case was about censorship.

      Only in the eyes of misguided fucktards like yourself Princess. The original legal case was about illegal use of the DMCA to take down material. It had nothing to do with "censorship" nor "free speech", despite what you and the tinfoil hat brigade may like to think. Why don't you leave the legal and technical discussions to the men who know what they are talking about instead of getting your pretty little head confused about such basic concepts?

      BTW, shouldn't you be in the kitchen baking?

      Oh see, it's funny, because it's intentionally sexist. Now, ignoring all the sexist bullshit, because it's just not worth getting into, because it's a total tangent to the real issues at matter...

      Illegal use of the DMCA is considered a form of censorship in colloquial speech. I noted in my post that it wasn't about "pure" censorship, which is a government making specific speech illegal. However, it is colloquial censorship in that it is someone blocking access to someone else's content with or without legal authority.

      Also, the original filing of the suit commented that it were an abuse of the DMCA, but Universal Music Group the original defendant in the case, pointed out that not only were they not actually responsible for the offending action, (it was UMG which is a subsidiary company of Universal Music Group, but not jointly-liable) but as well, it wasn't even an abuse of the DMCA, as UMG was making use of the tools that they were granted access to by contract with YouTube, that allowed UMG to bypass even the DMCA process. Thus, the whole situation was chalked up to, "YouTube granted UMG that access, and the only injured party in this abuse of tools provided was YouTube, and thus MegaUpload has no valid standing to file suit in the first place in a breach of contract between UMG and YouTube."

      But getting back to the point, colloquially "censorship" is used by the general public, and in this case the slashdot categories to refer to anything where a non-first-party effects the removal of speech of another person without their consent. But you know, enforcing legal definitions of words on an informal forum such as slashdot seems like a way much better idea than using the same jargon, dialect and register as the audience of that forum.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    4. Re:Not Censorship! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking stupid or do you just not know how to read and thus are going off the recollections of fucking stupid people and what they told you about the case? Because when you abuse DMCA take downs to take down videos that have simply have no infringing content whatsoever because you don't like what they are saying, that is basically censorship. I don't expect a retard to understand though, so it's okay if you just act like it's not in your next reply.

    5. Re:Not Censorship! by brainzach · · Score: 1

      But bringing down websites from companies and organizations you don't like isn't censorship.

    6. Re:Not Censorship! by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I did not write the sexist troll to which you responded, but I think now is a good time to mention that I imagine that you have plump breasts. Allowing me to unhook your bra, you sigh with relief as you are freed from the oppression of your conservative rose-colored D-cup underwires.

      Your areolae are large and pale, but your nipples are like pink, meaty pizza sausages. They are a pleasure to chew on, for they taste of the faint aroma of Poison perfume with the salinity of light sweat. Your neighboring underarms have a hot and humid but pleasant sharp floral smell.

      I imagine lightly gripping one of your nipples with my teeth, pulling it 4 inches outward with my bite, and then releasing it as it recoils toward your breast with a satisfying *snap*. You feel guilty for enjoying it even though you are a masochist.

      You enjoy this because you spend all of your working hours in control. You dominate. You have to work extra-hard to ensure that you're taken seriously because you're a woman with something to prove. You are cocky, stubborn, and difficult because you have to be.

      But with us, it's different. Being in control is exhausting. So you cede control to me, and I take care of you. I caress every inch of your throbbing body, spreading rose petals throughout the bed, giving you full-body massages under candlelight, with scented Jasmine candles. You feel even warmer when the Pinot Noir kicks in. You are my sugar mama. I spend the day cleaning the house and watching soap operas while you are out winning the bread.

      We are laughing like children, living like lovers, rolling like thunder, under the covers.

    7. Re:Not Censorship! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "The original legal case was about illegal use of the DMCA to take down material."

      Ummm... yeah, like he said censorship. Anything covered under copyright is by definition speech and/or expression so someone taking down copyrighted material is ALWAYS censorship.

      Why don't you leave the legal and technical discussions to the men who know what they are talking about instead of getting your pretty little head confused about such basic concepts?

    8. Re:Not Censorship! by shaitand · · Score: 0

      You are feeding a troll. Thought I'd mention it even though I bit too. Have any pics? ;)

    9. Re:Not Censorship! by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      It was totally about "censorship" (in the wider notion beyond just governments chilling free speech)

      It was censorship even in the narrow sense - the DMCA is an application of governmental powers to effect censorship. The fact that was invoked by a private entity is irrelevant - it's the government that's enforcing it.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    10. Re:Not Censorship! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may now amend your claim with the bullshit "colloquial" claim, but it is still not censorship. Just as piracy is not actual theft, abuse of DMCA (or any site owner removing content they do not want on their site) is purely and simply _not_ censorship, no matter how much you want it to be.

      If, as you seem determined to do, you want to bandy about incorrect, inflammatory words, then I am sure you will also jump to the to the defence of those who claim piracy is "theft", at least in a "colloquial" sense. You tin-foil-hatters get all lawyerly when the studios/labels equate copyright violations with theft, then you get all uppity when someone points out that you are making the same mistakes about censorship.

      But you know, enforcing legal definitions of words on an informal forum such as slashdot seems like a way much better idea than using the same jargon, dialect and register as the audience of that forum.

      You must be new here if you think that this doesn't happen in reverse.

    11. Re:Not Censorship! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh see, it's funny, because it's intentionally sexist.

      I'd like to apologise on behalf of my gender. Seriously.

    12. Re:Not Censorship! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Basically" censorship? That is like saying the piracy is "basically" theft.

    13. Re:Not Censorship! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was censorship even in the narrow sense - the DMCA is an application of governmental powers to effect censorship.

      On the contrary, the DMCA has nothing to do with censorship, instead it is used in cases where material is posted to the internet without the copyright holder's permission, ie piracy and other forms of copyright infringement. The use of the DMCA to take down infringing material is not censorship, no matter how much you want to believe it is. While the case in question revolved around the misuse of the DMCA, that is still not censorship - just a misuse (and abuse) of the DMCA takedown provisions.

      The government does not order the material be taken down, the rights holder does that. Ergo, not fucking censorship retard.

    14. Re:Not Censorship! by metacell · · Score: 1

      What Universal did is technically censorship. They took down something because they didn't like the contents, not because they had a valid copyright claim.

    15. Re:Not Censorship! by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      It was totally about "censorship" (in the wider notion beyond just governments chilling free speech)

      It was censorship even in the narrow sense - the DMCA is an application of governmental powers to effect censorship. The fact that was invoked by a private entity is irrelevant - it's the government that's enforcing it.

      Actually, the DMCA wasn't actually involved at all. Apparently, UMG (oddly, not to be confused with Universal Music Group) abused a simple contract that they signed with YouTube. No government enforcement involved at all... in fact, no laws except "keep your word" need be enacted to enforce the censorship at all, and in fact, the only government enforcement available in the situation was to keep UMG from abusing its extra-judicial takedown rights...

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    16. Re:Not Censorship! by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Are you fucking stupid or do you just not know how to read and thus are going off the recollections of fucking stupid people and what they told you about the case? Because when you abuse DMCA take downs to take down videos that have simply have no infringing content whatsoever because you don't like what they are saying, that is basically censorship. I don't expect a retard to understand though, so it's okay if you just act like it's not in your next reply.

