I think you are correct, sir. It must be proven that they had intent for the criminal case to stand. From what I can tell, some of the email presented as evidence illustrates that to some degree. The grand jury seems to have thought so.
"If proven at trial, there's easily enough in the indictment to prove criminal copyright infringement many times over.
This sentence is confusing to me, but I paraphrase it thusly: "if the prosecution really has the evidence described in the indictment and this evidence is permitted at trial, then they have a slam-dunk case because they can prove criminal copyright infringement many times over." I could be reading it wrong. The sentence wants for lack of clarity.
If my interpretation of Grimmelmann is correct, I would expect that the Megaupload trial will be used to establish precedent for wide-ranging prosecution of similar firms that use these strategies. At this point in time, copyright law in the wild west of the internet is not clear. I expect the justice department, under fierce lobbying from entertainment-related industries, is hoping to establish some kind of order in the madness and this seems a likely starting point -- a really unlikeable guy blatantly making money off stuff for which he has no license. He's like the poster boy for unscrupulous douchebaggery.
They can also monitor which sites are most visited (thepiratebay.se, for example), and yet do nothing to block those sites.
Given that Time Warner owns so much content and that content companies like NBC are being bought by cable companies like Comcast, I suspect that these "ISPs" (they are so much more than just ISPs) will begin to develop a hearty appetite for packet inspection and other blocking technologies. And actually, some apparently do throttle P2P which is not exactly blocking it but not exactly net-neutral either.
P2P is different because there is no vital point at which the technology can be easily severed. I don't think it should ever be severed because it is beautiful technology. I speak with some ignorance here because I haven't used BitTorrent, but I expect P2P is also different because it's not really a commercial entity like Megaupload which exploits its traffic for the commercial gain of a few fatasses like Kim Dotcom.
To be liable, you need to intentionally help people distribute copyrighted works. And that's what I believe will be hard to prove. The DOJ's evidence seems to be mostly circumstantial.
Excellent point. I would point out that an indictment is handed down by a grand jury -- meaning that a jury was already formed and that jury decided that there was enough evidence that a trial was worthwhile.
Thanks for the link.
Money doesn't just disappear. It doesn't really matter if BMI, ASCAP or DotCom and his peers have the money. Whoever has the money will need services and goods and will pay for them.
Bullshit. ASCAP is a non-profit organization formed for the purpose of collecting and distributing royalties to artists. Megaupload is a for-profit organization which sells advertising on the back of ill-gotten content and funnels it all to a fatass German living in New Zealand who bought 12 Ferraris. My band's music was on that site. They didn't have our permission. They didn't pay us. As far as we were concerned, that money disappeared.
That was one of the things you were saying, but I still do not believe they made money off of copyrighted works.
We disagree on this matter. I find your position ludicrous. I believe the popularity of Megaupload was blatantly built on the appeal of copyrighted content and file sharing of non-infringing content was at best a side show.
While the road metaphor wears a little thin in this case, you are right that legally speaking, accomplices risk prosecution too. What's tricky is that AT&T and Comcast and other companies that offer internet connectivity do show movies and tv and msuic and do show ads and do make money from those ads but they also do have licensing agreements with the content creators. That's the big difference. Those companies are probably the single biggest source of income for record labels and tv and movie studios. HBO gets all of its money from cable company deals. In that sense, the ISPs do pay for the privilege and are therefore on very solid legal grounds because they have a strong symbiotic relationship with the content creators. A content company will be unlikely to press charges against their biggest customer.
Ack. That assessment is even more grim than I had expected. Code project is 500,000 lines of code -- migration painful.
Cheers! Thanks for the response.
It is certainly on a different scale -- in much the same way that Kim Dotcom's ill-gotten wealth is on an entirely different scale than the money I've made off my own music. People could get my band's music on Megaupload.com. I didn't want it there and couldn't do anything about it. Life is all about self interest.
I think this is a fairly interesting point. It's worth noting (in the USA at least) that ISPs and content companies are fast becoming the same thing through mergers and such -- I really don't like this idea. I know for a fact that AT&T and Comcast hand a lot of money not directly to the RIAA and MPAA but to the companies they represent. This money is for the licensing of content (shows, tvs, movies, music, etc.). I had an exchange a few years back with a guy who had proposed a surcharge on internet bills, an idea that I really don't like:
http://jaith.net/jimg/indexOLD.html
Well, if some serial killer happens to come and torture you for a few weeks, it doesn't matter to me. If anyone tries to investigate it or perhaps try and rescue you or your family, I would consider that a complete waste of taxpayer money. Sorry.
