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.

34 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 al0ha · · Score: 3, Informative

      Interesting tact but that same kind of argument did not work for Dread Pirate Roberts either, once involved in a criminal conspiracy, which I am sure the Feds deem MegaUpload is, you are liable for all use of that which you created, even a program you coded if it was used for illicit purposes.

      --
      Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    2. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Better go arrest anyone who developed a web browser, BitTorrent client, email client/service then. All of those have been used to violate copyright.

    3. 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?

    4. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    5. 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.
    6. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by Ravaldy · · Score: 2

      There's a difference between working for a company that does something wrong without your knowledge and working for a company that is knowingly doing something that is "perceived" as illegal. I use perceived because there's still a fine line between enabling distribution and distribution of copyright material in some countries.

    7. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      "Just doing what you're hired to do" is no defense if what you were hired to do is illegal.

      Seems to work for the NSA and other three-letter agencies ...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    8. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by countach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    9. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by wed128 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why should programmers be any different?

      because computers.

    10. 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?

    11. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      Probably the part about "once involved in a criminal conspiracy". How exactly was the programmer involved? He wrote code that allowed users to upload and download files, the content of which the programmer could not possibly know or be responsible for?
      If the programmer is responsible, then so is the uploader and downloader's ISP, and the manufacturer of their switches and hubs and the operator of the telephone lines, etc, etc.
      The only way the programmer is responsible is if his boss said "we want you to write a program that violates copyright" and he did so.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    12. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by countach · · Score: 2

      Like many coders, I too have written code to upload files, but I'm damned if I know what files were uploaded or what their copyright status is.

      Je Suis Kim Dotcom.

    13. Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  2. Don't plead guilty by Sylak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Co-Conspirators? by NickFortune · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. 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."
    2. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      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.

      So, uh, guess I shouldn't get a drop working for Dropbox or Google, right? You do realize they let people share arbitrary files for download by anybody on the internet.

    3. Re:Co-Conspirators? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      After reading the other article, it seems he plead guilty to criminal copyright infringement. Here is the law itself.

      Having a legitimate use is not a justification by itself. Remember Limewire lost their court case because they were implying on its website that it could have illegal uses. Don't do that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. 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.

    5. Re:Co-Conspirators? by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bullshit. The courts only "agree" because he took a plea bargain. You can't actually take anything of value from that, esepcially in a country where the law is structured to allow major trumping up of charges if one refuses to take a deal.... even people who believe they are innocent often plead guilty in the face of that.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    6. Re:Co-Conspirators? by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This. One thing I have never understood this sequence:

      1. Cop searches car illegal.
      2. Court tosses out evidence.

      So far so good. No qualms there with the court....

      3. Cop is NOT charged with a crime, continues working

      That never made any sense. If the search was illegal, he didn't have the authority to do it...so it was....by very definition....outside the parameters of his job. He was NOT acting as a police officer if he was conducting an illegal search.

      In fact, if anything he was denying a person their civil rights under color of law....which is a felony. Why should he NOT be charged? Why should a prosecutor even be allowed to know about such an event and not bring up charges?

      And no, I am in now way saying such evidence should be used.... I understand fruit of a poisined treee, I just don't understand allowing trees to be poisoned and hoping nobody notices next time.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    7. Re:Co-Conspirators? by Shagg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whether your intended use is legitimate or illegitimate has nothing to do with it. If you piss off the copyright cartel, you're guilty. Whether or not you actually broke the law doesn't matter.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
  4. Stupidity at it's finest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Don't plead guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    He didn't.

    Before agreeing to leave to the US he was awaiting an extradition trial in a foreign country unable to leave and could not find work.

    They don't care about him. They want him to roll on the others and provide them with enough evidence to convince foreign courts to extradite everyone to the US where they will get a "fair and balanced" hearing and then be sentenced to decades in prison as an example of how corporate money buys "justice" as well as votes.

    It does not matter if the testimony of this person is a lie or even if it was extracted in a heavy handed way using everything but torture. All they need is the targets on US soil where justice means fuck all.

    This is primarily all about getting access to Dotcom. The NZ legal system is kept at arms length from politics for a reason and THIS is a great example of that reason.

    And it will still not be enough most likely once they fabricate the evidence...

  6. Re:Don't plead guilty by DrJimbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:Don't plead guilty by russotto · · Score: 3, Informative

    Unless you can afford to win, it's often more cost-effective to plead guilty than risk spending the rest of your life in a gulag.

    Yeah, but life with a felony conviction is like being in a gulag without the State even having to spend money on you.

  8. Wait, I'm confused... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't copyright infringement a civil offense?

    Democracy my ass.

    1. 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.

    2. Re:Wait, I'm confused... by chihowa · · Score: 2

      2. Not sure how that has anything to do with Democracy. We voted for the people that allowed the law, doesn't matter how influenced there were by the IP holders.

      No matter what the pretext is, if the laws passed by the government don't generally represent the will of the people then it's not a democracy.

      It's not the act of voting itself that makes a democracy. Shouldn't that be obvious? Everyone in North Korea voted for Kim Jong-un, so that's clearly a democracy, right?

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  9. Re:Don't plead guilty by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"
  10. Re:Don't plead guilty by TheCarp · · Score: 2

    ROTFL you mean an underpaid, overworked public defender who doesn't barely have time to actually represent you? yah that works real well. Public defeders are barely adequet for a plea bargain most of the time. Shit a friend of mine had one and when he sat down with her she hadn't even bothered to look at his case.

    This "justice system" is 99% scam jobs program

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  11. 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/
  12. 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.