      I know you're defending me, but the DMCA actually wasn't involved. It was a private tool provided to UMG under contract.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    17. Re:Not Censorship! by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      You are feeding a troll. Thought I'd mention it even though I bit too.

      Well, regardless of of feeidng the troll, I wanted to ensure that people were aware of the actual facts, such as: the DMCA was not involved in the case at all. Basically, showing that I was more informed about the topic than the troll ever was.

      I'm more interested in people understanding the details, rather than assuming that the DMCA is the only P.O.S. copyright enforcement available to the *iaa.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  4. And justice for all. by siddesu · · Score: 1

    Why would that be a surprise? Backroom deals (settlements) are the norm in the justice system, and taking stuff to court was the last resort. Obviously, there is some negotiations about a deal in the background, and obviously the Megaupload people are not in the better position to negotiate. Was it ever different?

    1. Re:And justice for all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only one who can offer a deal is the prosecution. If dropping the settlement was part of negotiating a deal then it has to make you wonder who Universal has in their pocket to make that happen. And no, they shouldn't have a special voice to dictate terms in a federal case, that's a horrible precedent to set if it were true. What ultimately led to the dropping of the case is likely the defense picking which battles are worth fighting for, diverting money from a case that would be hindered by this federal indictment so as to keep their asses out of jail for a substantial period is a survival call on their part.

    2. Re:And justice for all. by siddesu · · Score: 1

      has to make you wonder who Universal has in their pocket to make that happen

      Hollywood was and still is the most powerful propaganda weapon that the US government has at its disposal. What makes you think they can make their voice herd only by paying money?

    3. Re:And justice for all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is that we should all invest in tinfoil stocks. How much do you pay per yard?

    4. Re:And justice for all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why do we only hear about one side dropping the case?

    5. Re:And justice for all. by siddesu · · Score: 2

      Because the other side still has their business running, their executives free, their bank accounts unfrozen, the US government firmly behind their backs, and a US senator threatening his colleagues on their behalf?

    6. Re:And justice for all. by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Is that a Futurama reference of some sort? I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I have not yet memorized the series, so I'm not quite sure what is your point.

  5. Their lawyers will have better things to do. by chrissandvick · · Score: 0

    No mystery. Would you want your legal attention divided in a case like this? Suing UMG is a distraction for these guys trying to stay out of jail.

  6. Filesonic next in line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Message from their site:

    "All sharing functionality on FileSonic is now disabled. Our service can only be used to upload and retrieve files that you have uploaded personally.

    If this file belongs to you, please login to download it directly from your file manager."

    Raided or just scared?

  7. A link in the article by symbolset · · Score: 5, Informative

    A link in this article goes to a rather thoughtful discussion of the MegaUpload indictment. To tell it short, although the indictment sounds bad, almost none of the alleged activities are in fact illegal. The few that are require "state of mind" which is a rather difficult thing to prove, and harder to get a jury to convict on.

    Since in America we have trial by jury, if it goes to court it seems unlikely there will be able to find a jury willing to convict.

    Together that seems to make the whole thing very scary.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:A link in the article by Kjella · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Since in America we have trial by jury, if it goes to court it seems unlikely there will be able to find a jury willing to convict.

      Ahhahahahhaaha... when you've got juries willing to convict people to $1.5-2 million in damages for sharing 24 files as a plain normal P2P user, then the Megaupload guys will be lucky to not see the death penalty.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:A link in the article by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      There are many, many cases where there is not enough evidence by legal 'standards' to convict, but the only really legal 'standard' required to convict is to convince a jury, regardless of any real facts. That often comes down to how much money you can spend on experts. Of course, for the common man who cannot afford expensive lawyers and experts, the choice is, risk a jury and possibly get years upon years, -or- take a plea bargain and get your ass to prison.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    3. Re:A link in the article by symbolset · · Score: 2

      That was a civil suit, not a criminal trial. The rules are different.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    4. Re:A link in the article by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      With the attention SOPA got, it may also be that the tide is turning on copyright infringement and the purchasing of government organizations for enforcement.

    5. Re:A link in the article by bws111 · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Read the very first page of the indictment. Notice the five charges and the exact law that each violates. The activities are illegal.

      Second, look at the bottom of the page. Notice how it says 'THE GRAND JURY CHARGES'. A jury, drawn from the same people who would make up a trial jury, have already determined laws were broken and there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial. I don't know where you get the 'unable to find a jury willing to convict' BS from. Just wishful thinking maybe.

    6. Re:A link in the article by Elbereth · · Score: 1

      At first, I thought to myself, "What?!" Then, when I thought about what you'd said, I realized that you may actually be correct. I'm not a hundred percent sure of the legality of some of their actions. For example, they're alleged to have flagrantly violated copyright. That's certainly bad for the site's reputation (and could indeed be used against them in an attempt to take down the site), but I seriously doubt that you'd be able to get any jail time out of it. The twist is that they (allegedly) knowingly paid uploaders who were violating copyright. At that point, it becomes a lot more murky. Since they were allegedly uploading pirated content themselves, as well as sharing links to pirated content, they can't really argue that they didn't know it was pirated. Second, they allegedly sat on DMCA take-down notices that weren't specifically coming from prominent USA-based megacorps. According to some of the evidence, the CEO repeatedly told people to drag their feet on compliance issues. He also repeatedly told them to not honor take-down requests that included a large amount of links. By doing these things, they violated the safe harbor provision of the DMCA. That's very, very bad for them, because that's what was shielding them from this kind of crackdown.

      It shouldn't be that hard to put together a very strong case against them, assuming that the evidence is legit. Kim Dotcom looks the worst off, since he's not engaging in petty copyright violation. Instead, he's explicitly instructing his employees to bend U.S. law, arguably to the breaking break (depending on how you read those "don't honor the DMCA" memos). The others seem to have a much better chance, because most of them were just requesting shitty TV shows and music.

      Of course, the main controversy is whether they're subject to U.S. law, but they were doing some pretty substantial business in the U.S. If I were them, I'd fight the extradition for all I was worth, because that's their best chance. Once they're in the U.S., it's going to be difficult to fight off a government eager to show its subservience to megacorps.

    7. Re:A link in the article by bky1701 · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't be too sure. People are against SOPA because Wikipedia/Google told them to be, not because of some deep-seated ethical objections to the bill itself. Most people complaining about SOPA still support copyright despite the obvious implications for free speech, which SOPA simply took to such an extreme that some of them temporarily noticed the problem. Unfortunately, copyright and the idea that information is property is the root of this problem. As long as people can say things like, I don't know, "SOPA takes it too far, but we need to protect artists better," then we will never have an end to this. We will never have an end because the ONLY business of the RIAA and MPAA is built upon manipulating the market for a good which does not exist by bribery and legal intimidation. Until those die, and until copyright as a whole dies, things like the DMCA and SOPA/PIPA will keep being proposed and eventually, after the outcry subsides, passed.

    8. Re:A link in the article by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If politicians weren't corrupt media cartel cronies this would be a civil case as well.

    9. Re:A link in the article by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      The twist is that they (allegedly) knowingly paid uploaders who were violating copyright.