What are your arguments, exactly? You seem most often to resort to "well it doesn't matter to me." Let's see:
I believe the most idiotic legal action of them all was going after someone for this in the first place. A colossal waste of taxpayer money, I think.
That's really just an unsupported opinion which I don't share. And this, really, is why I mentioned those with an interest in the matter. If you are interested, you quite reasonably feel differently.
As far as I'm aware, he didn't take anything. And what he profited off of was ads and premium accounts, not copyrighted works.
Didn't "take" anything sort of misses the point. "Taking" something is not the crime in question. It's making money off other people's artistic works without a license.
All of this could be argued for any website. If you want to argue that he knew about it, that's a different matter.
That is precisely what I'm arguing. Read the indictment before you go running your mouth off.
I think it's ridiculous that some think you can't have ads simply because there might be copyrighted works involved.
This statement baffles me in that it belies an incredible simplicity that utterly fails to appreciate what this case is about. Personally, I don't want my music being used by a fatass german named Kim Dotcom to sell ads for hemorrhoid cream or cheeseburgers or whatever the fuck. Is that so wrong? In point of fact, the law provides remedies if someone chooses to use my art without my permission. That is what this case is about.
That's not what I said. I said that he profited off of ads and premium accounts. It isn't as if the copyrighted works were locked away and they were selling copies of them.
Your attitude on this point is particularly frustrating. Megaupload was in fact showing movies/tv/music to visitors who did not upload those songs themselves and making money by forcing them to watch advertisements while they did so. In point of fact, Megaupload was copying the bits and bytes of the song on their server to a datastream and delivering it to customers so yes it was in fact a copy of a copyrighted work. As the customers had not themselves uploaded this file (or any file with a matching hash), Megaupload was in fact distributing copyright-protected digital content for which they had no license. The indictment alleges that they did so knowingly and despite various DMCA takedown notices that could have uniquely identified the works in question. However strange or baffling this may seem to you, it is a violation of US law.
Whether it all gets proved or not is another matter. Whether law enforcement and the prosecution over-reached is a related matter, but possibly not essential to the case.
"nobody in the world"? Well, that's quite the stretch, isn't it? That still has nothing to do with what I said, anyway
While I'll admit it's a bit of a stretch that "nobody" would want to go (people do use file sharing services) I don't think in the case of Megaupload it is much of a stretch at all. Given the nature of Megaupload's promotional tactics it seems pretty clear to me that access to copyrighted content is a cornerstone of their business model -- and not just one's own content but any content. This is the essence of this case and why it matters.
That is your source? Did you even read it? Interestingly, it doesn't even bother to try and attribute the deaths to actual Jihad and instead gets most of its 270 million from the African Slave Trade. As I recall, the Dutch (an ostensibly Christian nation at the time) were the real slave traffickers. More importantly, the entire population of Africa in 1950 (according to UN estimates) was only 250 million. I seriously doubt there were even 100 million people in all of Africa 100 years earlier. And, if we are including death by slave trade on the Jihad side, we have to assume some death by "Christian" nations as well.
I glanced at the rest. I think it's pretty clear that there is an anti-islamic agenda going on at that particular site. Facts, on the other hand, seem conspicuously absent.
There's also evidence that MegaUpload knew of some individual cases where (external) users had uploaded pirated material and chose to do nothing about it, but that's not illegal in itself.
It is illegal -- or at least open to a civil suit -- if someone filed a DMCA. It is at best unethical. How is this any different than funnyjunk profiteering off the Oatmeal?
I fail to see the relevant difference. In both cases, you're facilitating piracy. Very few people need a 100 Mbit/s connection if they're not going to use it for pirating.
I consider this an intellectual failing on your part. There's a difference between knowingly enabling people to violate legal licenses and unknowingly transferring bits and bytes for someone. The entire case, as I understand it, hinges on proving that Kim Dotcom knowingly helped people to distribute copyrighted works using his system.
