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.

9 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. A programmer arrested for © infringement? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Isn't a programmer an employee doing what he is requested to do - and anyway making programmes does not infringe copyright laws. It seems everyone has to pay a price in this megaupload story, in order to send a strong and threatening message.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So lets say, I work on an assembly line that builds a car, later used in an armed robbery. Does this mean my coworkers and I are accomplices in the robbery? No, we employees working on tasks assigned. Building a car does not make me an accomplice later in how the car was used.

      Why should programmers be any different?

    2. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nomm is also accused of watching at least one copy of a pirated TV-show.

      “On or about December 5, 2008, NOMM sent VAN DER KOLK an e-mail, which included a screenshot of NOMM’s account using Megavideo.com to watch an infringing episode of the copyrighted television show Chuck,” the indictment reads.

      This sounds like going after Al Capone for tax evasion. Actually, more like going after one of his henchmen for tax evasion. It's likely they only are after Dotcom, and are using this guy as leverage to get to him. I mean, seriously? Watching one pirated TV show? At this point, they're just throwing whatever they think can stick at him.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yea, that's not a defense to anything. If I'm an accountant, and my boss tells me to do the books, I'm still committing a felony if I do it, and actually could be committing a felony if I don't immediately report the request to the relevant authorities. TFA clearly states that the defendant knew that what his employers were asking him to do was illegal, and he did it anyway.

      Round one of "devil's advocate", now it's my turn.

      Suppose you're a sysadmin for the NSA and you discover they are committing a felony. Should you then report it to the relevant authorities?

  2. Re:Co-Conspirators? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From my understanding, the government will have to show that:
    A) That the purpose (or at least one purpose of the site) was to aid copyright infringement (or other illegal thing)
    B) That this guy knew about the purpose, even if he tried to pretend he didn't.

    I'm guessing that they won't have any problem convincing a jury of (A), and he emailed someone a screenshot of his computer watching a pirated video on MEGAVIDEO.COM, so I don't think they'll have much trouble with part (B), either.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Even if it did, I doubt Kim Dotcom said "hey, how'd you like to join a conspiracy to enable copyright infringement?"

    It's pretty clear from the internal emails released that that's basically what went on. Everyone there knew the service was being used for massive copyright infringement, and on some levels they actually encouraged it.

    The reason Kim Dotcom got off (or should get off) has to do with legal procedure and extradition treaties. Basically in their zeal to reel him in, the U.S. DoJ ignored its prior agreements with New Zealand, and pressured NZ police into taking actions which violated their own laws. That's why he's getting off, not because he didn't infringe copyright. Most people here hardly consider him a champion of their pet causes. They just happen to side with him in this case because they're opposed to Hollywood leveraging its political influence to commit illegal acts under the color of law enforcement.

  4. Re:Wait, I'm confused... by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't copyright infringement a civil offense?

    It's both. 17 USC 506 defines criminal copyright infringement:

    (a) Criminal Infringement.—
    (1) In general.— Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—
    (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
    (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
    (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

    The usual differentiation between criminal and civil infringement is 1A, for the purpose of commercial advantage of private financial gain. I think in this case, it had to do with the fact that MegaUpload made significant amounts of money through advertising associated with the pages on which they were sharing works under copyright.

  5. Not exactly how it works by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You plead guilty because in America we do jury trials, and juries are highly unpredictable. They often rule based on emotions and how they feel. If you're rich you buy a lawyer that's a smooth talker and can confuse the jury. Everyone else just plea bargins. Otherwise you're gambling that the jury will like you. If you lose the gamble than years of mandatory sentencing guidelines will put you away for decades.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  6. Re:Don't plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Same poster here...The police in NZ have lied their way through many court cases also.

    My bro wanted to be one. Talked to 3 senior cops on holiday who were speaking freely.

    They asked him why he wanted to be a cop.
    He spouted some naive BS about justice and honesty.

    They told him that he would be routinely be told to lie under oath by the brass and if he refused would be ostracized and bullied until he towed the line or quit.

    And if he could not handle that, he should not bother applying.

    He never bothered applying.