      What I find strange is that they weren't even profiting off of copyright infringement, but off of people viewing ads and buying premium accounts. It had nothing to do with copyrighted material specifically, yet they're seemingly trying to claim that they profited off of copyright infringement. In order to do that, it seems like they'd have to... sell copyrighted material that they don't have the copyrights to.

      They may not be covered by the DMCA safe harbor, but jail time? Really? I find it hard to believe that anyone believes that this is anything more severe than running a red stoplight. Yet it's treated as if it's some sort of national security issue. Nice.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    10. Re:A link in the article by bws111 · · Score: 1

      You think there would have been as many ad views and premium accounts sold if the infringing material wasn't there? Good luck trying to sell that one.

    11. Re:A link in the article by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      The intentions of their users are quite irrelevant. My point was that they're not selling copyrighted material at all. People view their ads and they make money. People buy premium accounts and they make money. Nowhere does copyright infringement come into this. Nowhere did they specifically sell copyrighted material (that I know of). It's as if they can't have ads on their website because some of their users may be doing illegal (in some places) things.

      In short, having ads/premium accounts isn't the same thing as selling copyrighted material.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    12. Re:A link in the article by erroneus · · Score: 1

      So you are suggesting this is a politically motivated and directed arrest and prosecution which has an extremely weak case behind it... sounds vaguely like what happened to The Pirate Bay some time ago.

    13. Re:A link in the article by metacell · · Score: 1

      I think the GP was referring to claims which are supposed to convince us that MegaUpload was intentionally promoting infringing material. For example, the claim that MegaUpload was "misleading" people about the amount of infringing files by "intentionally designing" their top 100 list to only list freely redistribuatle files. Really? Is there no other reason they'd chose to design the top list that way? Such as, they'd be committing copyright infringement if they listed links to files which were not freely redistributable.

      The actual crimes they're accused of require state of mind, as the GP says, and the evidence for that seems very weak.

    14. Re:A link in the article by Mitreya · · Score: 1
      Since in America we have trial by jury, if it goes to court it seems unlikely there will be able to find a jury willing to convict.

      Ah, grasshopper, but even so, once they are vindicated... who is going to return 50M (that's the number I have seen) worth of equipment that got confiscated? How about the files that they had and people with paid accounts? No one is going to compensate them for the damage if they are found innocent?
      So they have been punished quite severely loooong before the courts/jury get to them. They must be terrorists...

    15. Re:A link in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except that this "Grand Jury" was not an adversarial hearing. Megaupload did not have a chance to present any evidence or refute any evidence that was presented to obtain this indictment.

      This indictment was obtained by only one side presenting possibly biased evidence, so this grand jury indictment could amount to nothing once Megaupload has a chance to refute the evidence that was presented.

    16. Re:A link in the article by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

      If corrupt politicians were assassinated on a regular basis, the media cartels wouldn't be able to buy congress and we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

    17. Re:A link in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and they throw someone like me off a jury because I also look at if the law is just in the first place.

    18. Re:A link in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The intentions of their users are quite irrelevant.

      Yeah, sure. And if I pay a bunch of girls to hang out at my massage parlor and then charge patrons to go into private rooms with the girls, I can't possible be responsible for what they do while they're in there. I mean, for all I know they're playing chess up in this bitch.

    19. Re:A link in the article by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      How is that at all comparable to websites being held responsible for their users' intentions (typically unknown intentions, as well)? Google analogies don't usually apply, but I think they do here.

      But, really, I don't care if someone did do what you said. And if someone truly did not know what would happen in the private rooms, then I guess it would be a somewhat on-topic analogy.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    20. Re:A link in the article by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      One of the indictments is that of racketeering. I don't know quite how it works in the US, but in the UK that's one charge (the other's terrorism) that can and does result in trial without jury, presided over by a single judge.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    21. Re:A link in the article by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      copyright infringement is a civil wrong, which is why the long list of criminal charges (including racketeering and theft). Anyone who sees jail as a result of a civil suit should appeal - custodial penalties should only apply in criminal cases!

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    22. Re:A link in the article by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Of course, that is the way grand juries work in every case. The conviction rate in federal court where an indictment has been handed down by a grand jury is 99.8%.

    23. Re:A link in the article by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You say that as though it were a good thing.

      Me, I interpret it as a damning indictment of your legal system, and particularly its oppressive plea bargaining blackmail.

      But I guess I could be wrong in this instance.

  8. You are ignorant. by pavon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Megaupload paid to create a video promoting/defending their site and posted it on YouTube. Universal Music (who had no legal claim to the video) abused the take-down agreement they had with Google (and possibly the DMCA) to pull this video off of YouTube simply because they didn't like it. That is a cut-and-dry case of censorship if I have ever heard it.

    If the information in the indictment is true then Megaupload is guilty of copyright infringement and should be held accountable for it. However, Universal Music should also be held accountable for their abuses of the law.

    1. Re:You are ignorant. by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      Universal Music should also be held accountable for their abuses of the law.

      Which has nothing to do with censorship. Why is that so hard for people to understand? One party lying about something someone else did isn't censorship. The government didn't, as a matter of policy because of the content, take down the video. That would have been censorship. Instead, a content-agnostic law was (so it's said) mis-used by a third party for their own purposes. That's not censorship. You not being able to post the comment you just posted, because it violates a speech policy set by the government, that's censorship. Nobody is saying that the DMCA's provisions and purpose were to block a video like the one taken down. But for some reason that doesn't stop people from reflexively using the word "censorship" (incorrectly) just like they constantly say "OMG Fascists!" without any sort of rational context or understanding of what the word means.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:You are ignorant. by FreeCoder · · Score: 0

      Please note that the YouTube+Universal deal is between them. It has nothing to do with law or censorship. If YouTube gives Universal the ability to delete videos at whim, so be it. You have freedom of speech, but no private company needs to provide you the platform to do it. If you want to blame somebody, blame YouTube (and Google) for giving them such a tool.

    3. Re:You are ignorant. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      i dont know whether you are joking or not.

      - megaupload puts a video on youtube which shows um as what they are
      - um has takedown agreements with google
      - um complains of the video
      - um has no legal rights to that video
      - google takes down the video

      this is ABUSE. again, this is, ABUSE. using roundabout wordage does not make it what it is not. it is still abuse.

    4. Re:You are ignorant. by bky1701 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Changing or removing information that would otherwise be available via a medium is censorship. It doesn't matter if it is the government, Google, or slashdot moderators.

      Censor
      an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

      I don't understand why you libertard types can't understand that not only government can violate civil rights. Corporations do it on a daily basis and we have essentially zero recourse against them in most cases, especially when a cartel or monopoly decides to violate them (like ISPs). Yet, you go around saying things like "the government didn't, as a matter of policy because of the content, take down the video," which not only missed the definition of censorship, but totally absolves private organizations of violating your rights. We are increasingly corporatist because of this bullshit line of thinking.

    5. Re:You are ignorant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Image. Instead of youtube. You submitted a book to a publisher that is very negative about the Universal Music and try to explain how they are unfairly going after you. Now the publisher; prints the book and moves the copies out on to store shelves. However, suddenly the publisher hears from Universal that your book violates their copyrights. So the publisher in-order to protect it self, removes all copies from store shelves. The book of course doesn't violate copyright and Universal knows this. It is a method of censorship.