Yes but when Kim Dotcom says "yes, I know the TV show Dexter is on my site and we need to make it more easily accessible to everyone" that is something else and, depending on how the law is interpreted, possibly illegal. Here is some analysis that features actual lawyers: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload.ars
Please read the indictment (or at least one of the summaries linked above). The correspondence mentioned refers to copyrighted works that were not licensed and for which he had no rights (e.g., "Dexter" tv show).
I am familiar with the megaupload video and I have to wonder about the decisions made by the artists involved. They don't seem particularly bright to me and I'd be willing to bet they might have been unaware of any nefarious activity on the part of Megaupload. The video in itself, however embarassing for the RIAA or artists involved, doesn't mean anything to me except some (rich) money-grubbing dopes took a handout from someone who was taking money out of their other pocket. Then, their money-grubbing managers/agents/lawyers pulled a sneaky to take it down. Ugly all around.
I'm sure there are thousands of other artists large and small who a) wouldn't mind if a customer uploaded their own music to megaupload, possibly with the idea of sharing it with a few friends, who b) would not want Megaupload to make their songs/movies/tv available to the world at large and c) were not ever compensated despite the fact that Megaupload's CEO was making enough money to buy a dozen Ferraris.
It think it's reasonable to assume that the prosecutors do have emails where the Megaupload employees discuss these matters. If they lied about that, it's a career-ending mistake as it embarasses not just the prosecutor but the judge as well. Indictments are a bit fictional when it comes to the scope of the crime, but must contain at least some fact.
Well Kim DotCom has apparently done the right thing then. Made an offer for a deal. He'll get his money back, pay his lawyers, come back and face his trial. If he's found innocent then he'll walk away a rich man and probably resume his business with his freed assets.
If, on the other hand, he is found guilty of violating the law, he will not.
It doesn't really matter what their intentions are. Advertisements and premium accounts are their revenue source, not copyrighted works.
You conveniently ignore the fact that nobody in the world would want either without the illegal copyrighted content. funnyjunk.com also made money off ads by showing the Oatmeal.
This is a straw man. I have repeatedly stated that I do not care what the users go there for as I feel it is irrelevant.
You'd feel differently if you had a personal interest in the matter. Suppose it was naked pics of your daughter?
This will do absolutely zero good. Profiting off of it or not, it makes no difference. There are many other sites from which to download things, this trial costs a lot of money, the guy was in another country, and the matter is so petty (an unquantifiable loss of potential gain) that it's not even worth it.
Profiting off it makes all the difference. If Megaupload establishes a precedent, it will be easier to prosecute the others, depending on the degree to which they adhere to the laws as written. If there were no money in it, it wouldn't matter at all.
Actually it is a lot better for the common folk if the money is fragmented into a lot of small companies like Kim's, than concentrated in a few very big companies. Chances are it will circulate better and won't go to industrial plants in China.
What??? A small band (four guys who own a van) sometimes depends on revenues from their ASCAP or BMI check (which pays the artists royalties). For me, it has meant the difference between making rent and getting evicted on one occasion.
And you are generalizing the seizure of his company to the case at large. I would agree the seizure is heavy-handed and may well be found illegal, but I don't believe that should get in the way of prosecuting him. As I understand it, the seizure of his company would not be required to prosecute him. I guess we'll find out. On a personal note, I believe (with no evidence whatsoever) that the vast majority of files on MegaUpload were not legal.
As for society repulsing copyright, that is society's right. I'm anxious to see how society sorts it out and expect that courts will sluggishly fall in line with society who appears to be practicing some civil disobedience. Things are certainly changing. I'm anxious to see if the courts match my ideas of what copyright law should mean. I firmly believe Kim DotFatAss is every bit as wrong as funnyjunk.com when they stole the Oatmeal and monetized it.
Sorry, but you are insane. The MAFIAA does not represent the rights of anyone but big business'. The common work does not benefit from copyright at all. Most work in US is generated by small companies. Big companies outsource most of their jobs. And guess what, small companies are the mostly negatively affected by copyright issues.
It is you, sir, who are insane. The people who are directly represented by the MAFIAA, in turn, depend on and funnel money to tiny folks like you and I that provide small services: catering, craft services, drivers, etc. You obviously haven't the slightest inkling of how music of movies or TV get made.
The employees are either very rich artists, who don't really deserve all the money they already made, or common works that could work anywhere for basically the same amount of money they are payed.
