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.

Comments

A programmer arrested for © infringement?

[hcs_$reboot]

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.

Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement?

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement?

[Dutch Gun]

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.

Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement?

[wed128]

Why should programmers be any different?

because computers.

Re:A programmer arrested for © infringement?

[Okian Warrior]

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?

Don't plead guilty

[Sylak]

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.

Co-Conspirators?

[NickFortune]

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.

Re:Co-Conspirators?

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:Co-Conspirators?

[Solandri]

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.

Re:Co-Conspirators?

[TheCarp]

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.

Re:Co-Conspirators?

[Shagg]

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.

Re:Don't plead guilty

[DrJimbo]

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).

Wait, I'm confused...

[DoofusOfDeath]

Isn't copyright infringement a civil offense?

Democracy my ass.

Re:Don't plead guilty

[TheCarp]

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.

Not exactly how it works

[rsilvergun]

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.