    6. Re:You are ignorant. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Private companies are just as capable of engaging in censorship as government. Just because censorship by private organizations is legal does make it moral and does not change the fact that it IS censorship. People have every right to bitch about it, spread the word to others about it, and work against the interests of any organization that engages in it.

    7. Re:You are ignorant. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "It has nothing to do with law or censorship. If YouTube gives Universal the ability to delete videos at whim"

      Also, it has everything to do with the law as the law allows any copyright holder to FORCE youtube to delete videos at whim.

    8. Re:You are ignorant. by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      There is no requirement for censorship to involve a government at all. Why do you believe it to be so? Are you some kind of hard core libertarian who believes that only governments can do evil?

    9. Re:You are ignorant. by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that UMG actually has an automated tool for issuing takedowns which are more or less independent of Google's participation. They probably have a check-box with a "Take-down" label and a submit button on each page for each Youtube video.

    10. Re:You are ignorant. by metacell · · Score: 1

      It's just that YouTube has been forced to provide such a tool to Universal by the DMCA. The law puts a censorship tool in the hands of large corporations.

    11. Re:You are ignorant. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Are you some kind of hard core libertarian who believes that only governments can do evil?

      No, but I believe that Google's YouTube service is not public property (why is that? because it's not).

      When a private web site decides not to maintain content they don't want up, that's editing, or enforcing policies related to their choice of policies. Now, forcing a private company to host content they don't want to host - that would be evil.

      Regardless, the case here wasn't Google/YouTube "censoring" anything. Which you know.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    12. Re:You are ignorant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Megaupload paid to create a video promoting/defending their site and posted it on YouTube

      Then surely, it is YouTube that has breached its contract. It is their fault that UMG had the power to 'censor' anything YouTube published. And I remember an article on slash dot about a month ago, reporting that YouTube was stripping this unlimited power from its business associates.

    13. Re:You are ignorant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is that so hard for people to understand? One party lying about something someone else did isn't censorship. The government didn't, as a matter of policy because of the content, take down the video

      Perhaps you should learn english. Or at least one language to speak.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censorship

      The word government doesn't show up in ANY definition of censorship. Anywhere.

      What you're thinking of is the 1st amendment, which of course no one here mentioned at all, and is completely off topic to what the rest of the adults are speaking of in this thread.

      -1 troll, -1 offtopic, -1 flamebait

    14. Re:You are ignorant. by Arker · · Score: 1

      Libertard, eh? Thanks, I guess.

      The fact is that censorship requires government force to accomplish. This case is clearly censorship, and clearly does not contradict that general rule - the big corporations involved may be pseudo-private but they are working hand-in-claw with government power here, and would not be able to perform this censorship without their aid.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    15. Re:You are ignorant. by metacell · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if it's evil or not, it's still technically censorship. Censorship can be both legal and justified, for example, when a newspaper is prevented from printing libel. Censorship can also be completely private, like when a newspaper owner decides to block a negative article about a politician he/she supports.

    16. Re:You are ignorant. by nazsco · · Score: 1

      > If YouTube gives Universal the ability to delete videos at whim, so be it.

      riiiigth. and the power play such draconian copyright laws have nothing in it i'm sure.

    17. Re:You are ignorant. by pavon · · Score: 1

      From what I've read (leaked email exchanges between Universal and Google lawyers that occurred long before this happened), they disagreed over what the terms of the take-down agreement allowed, with UMG interpreting it as including works that they don't have copyright claim to, though that was not YouTube's original intent.

    18. Re:You are ignorant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations, however, do not force you to use their services. If you don't like their practices, you don't have to use them.

    19. Re:You are ignorant. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The fact is that censorship requires government force to accomplish.

      No, it doesn't.

      Censorship can easily be done with no government support, and indeed in action against the government.

  9. Not in US custody by drmofe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Employees are not yet in US custody. They are currently being held by New Zealand authorities (in court as I type this) pending extradition hearings. The extradition is not automatic and is being contested.

    1. Re:Not in US custody by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      They're in court for bail hearings. The extradition issue hasn't even come up. (Note: bail decision has been reserved and they've been remanded into custody).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  10. its not a piece of legal shit by decora · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    DMCA provided a mechanism for people to complain about copyright problems to the site owners in a reasonable and calm fashion. in the 'rest of the world', there is the rule of the fist, and copyright violations mean nothing - which by the way, means the GPL means nothing, because its entire existence is based on copyright law.

    the only people who complain about the 'draconian DMCA' are fucktards who never actually create or build anything themselves.

    1. Re:its not a piece of legal shit by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the only people who complain about the 'draconian DMCA' are fucktards who never actually create or build anything themselves.

      Actually, they usually are objecting to the criminalization of hacking encryption schemes.... that is the part that gives the whole law a "piece of legal shit" rap.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:its not a piece of legal shit by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is not true. The DMCA has a few flaws.

      As I posted previously..

      The simple fact that a DMCA notice is submitted automatically causes content to be removed immediately and subject to lengthy proceedings regarding the rights of that content.

      Various members of the RIAA have been notorious in submitting DMCA takedown letters for content that is very clearly covered by things such as fair use and sometimes even for content they don't even remotely have the rights to. But the creative individuals creating these parodies, or even original material, have limited recourse and the recourse they do have is time-consuming, difficult and sometimes expensive, not to mention it destroys their business (if the content is related to a business).

      There is little argument for a business conglomerate having the power to shut down smaller competitors for a short period by simply writing a letter.... and for there to be no recourse for these smaller competitors from it happening repeatedly other than lengthy legal arguments and possibly litigation. That's absurd and anti-competitive.

      But the remainder of the DMCA... well, it's not terrible, but I'm not sure it accomplishes a ton either. Going after kids on YouTube seems to be the greatest use of it and repeated studies have shown it doesn't help (and may hurt) their business model and revenues.

    3. Re:its not a piece of legal shit by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "which by the way, means the GPL means nothing, because its entire existence is based on copyright law"

      Since the GPL only NEEDS to exist because of copyright law that isn't saying much. Without copyright law everyone has the rights granted by the GPL by default.

    4. Re:its not a piece of legal shit by ulricr · · Score: 1

      "which by the way, means the GPL means nothing, because its entire existence is based on copyright law"

      Since the GPL only NEEDS to exist because of copyright law that isn't saying much. Without copyright law everyone has the rights granted by the GPL by default.

      you have no clue what the gpl is there for. tthe GPL is there is force source code to remain available to the user so we can modify the programs we use. without copyright law, we don't get that right to the source code.

    5. Re:its not a piece of legal shit by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Without copyright you can disassemble the executable back to source in a fairly trivial fashion. Without copyright you have the right to modify that source and then distribute your modified program freely, without any permission.

    6. Re:its not a piece of legal shit by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      The simple fact that a DMCA notice is submitted automatically causes content to be removed immediately and subject to lengthy proceedings regarding the rights of that content.

      If implemented well, the person who posted the content (assuming they're using a third-party host) should be immediately notified and can file a counter-notice with the host to have it immediately put back online. Of course, then they're on the hook for defending themselves in court, which was more or less the point of the claim-counterclaim system -- anonymous uploaders can't hide behind a third-party host, but the host retains their immunity to copyright liability.