Stop with YOUR fallacious arguments about how a rich asshole fat cat like Kim Dotcom is somehow a valid business man. He is not. Neither he nor anyone else is entitled to make money on the backs of content for which he has no rights.
One more thing, the effect Kim has over MAFIAA business is mostly irrelevant. He is not the cause but just a symptom of the majority's repulse of copyright. Copyright was something created by society for a purpose and corrupted along the way. It will be gone sooner or later as society repudiates it, and no force can prevent it.
It's more relevant than you'd like to admit. Society repulses copyright at their own peril. If society chooses to repudiate it, let it be legally done.
I definitely want the trial to happen. As anyone would, I wish that the legal outcome would enforce my perceptions of ethicality here. If he's innocent of profiteering (according to my personal definitions) then I hope they let him go even though I find him revolting. I don't know if he's guilty of intentionally making copyrighted works (to which he has no right) freely available on the internet for his own enrichment, but if he is, I hope he gets imprisoned and fined.
As for confiscating all his assets, I have not yet commented on that. I don't know he it jibes with the law and withold comment except to say HAHA FUCK HIM. Because he's a douche.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are correct, sir. It must be proven that they had intent for the criminal case to stand. From what I can tell, some of the email presented as evidence illustrates that to some degree. The grand jury seems to have thought so.
Perhaps the bargaining comes when the creditors are auctioning off their assets for the patent wars.
"If proven at trial, there's easily enough in the indictment to prove criminal copyright infringement many times over.
This sentence is confusing to me, but I paraphrase it thusly: "if the prosecution really has the evidence described in the indictment and this evidence is permitted at trial, then they have a slam-dunk case because they can prove criminal copyright infringement many times over." I could be reading it wrong. The sentence wants for lack of clarity. If my interpretation of Grimmelmann is correct, I would expect that the Megaupload trial will be used to establish precedent for wide-ranging prosecution of similar firms that use these strategies. At this point in time, copyright law in the wild west of the internet is not clear. I expect the justice department, under fierce lobbying from entertainment-related industries, is hoping to establish some kind of order in the madness and this seems a likely starting point -- a really unlikeable guy blatantly making money off stuff for which he has no license. He's like the poster boy for unscrupulous douchebaggery.
They can also monitor which sites are most visited (thepiratebay.se, for example), and yet do nothing to block those sites.
Given that Time Warner owns so much content and that content companies like NBC are being bought by cable companies like Comcast, I suspect that these "ISPs" (they are so much more than just ISPs) will begin to develop a hearty appetite for packet inspection and other blocking technologies. And actually, some apparently do throttle P2P which is not exactly blocking it but not exactly net-neutral either. P2P is different because there is no vital point at which the technology can be easily severed. I don't think it should ever be severed because it is beautiful technology. I speak with some ignorance here because I haven't used BitTorrent, but I expect P2P is also different because it's not really a commercial entity like Megaupload which exploits its traffic for the commercial gain of a few fatasses like Kim Dotcom.
To be liable, you need to intentionally help people distribute copyrighted works. And that's what I believe will be hard to prove. The DOJ's evidence seems to be mostly circumstantial.
Excellent point. I would point out that an indictment is handed down by a grand jury -- meaning that a jury was already formed and that jury decided that there was enough evidence that a trial was worthwhile. Thanks for the link.
Money doesn't just disappear. It doesn't really matter if BMI, ASCAP or DotCom and his peers have the money. Whoever has the money will need services and goods and will pay for them.
Bullshit. ASCAP is a non-profit organization formed for the purpose of collecting and distributing royalties to artists. Megaupload is a for-profit organization which sells advertising on the back of ill-gotten content and funnels it all to a fatass German living in New Zealand who bought 12 Ferraris. My band's music was on that site. They didn't have our permission. They didn't pay us. As far as we were concerned, that money disappeared.
You obviously have your own opinions about what is damning and what is not. Read it yourself: http://documents.latimes.com/justice-department-indictment-file-sharing-site-megaupload/
That was one of the things you were saying, but I still do not believe they made money off of copyrighted works.
We disagree on this matter. I find your position ludicrous. I believe the popularity of Megaupload was blatantly built on the appeal of copyrighted content and file sharing of non-infringing content was at best a side show.
