Slashdot Mirror
MegaUpload Programmer Pleads Guilty, Gets a Year In Prison
An anonymous reader writes When MegaUpload was shut down a few years back, seven of the company's employees were indicted by the U.S. We heard a lot about Kim Dotcom's court proceedings, but not much about the others. A few days ago, we received word that programmer Andrus Nomm has been arrested in Virginia. This came as a surprise to everyone involved. MegaUpload attorney Ira Rothken said it was likely Nomm had made a deal with the Feds. Now, we know for sure: Nomm has pleaded guilty to felony copyright infringement and was sentenced to a year and a day in prison. In a statement, the Department of Justice said they will continue to pursue his co-conspirators.
I'd imagine he didn't have the money or patience to fight it and didn't want to set a precedence by losing in court.
So, someone hires you to work on a file sharing network. And this is conspiracy? I mean there was a time when "file sharing" was a legitimate thing to do and didn't automatically imply copyright infringement.
Even if it did, I doubt Kim Dotcom said "hey, how'd you like to join a conspiracy to enable copyright infringement?" I think it was more likely "I want to hire a database programmer"
I know it's kind of hip to say "well what do you expect?", but really this seems punitive vindictive and disproportionate.
I mean if this can happen when you write code in good faith for someone who used it for purposes later deemed illegal ... that kind of puts us all in the frame. I mean, corporate ethics being what they are and all that.
Damn.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Sure, blame the messenger instead of the sender. They may have create the service, but they aren't the ones who placed that copyrighted content there. They were even doing a relatively good job of removing copyrighted material.
By the logic of the US, all of Google employees should go to jail, considering how many copyrighted content there is on Youtube.
This is why nobody likes the US.
Better go arrest anyone who developed a web browser, BitTorrent client, email client/service then. All of those have been used to violate copyright.
Can be sure as shit that Kim isn't going to part with his money to defend him even if he didn't have his own case to worry about.
You are correct but not for the selfish reason you imply. Kim Dotcom's assets have been frozen so they were not available to defend this programmer. He is only being allowed money for living expenses and his own legal fees. You may hate Kim Dotcom but he is not stupid. It would have been in his own best interests to pay for this guy's defense (assuming that fact couldn't be use to malign the defendant).
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Funny, but given the massive scale of the criminal conspiracy which was perpetuated by the financial industry with re-packaging shitty debt ... I think it's mostly just a demonstration that "the law", and the consequences for breaking it, and entirely dependent on how much you have paid your congressman.
Wall street ripped off the world for trillions of dollars, and not a single person was charged. And yet they're all "too big to fail" and we couldn't possibly charge them with crimes. And certainly the rank and file were clearly just following company policy.
Executives oversee illegal activity all the time, but somehow the fact that they're executives means the "corporate veil" protects them.
I think it's a complete crock that employees of corporations can be charged depending on, literally, how much slush money one set of corporations has given government.
Essentially the *AAs have bought themselves a different set of laws, and the US government are more or less their enforcement arm.
It's hard not to see these kinds of prosecutions as more or less political show trials. Because, they essentially are.
It's not based on the principle of law, it's based on the political desire to make an example of someone. And that someone ran afoul of major campaign donors who have bought off the government.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Isn't copyright infringement a civil offense?
Democracy my ass.
Yes, technically. But if you're told "make a web site so people can upload stuff", and then for some esoteric reason, the feds decide that the uploading is criminal copyright conspiracy, that's hardly fair is it?
Why should programmers be any different?
because computers.
reminds me a lot of a guy who lives in NH. He was a pot dealer who was a member of a local political group that the feds wanted to keep tabs on. So what did they do? They offered a heroin dealer a wrist slap if he would help nail the pot dealer.
The pot dealer gets nabbed, and told he will be given a sweetheart deal if he spys on the policitcal group...he says no so they railroad the fuck out of him to make an example of what happens when you don't act like the sniveling peon you are.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
In theory, only if they instructed you to make it better for a bank robbery. If they said they wanted it fast and bullet proof, then no. If they presented that it was for a movie about bank robbers, then no.
In practice, these days they don't even bother to match the charges with your actions anymore. If they decide to get you they'll just charge you with everything until something sticks.