      Various members of the RIAA have been notorious in submitting DMCA takedown letters for content that is very clearly covered by things such as fair use and sometimes even for content they don't even remotely have the rights to. But the creative individuals creating these parodies, or even original material, have limited recourse and the recourse they do have is time-consuming, difficult and sometimes expensive, not to mention it destroys their business (if the content is related to a business).

      Unfortunately, while there are potentially very serious penalties under the DMCA for knowingly filing illegitimate takedown notices, they're not pursued.

    7. Re:its not a piece of legal shit by ulricr · · Score: 1

      good luck with that.

    8. Re:its not a piece of legal shit by metacell · · Score: 1

      DMCA provided a mechanism for people to complain about copyright problems to the site owners in a reasonable and calm fashion. in the 'rest of the world', there is the rule of the fist, and copyright violations mean nothing - which by the way, means the GPL means nothing, because its entire existence is based on copyright law.

      the only people who complain about the 'draconian DMCA' are fucktards who never actually create or build anything themselves.

      You're probably a troll, but it never hurts to explain the issue yet another time.

      Here in Sweden, owners of electronic bulletin boards have been required to take down illegal material upon notice ever since people used 14400 bps modems. That's half a decade before the DMCA. However, the copyright lobby here has decided it's more efficient to prosecute infringing sites (such as the Pirate Bay) so they can be closed down.

      The main problem for the copyright lobby here is that the standards of proof are relatively high. I believe it's more accurate to describe a system where the side with the most money can bully people into giving in as "the rule of the fist".

      I also create things myself and put them up on the Internet under Creative Commons.

    9. Re:its not a piece of legal shit by swillden · · Score: 1

      But the remainder of the DMCA... well, it's not terrible, but I'm not sure it accomplishes a ton either.

      Criminalization of tools that may be used to circumvent copy protection schemes is terrible, in fact it's the worst part of the act.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  11. Let the vilification begin.. by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Te MegaUpload take down, not quite carefully timed to give Congress some balls regarding SOPA, is likely to become a circus act of the most grandiose proportions.

    Not only did the Feds seize a foreign company, but they did so in the face of several SCOTUS decisions that held harmless the operators of sites that might contain user uploaded content which might violate copyright, in addition to billions of files that did no such thing.

    With the government forced withdrawal of Megaupload's attorney Robert Bennett, citing rather insincere claims of conflict of interest, and the Justice department seizing a Foreign company this is far from the normal pattern for these cases. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Chinese government step into the fray any day now.

    When the dust clears on this battle there will be some major revelations about how much pressure the DOJ used all over the world to affect this arrest and take down. Eight countries, big and small like New Zealand were leaned on to act, for largely theatrical effect as SOPA goes down to public pressure. The timing couldn't be accidental. But the DOJ miss timed it by three days, and their case is far from certain.

    I predict this will drag out for a long time.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Let the vilification begin.. by terrab0t · · Score: 1

      You can spin this story the other way. If the traditional media industry in the US managed to have a foreign company seized using current laws, they obviously have no need of new ones like SOPA and PIPA.

    2. Re:Let the vilification begin.. by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Actually, I see it as a double-tap. While I am not sure to the voting schedule for PIPA / SOPA, one possibility is that they were waiting for this bill to pass into law before arresting these guys. It's a province of US law that you can't be charged under laws that were not passed at the time of the crime; hence, if they charged them earlier, and stopped the infringement, there'd be no chance later to nail them under the new law. As long as they were infringing the day the new law went into effect, they could be charged under it; which I imagine would add some teeth to the charges.

      It appears, in plain language, to have been a setup of epic proportions. The people involved didn't just want to arrest these guys, but to put them away for life -> to send a message to all other "infringers," the same way the mafia sends you a message by Fedexing your favorite dog's head to your home in a box. The tactics displayed here are of pure evil. When they realized they weren't going to get their coup de grace legislation, they moved in to salvage what they could.

      I do think it's pretty interesting that the entertainment industry has delusions of f*cking over the technology industry, which the passing of that bill would have done. It's a pity that the major companies will probably not punish them as they should. MS & friends are too busy chasing the illusory pie in the sky, trying to get enough of a percentage of that content revenue to justify the cost, while diverting their attention from more profitable sectors. On the other hand, Google is apparently wide awake, and aware that any future legislation that even remotely looks like SOPA / PIPA would be extremely bad for their business model.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    3. Re:Let the vilification begin.. by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      They don't need them, but they sure as hell want them. Gotta have some way to censor the people you can't plant evidence on, after all.

    4. Re:Let the vilification begin.. by luther349 · · Score: 1

      yea the wars far from over. we need to keep the heat on these guys we still need to kill pipa and open. its very simple and are government does not get it just keep your hands out of the internet nothing you pass will be good useful or even help.

    5. Re:Let the vilification begin.. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      What if the Feds are TRYING to fail?

      Everyone thinks that the act of taking down MegaUpload means that we don't need SOPA anymore. But what if the Feds set themselves up to fail by intentionally seizing a foreign company that they have no jurisdiction over?

      "See, we *tried* to stop the foreign thieves with existing laws, but we failed to do so. This proves we need new laws!"

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
  12. This is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The rise in web based (advert laden) file sharing was annoying, and seemed to coincide with a lull period in P2P network development.

    Clearing away this junk will drive the evolution of P2P networks which are cryptographically addressed (ala Tor).

    1. Re:This is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are adverts on the internet? I bet you still have javascript enabled on all sites by default too!

    2. Re:This is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't really tried, but I'd imagine these http file-sharing sites require javascript to work, at least without a paid account, since that's how they implement their stare-at-our-ads-for-thirty-seconds-and-contemplate-buying-an-account screen. It would be really lame (though hardly without precedent) if disabling js lets you bypass the delay.

    3. Re:This is good by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's easy. Just use ad-block AND no-script, and just enable scripts for the site without enabling them for the parasitic ad domains, and all you have to do is wait the 30 seconds while staring at a blank page.

    4. Re:This is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the heck would you do that instead of just using JDownloader...

  13. There is no conspiracy by eonwing · · Score: 2

    Nothing to see here, move along. Gawkers will be shot.

  14. They will come gift wraped. by nzac · · Score: 1

    NZ won't have any problem extraditing them.
    General piracy and making a profit of it are two very different things here.

    Combined with the fact dotcom was let in despite his criminal convictions making the government look bad.
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1201/S00059/peters-calls-for-dotcom-immigration-inquiry.htm

    We might have been sympathetic if he was making a small profit off file sharing but its a more than that and its little embarrassing hes in the country.

  15. Megaupload is dead! Long live Megaupload! by Ben_R_R · · Score: 1

    Megaupload's mistakes will be used to guide the next round of similar websites. There will be sites that will rise up and fill the hole left in the market, and they wont be so easy to catch next time.

    1. Re:Megaupload is dead! Long live Megaupload! by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      For one: never do business with Kim Schmitz.

      That man symbolizes dot.com bubble profiteering like no other fraudster.
      Not to ripoff your download client software without changing the about box which still contains the name of the original company that developed it.
      Not to have a "premium service".
      Not to buy a huge villa with money that came from god knows where. (hence the money laundering allegations)

      Megaupload was the fat kid that didn't only piss into the pool but also shat into it.