While the road metaphor wears a little thin in this case, you are right that legally speaking, accomplices risk prosecution too. What's tricky is that AT&T and Comcast and other companies that offer internet connectivity do show movies and tv and msuic and do show ads and do make money from those ads but they also do have licensing agreements with the content creators. That's the big difference. Those companies are probably the single biggest source of income for record labels and tv and movie studios. HBO gets all of its money from cable company deals. In that sense, the ISPs do pay for the privilege and are therefore on very solid legal grounds because they have a strong symbiotic relationship with the content creators. A content company will be unlikely to press charges against their biggest customer.
Ack. That assessment is even more grim than I had expected. Code project is 500,000 lines of code -- migration painful. Cheers! Thanks for the response.
It is certainly on a different scale -- in much the same way that Kim Dotcom's ill-gotten wealth is on an entirely different scale than the money I've made off my own music. People could get my band's music on Megaupload.com. I didn't want it there and couldn't do anything about it. Life is all about self interest.
I think this is a fairly interesting point. It's worth noting (in the USA at least) that ISPs and content companies are fast becoming the same thing through mergers and such -- I really don't like this idea. I know for a fact that AT&T and Comcast hand a lot of money not directly to the RIAA and MPAA but to the companies they represent. This money is for the licensing of content (shows, tvs, movies, music, etc.). I had an exchange a few years back with a guy who had proposed a surcharge on internet bills, an idea that I really don't like: http://jaith.net/jimg/indexOLD.html
Well, if some serial killer happens to come and torture you for a few weeks, it doesn't matter to me. If anyone tries to investigate it or perhaps try and rescue you or your family, I would consider that a complete waste of taxpayer money. Sorry.
That wouldn't make my current arguments wrong.
What are your arguments, exactly? You seem most often to resort to "well it doesn't matter to me." Let's see:
I believe the most idiotic legal action of them all was going after someone for this in the first place. A colossal waste of taxpayer money, I think.
That's really just an unsupported opinion which I don't share. And this, really, is why I mentioned those with an interest in the matter. If you are interested, you quite reasonably feel differently.
As far as I'm aware, he didn't take anything. And what he profited off of was ads and premium accounts, not copyrighted works.
Didn't "take" anything sort of misses the point. "Taking" something is not the crime in question. It's making money off other people's artistic works without a license.
All of this could be argued for any website. If you want to argue that he knew about it, that's a different matter.
That is precisely what I'm arguing. Read the indictment before you go running your mouth off.
I think it's ridiculous that some think you can't have ads simply because there might be copyrighted works involved.
This statement baffles me in that it belies an incredible simplicity that utterly fails to appreciate what this case is about. Personally, I don't want my music being used by a fatass german named Kim Dotcom to sell ads for hemorrhoid cream or cheeseburgers or whatever the fuck. Is that so wrong? In point of fact, the law provides remedies if someone chooses to use my art without my permission. That is what this case is about.
That's not what I said. I said that he profited off of ads and premium accounts. It isn't as if the copyrighted works were locked away and they were selling copies of them.
Your attitude on this point is particularly frustrating. Megaupload was in fact showing movies/tv/music to visitors who did not upload those songs themselves and making money by forcing them to watch advertisements while they did so. In point of fact, Megaupload was copying the bits and bytes of the song on their server to a datastream and delivering it to customers so yes it was in fact a copy of a copyrighted work. As the customers had not themselves uploaded this file (or any file with a matching hash), Megaupload was in fact distributing copyright-protected digital content for which they had no license. The indictment alleges that they did so knowingly and despite various DMCA takedown notices that could have uniquely identified the works in question. However strange or baffling this may seem to you, it is a violation of US law. Whether it all gets proved or not is another matter. Whether law enforcement and the prosecution over-reached is a related matter, but possibly not essential to the case.
"nobody in the world"? Well, that's quite the stretch, isn't it? That still has nothing to do with what I said, anyway
While I'll admit it's a bit of a stretch that "nobody" would want to go (people do use file sharing services) I don't think in the case of Megaupload it is much of a stretch at all. Given the nature of Megaupload's promotional tactics it seems pretty clear to me that access to copyrighted content is a cornerstone of their business model -- and not just one's own content but any content. This is the essence of this case and why it matters.