      The real bummer is that they still had that false DMCA takedown and the international copyright extortion racket of **AA going against them. So we also need to protest their closure. Even if everything about that racket was rotten.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    2. Re:Megaupload is dead! Long live Megaupload! by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      He rents the villa (his app to buy it was denied by the government)

      However, how fucking cool is he though. The newspaper calls him "Mr. Dotcom" ! Winner, Gumball 3000. World champion of COD3: Modern Warfare. Jailed for hacking. Fat and doesn't care. I would so trade my CV for his. The only thing he's missing is Key Grip

    3. Re:Megaupload is dead! Long live Megaupload! by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      Probation + fined for pump and dump. IMHO he did this in an especially despicable way
      Ripped off DownloadStudio for his Megaupload downloadmanager.
      Toolbar that redirected you on HTTP 404 to his own website.
      Didn't pass character test to buy private property in NZ.
      Is presence alone caused serious questions how he actually got into the country.
      Changed his name into Dotcom.
      Not allowed to open a business in a couple of countries.

      The only thing missing from his CV is a lengthy prison stay. Or at least his name on a lot of shards right before he gets sent into the desert.

      I do NOT support a lot of laws that will be thrown at him. But I am anticipating money laundring to stick and if he gets 10-20 for that then I will gladly protest the 50+ years he will get for copyright infringement.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
  16. F*ck with American Corporations by wisnoskij · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... And the American governments Fs you in the A.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:F*ck with American Corporations by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      By which you mean, "Run hundreds of servers in the US in order to support your criminal business model of ripping off material and making millions of dollars doing it, and eventually it's going to end badly for you, because you're a leeching idiot that is loudly, deliberately, and hugely breaking the law, and boasting about it."

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:F*ck with American Corporations by luther349 · · Score: 2

      how much they bribe you to say that. mega-upload is no different then the other huge list of storage sites. it just happened to be the one most people used even for legit uses, its just like in the 80s with tapes and vhs there throwing a fit but the realty is it has nothing to do with the pirates themselves they simply do not want to change there business model. but at least then are courts had more common sense and told them to go home. i only wish they would do the same thing now rather then tie up the courts with millions of stupid lawsuits.

    3. Re:F*ck with American Corporations by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      mega-upload is no different then the other huge list of storage sites

      Have you actually read the indictment? No, I didn't think so. They paid people to upload pirated material, they knew they were hosting pirated material, they didn't take down the pirated material when notified that it was there, and they communicated internally and externally about the existence of and links to that pirated material. Storage services like DropBox do not do this. But you know that already, and you're just trying to pretend there's no difference. Why is that? Never mind, I know. Because you want free stuff, and are trying to change the topic and hope nobody notices the reality of the situation. Guess what: we already noticed.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:F*ck with American Corporations by metacell · · Score: 1

      Have you actually read the indictment? No, I didn't think so. They paid people to upload pirated material,

      The indictment is based on Universal's claims which are very, very misleading. They paid for popular uploads, some of which happened to be pirated material. That doesn't mean they knowingly encouraged pirated material.

      they knew they were hosting pirated material,

      Yes, just like every broadband providers knows they're transmitting pirated material to their customers. It's only illegal if you have an intent to promote piracy, or fail to take down specific files when you're made aware of them.

      they didn't take down the pirated material when notified that it was there,

      No, but they removed access to the pirated material, as the DMCA requires. Remember that if several users upload the same file, it may be illegal for some users but not others. For example, I can upload my CDs to MegaUpload and listen to them anywhere I want, since my country's fair use laws allow it, but if an American user does the same thing, it's a copyright violation. It's right of MegaUpload to only remove the violating user's access. I shouldn't have my files deleted just because they happen to be illegal in the USA. I'm not in the USA.

      and they communicated internally and externally about the existence of and links to that pirated material.

      Individual staff members shared infringing material. That doesn't make the company or its leadership criminally responsible.

      YouTube contains huge amounts of infringing material. If two YouTube staffers send links to copyrighted clips to each other, does that mean you can shut down the whole of YouTube and arrest the CEO?

      Because you want free stuff, and are trying to change the topic and hope nobody notices the reality of the situation.

      I'm not the poster you're referring to, but I want to exercise my fair use rights. I want to rip my films and songs, put them up on MegaUpload, and share them with my close friends and family, which is perfectly legal where I live.

    5. Re:F*ck with American Corporations by luther349 · · Score: 1

      no if we upload content we own and do not share its fair use despite what they tell you and many artiest where even using megaupload to promote there works and they did not like the fact there own artiest where going to someone else. and using you-tube was a perfect example theirs still tons of stuff on there websites cannot control there users and should not ever need to. i hope megaupload comes back better then ever they broke no real laws this is just mifia strong arming competition down.

  17. which has absolutely 0 to do with megaupload, by decora · · Score: 5, Informative

    or with pirate bay, or with any of these other sites.

    beyond that, when Geohotz and failoverflow got attacked by Sony for jailbreaking the PS3, he was accsed of the following:

    Violating the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 1201)
    Violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(c))
    Contributory copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. 501)
    Violating California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ( 502)
    Breach of Contract (related to the PlayStation Network User Agreement)
    Tortious interference
    Misappropriation
    Trespass

    ----

    the Computer Fraud and Abuse act is far worse - its what they are using against Bradley Manning, its what they used against Thomas Drake, its basically criminalizing 'anything we dont like, when done on a computer'.

    but since it has almost nothing to do with some 25 year old man-childs ability to download free copies of Transformers 8, the moronic fat assholes of the warez-o-sphere dont give a shit about it, and they wouldnt dream of writing endless tirades against the CFAA or its provisions.

    1. Re:which has absolutely 0 to do with megaupload, by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Sorry, didn't meant to imply that the DMCA provision that I referred to was in any way relevant to Megaupload.com. I'm just saying that is the reason it has such a rotten reputation around here - even getting blamed when it doesn't deserve it.

      You also rightly point out that charges can be trumped up to just about any law. It's worth noting that Geohot never was convicted of anything.

      Don't knock the CFAA - it's at least partially responsible for giving us the EFF :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  18. Kim Schmitz goes down and we should be glad for it by bfandreas · · Score: 4, Informative

    Enough with the Megaupload.

    Kim Schmitz is a German serial fraudster and wouldn't be allowed to open a business in Germany again. The "millions of damages" are a stately home in NZ with a ton of expensive cars, a golf course and of course Schmitz' globulous ego. This is not the fight you want to fight. If that scumbag gets sent back to prison then that's good. He knows the drill. He'll feel right at home. Only this time he will not get probation and a 100000 Euro fine for making 1.5 mil in fraud.

    He's been convicted for a pump&dump racket involving his company Kimvestor and letsbuyit.com. Made a cool 1.5 mil on that. Then there was that thing with monkey.com. And with Megaupload there was that Mega Manager that was a ripoff of some other software(forgot the name), the "premium service" and other highly shady things he did from his golf-course attached villa in NZ that he wasn't allowed to purchase himself because he didn't pass a most basic character test.

    there was that Mega Upload song thing that was unjustified. Copyright law still needs reform. There is the problem of US caliming jurisdiction in NZ, but frankly NZ gladly handed him over since he shouldn't have been there in the first place.

    --
    20 minutes into the future
  19. Kindness in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of people forget the kindness of our Big Brother. He cares for us in ways we cannot even imagine. We must be ever grateful for his kind diligence on our behalf.

  20. Yes it is by pavon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, it isn't a first amendment violation, but it is censorship. The word and concept has never been limited to the government. Universal Studios used their power to censor what Megaupload had to say, and anytime those with power use it to silence other it is a big problem, not just when the government does so.

    1. Re:Yes it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      congress shall make no law...........no wait they did

  21. balls by unity100 · · Score: 1

    princess. balls. leaving aside the fact that using a female adjective/noun as if it was some derogatory word is beyond STUPID itself, even in the sick framework you are using you are lacking the balls to post with an identity yourself.

    using dmca to take down content that is distasteful/damaging against one's interests over the usage of the trademarked names or similar beyond-fair-use concepts and ip is censorship.

  22. hahaha indeed by unity100 · · Score: 1

    But the DOJ miss timed it by three days

    they mistimed it with 3 days havent they ...... it was apparently a means to give sopa a boost. and yet not only it missed the bus, it will have the opposite effect.

    1. Re:hahaha indeed by Kalriath · · Score: 2

      Wow, you folks sure see conspiracy where there is none. The timing was actually quite perfect - the same time as Kim was having a birthday party which resulted in nearly the entirety of his executive team being in one place! Nothing to do with SOPA or any of that shit (especially since the DoJ doesn't pick the raid time, the New Zealand Police do).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  23. no it isnt enough. by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Schmitz' globulous ego

    i prefer schmitz's globulous ego. because, schmitz's globulous ego is not buying laws to restrain MY freedoms for HIS profit. schmitz can queue up to 100 mercedes, bmws if he wants to. as long as he doesnt interfere with my freedoms for the sake of his own profit.

    1. Re:no it isnt enough. by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      He may have done just that. Look, we all agree that copyright laws are absolutely bonkers at the moment. Rape a couple of babies and congress would like to put you in the same cell for as long as a pirate.

      Kim Schmitz IS a brown collar criminal who also ran a service that infringes laws we deem unjust. Now how is that gonna help?

      Compare him to the Pirate Bay that spawned a movement and a party that advocates sensible rules for a new millennium. That's like comparing a turd to a chocolate bar.
      So yes, his profiteering and possibly money laundring did cost us any chance we might have had to get things done.
      Associate with men like Kim Schmitz and you will be burned.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    2. Re:no it isnt enough. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      You forgot the caveat: he hasn't done any of these things yet.

      I'll be willing to bet that if he gets as wealthy and influential as the folks running the MPAA and RIAA shows, he'd be doing the same thing. In the fight against oppression, yesterday's ally will become tomorrow's enemy. That's just how things are.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  24. i doubt it. by unity100 · · Score: 2

    legions of bastards are holding office in congress. one former bastard is just in the heat now for telling other bastards to do their masters' bidding. everyone's hands in everyone's pockets. and these are all legal.

    maybe the understanding we need to shatter about this, is the one that makes people believe that what the real bastards are doing, are acceptable.

  25. Raid is because of the lawsuit by Nyder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Am I the only person who thinks that mega got raided because of the lawsuit they have against universal? While we will never know, it did seem like they had a good case against them.

    but it doesn't matter now, because they (Mega) will probably never recover even if they were to win this case.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:Raid is because of the lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the same thought. They are being taken out first because of the fact that they had the balls to fight back.

    2. Re:Raid is because of the lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they were working on a case against MegaUpload for years.

    3. Re:Raid is because of the lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I think Mu got raided because they offered musicians an alternative to the entrenched media companies. Such a business model cannot be allowed to exist.

  26. Hash workaround... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are correct, they did compare file hashes. But uploaders have a way around that... just add a random picture (or any small file) to the RAR, and voila, different hash!

  27. Stupid by steveaustin1971 · · Score: 1

    The "industry" did themselves far more harm than good with this whole fiasco. People hated them, now they not only hate them, but want their blood. This is going to change a lot more than people think.

  28. Way to make slashdot look good bro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the original legal case was about censorship.

    Only in the eyes of misguided fucktards like yourself Princess. The original legal case was about illegal use of the DMCA to take down material. It had nothing to do with "censorship" nor "free speech", despite what you and the tinfoil hat brigade may like to think. Why don't you leave the legal and technical discussions to the men who know what they are talking about instead of getting your pretty little head confused about such basic concepts?

    BTW, shouldn't you be in the kitchen baking?

    The baking joke was also very creative, never having been used before.

  29. Re:Kim Schmitz goes down and we should be glad for by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    All of that is true. Kimble is a fraud and a douchebag. But I'm not sure what that has to do with this particular indictment, or whether he should be jailed on this particular indictment because of his past fuckery.

    He is very likely guilty of things charged in this indictment and may very well serve time for it, but I'll wait for the jury trial before forming that opinion.

  30. Mysterious? lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm, they told the lawyer pressing the suit "we won't have any money to give you, sorry"

  31. shill alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see here:

    1. recently created account
    2. posted a long first post just as the article is submitted
    3. posts another dozen times in the replies thread

    This is a shill in the same pattern as the others.

    Clearly a subscriber account is associated with these shills (for the FPing) and bonch seems to be the most cited enabler.

    Is the /. staff ever going to do anything about this?

  32. What about innocent users? by walterbyrd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As PJ, at Groklaw asked: what about innocent folks who have placed their files on the service? Who restores their property to them when the entire site goes down? They have property rights too, which are not currently being addressed, that I've seen.

    1. Re:What about innocent users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people are so incredibly stupid as to use a warez site for their offsite backup, then they deserve to lose all their files.

    2. Re:What about innocent users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't they just upload their stuff somewhere else?

    3. Re:What about innocent users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the crack house in my hood where I bought cigarettes? They got busted now I gotta walk all the way to the store.

    4. Re:What about innocent users? by metacell · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the musicians who put their own music on MegaUpload and got paid for the downloads. Wasn't copyright supposed to protect the artists?

    5. Re:What about innocent users? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Isn't this similar to buying stolen goods? If you are knowingly or unknowingly participated in a crime, you won't get any compensations for resulting losses.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    6. Re:What about innocent users? by Inda · · Score: 1

      I write a song. I sing the song. I upload it to Megaupload for my fans.

      What's that got to do with stolen goods?

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    7. Re:What about innocent users? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      The analogy is being linked to a criminal organization. If you depend on it, and it is closed by the government, your stuff is gone, whether it's physical goods or your data.

      If they stole your goods, that would be a different issue, then you are entitled to retreieve them.

      Now that I wrote this, I am thinking it's between these two scenarios in case of legit Megausers.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    8. Re:What about innocent users? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if I lend a friend something I own, and they get busted for drug dealing, I'd still expect to get my property back (assuming it's not impounded as evidence).

    9. Re:What about innocent users? by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      I'd still expect to get my property back (assuming it's not impounded as evidence).

      And assuming it is, what then? Still expect to get it back? Ever?

    10. Re:What about innocent users? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      If government destroys lended property, they will give you nothing, no matter what you expect. Choose your friends wisely or stand by them no matter what.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  33. Wait, what? by owenferguson · · Score: 1

    Who wipes their ass with pieces of shit? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

  34. Interference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about MegaLoad's customers sue Universal for tortious interference (civil wrong-doing)? An expensive class-action suit might reveal the truth. But ideally, Universal won't waste lawyers on hiding the truth. MegaLoad's customers can divide the cost of the lawsuit while Universal has to pay the whole cost of defending their behaviour.

  35. Re:Kim Schmitz goes down and we should be glad for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Also Kim, aka Kimble, was a nark, and ratted out tons of BBS to avoid getting nailed on credit card fraud charges here in Germany in the mid 90s. Everyone defending Kimble today needs to get off my lawn. The dude is not some defender of rights, he's just a crook.

  36. Good luck with that... by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    we're the only country right now with a real military. Even China, for all it's populace, doesn't have the Navy to move them. We've been pouring 50% of our economy into war for 30 years now. Plus we've got 2 weak neighbors, tones of natural resources and a sheepish & divided populace. I'm seriously scared what gets done around the world in my name.... and ashamed.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Good luck with that... by Cruciform · · Score: 5, Insightful

      2 weak neighbors?
      No. You have a neighbor to the north which is not an imperialistic war machine.
      There is a difference. We don't have to pour an insane amount of money into our military budget because we don't practice insane foreign policy just to line the pockets of the men that own the politicians.

    2. Re:Good luck with that... by metacell · · Score: 1

      A large part of the fault lies with spineless leaders in Europe too. It's easier and more comfortable to let the United States run a large part of your defence, even if it means losing your freedom.

  37. New Zealand law by WeeBit · · Score: 1

    Under New Zealand extradition law, those arrested will face extradition only if:

            i. the conduct as it occurred in the jurisdiction of New Zealand it would have been an offense under New Zealand law; and

            ii. the offense would have been punishable by 12 months imprisonment or more.

    read more:
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1201/S00110/extradition-procedures-for-the-megaupload-four.htm

  38. Re:Kim Schmitz goes down and we should be glad for by bfandreas · · Score: 1

    There is also the accusation of money laundry.

    Because copyright laws are so fucked up they need longer for that accusation to stick. Or even make a case. You don't have to make a case with copyright infringement.

    ...and then all his transgressions will be thrown together into a kettle and stirred into a nice shit soup for all of us to eat. Can you see the headlines?

    Baby-raping, drug money launderer sentenced to 999 years for grand copyright theft
    Nobody would dare to speak up against the likes of SOPA again.

    --
    20 minutes into the future
  39. Scary, everyday it gets scarier! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they say people envy USA for their freedoms. USA is nothing more but a plutocracy run by companies that rule the day. There are more things to worry in the USA than about copyright issues that have been blown out of proportion. Yet people are being hunted, rights are being infringed, sites are being shut down and 'friendly' countries are being forced to implement new laws, all concerning control over people by both government and their master corporations. Not to talk about the what the politicians uneducated in the subject, say. Scary ignorant times.

  40. I called it by Arker · · Score: 1

    Right here. The system is so corrupt people dont even get outraged anymore.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  41. Trial by jury? You wish... by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    Since in America we have trial by jury

    Actually, you don't. Some 95% of criminal cases in America end with a plea bargain. This is one of the reasons that prosecutors throw a million charges at someone - so they can offer to drop most of those charges if only you'll save them the trouble of a trial. If you want to defend yourself, they throw not only the book, but the whole #$%@# library at you.

    Many, many innocent people have gone to jail because of these tactics.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  42. OR by Snaller · · Score: 1

    "This and much more was revealed in the arrest and their internal emails."

    Or its just made up "facts" like when the greedy industries make up numbers to describe how much they have "lost" to piracy

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  43. Probably because they are going down... by Lohrno · · Score: 1

    Most likely I think this is because MU is dead. No point in fighting for the dead...

  44. FreeCoder = Shill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guys it should be obvious to you - FreeCoder is a shill. He is the same person as InsightIn140Bytes.

    He is paid to post. He will use the karma he has just whored from a first post to shill in another.

    Please wake up and smell the coffee!

  45. dropped the lawsuit? by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

    More likely the DoJ has petitioned the court to dismiss it, which was done since MU's accounts are frozen (therefore they can't pay their lawyers).

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  46. Re:Kim Schmitz goes down and we should be glad for by metacell · · Score: 1

    At least Kim Schmitz / Kim Dotcom provides a useful service to his customers and creates jobs. Universal and the other media corporations just lobby the government to prevent competition, so they can continue to offer mediocre services at a high price.

  47. Corporate greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This whole thing with Megaupload is just more proof that the US government is run by a few, rich and powerful people. Many artists like their music to be shared, but it's near impossible to make it big without signing a contract with a company that slams people for doing so.

  48. Re:Kim Schmitz goes down and we should be glad for by bfandreas · · Score: 1

    Oh yes! There's also that episode of his pointless and sordid little life.
    Deal with him and you will get burned. I can't even imagine why so many people would want to jump to that assholes defense. What even astonished me is that he was free to do his usual shady thing again.
    The man is scum.

    --
    20 minutes into the future
  49. Re:Kim Schmitz goes down and we should be glad for by bfandreas · · Score: 1

    He did create 12 jobs with Megaupload. He cost a lot more jobs at letsbuyit.com(which might have worked 10 years later...just not then). His useful service also consisted paying people for sending punters his way. He ripped off a shareware download manager and claimed it was his own and didn't even think of scrubbing the about box.

    Job creation is NOT something you can credit that man for. And if I had used his "service" I'd wonder how he ripped me off. The man is a rat. He ratted on BBSes in the '90ies just to keep his lard arse out of jail. What kind of deal do you think he will make to escape prison this time?

    If you gave him an enema he'd shrivel to smurf size.

    --
    20 minutes into the future
  50. New Zeeland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So where was the Old land of Zees?

    1. Re:New Zeeland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So where was the Old land of Zees?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeland; delta of the Rhine, Schelde and Meuse; kinda opposite London, south of Holland, north of Brussels.
      NL zee = EN sea. Pronounce "zayland" in English.
      Folklore: inhabitants famous for their stinginess, province famous for its flatness and wetness and delicious sea-food

  51. What a Surprise! /. still doesn't grok IP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They committed criminal copyright infringement, even under NZ law. "Violating" the DMCA here just means they don't get safe harbor provisions. The only thing the DMCA actually criminalizes is circumvention (or enabling the circumvention) of DRM.

    Slashdot has been talking about the DMCA since 1998. You'd think people would finally grasp what it does.

  52. Re:Kim Schmitz goes down and we should be glad for by metacell · · Score: 1

    That may very well be true, but he made sure MegaUpload was a useful service to a lot of people, and paid people for providing content to it (both pirated and original). It wasn't just the 12 jobs in the company itself, it was also the artists who used MegaUpload to get paid for their music.

  53. Re:Kim Schmitz goes down and we should be glad for by initialE · · Score: 1

    You may hate him for the other things he has done, but letting him go down for something he did that is not clearly illegal is not doing yourself any favors. It sets precedence, and has far-reaching consequences that may end up biting you in the ass.

    --
    Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
  54. the strange case of the megaupload success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A different take-home lesson that can be learned from the megaupload case is that it is possible to make huge amounts of money by distributing content freely in a smart way.
    So why are the copyright holders still charging high prices and blocking copying and online sharing?
    What excuse do they still have for not adopting this new revenue model?