That is your source? Did you even read it? Interestingly, it doesn't even bother to try and attribute the deaths to actual Jihad and instead gets most of its 270 million from the African Slave Trade. As I recall, the Dutch (an ostensibly Christian nation at the time) were the real slave traffickers. More importantly, the entire population of Africa in 1950 (according to UN estimates) was only 250 million. I seriously doubt there were even 100 million people in all of Africa 100 years earlier. And, if we are including death by slave trade on the Jihad side, we have to assume some death by "Christian" nations as well. I glanced at the rest. I think it's pretty clear that there is an anti-islamic agenda going on at that particular site. Facts, on the other hand, seem conspicuously absent.
There's also evidence that MegaUpload knew of some individual cases where (external) users had uploaded pirated material and chose to do nothing about it, but that's not illegal in itself.
It is illegal -- or at least open to a civil suit -- if someone filed a DMCA. It is at best unethical. How is this any different than funnyjunk profiteering off the Oatmeal?
I fail to see the relevant difference. In both cases, you're facilitating piracy. Very few people need a 100 Mbit/s connection if they're not going to use it for pirating.
I consider this an intellectual failing on your part. There's a difference between knowingly enabling people to violate legal licenses and unknowingly transferring bits and bytes for someone. The entire case, as I understand it, hinges on proving that Kim Dotcom knowingly helped people to distribute copyrighted works using his system.
Yes but when Kim Dotcom says "yes, I know the TV show Dexter is on my site and we need to make it more easily accessible to everyone" that is something else and, depending on how the law is interpreted, possibly illegal. Here is some analysis that features actual lawyers: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload.ars
Please read the indictment (or at least one of the summaries linked above). The correspondence mentioned refers to copyrighted works that were not licensed and for which he had no rights (e.g., "Dexter" tv show). I am familiar with the megaupload video and I have to wonder about the decisions made by the artists involved. They don't seem particularly bright to me and I'd be willing to bet they might have been unaware of any nefarious activity on the part of Megaupload. The video in itself, however embarassing for the RIAA or artists involved, doesn't mean anything to me except some (rich) money-grubbing dopes took a handout from someone who was taking money out of their other pocket. Then, their money-grubbing managers/agents/lawyers pulled a sneaky to take it down. Ugly all around. I'm sure there are thousands of other artists large and small who a) wouldn't mind if a customer uploaded their own music to megaupload, possibly with the idea of sharing it with a few friends, who b) would not want Megaupload to make their songs/movies/tv available to the world at large and c) were not ever compensated despite the fact that Megaupload's CEO was making enough money to buy a dozen Ferraris.
It think it's reasonable to assume that the prosecutors do have emails where the Megaupload employees discuss these matters. If they lied about that, it's a career-ending mistake as it embarasses not just the prosecutor but the judge as well. Indictments are a bit fictional when it comes to the scope of the crime, but must contain at least some fact.
Well Kim DotCom has apparently done the right thing then. Made an offer for a deal. He'll get his money back, pay his lawyers, come back and face his trial. If he's found innocent then he'll walk away a rich man and probably resume his business with his freed assets. If, on the other hand, he is found guilty of violating the law, he will not.
It doesn't really matter what their intentions are. Advertisements and premium accounts are their revenue source, not copyrighted works.
You conveniently ignore the fact that nobody in the world would want either without the illegal copyrighted content. funnyjunk.com also made money off ads by showing the Oatmeal.
This is a straw man. I have repeatedly stated that I do not care what the users go there for as I feel it is irrelevant.
You'd feel differently if you had a personal interest in the matter. Suppose it was naked pics of your daughter?
This will do absolutely zero good. Profiting off of it or not, it makes no difference. There are many other sites from which to download things, this trial costs a lot of money, the guy was in another country, and the matter is so petty (an unquantifiable loss of potential gain) that it's not even worth it.
Profiting off it makes all the difference. If Megaupload establishes a precedent, it will be easier to prosecute the others, depending on the degree to which they adhere to the laws as written. If there were no money in it, it wouldn't matter at all.
Actually it is a lot better for the common folk if the money is fragmented into a lot of small companies like Kim's, than concentrated in a few very big companies. Chances are it will circulate better and won't go to industrial plants in China.
What??? A small band (four guys who own a van) sometimes depends on revenues from their ASCAP or BMI check (which pays the artists royalties). For me, it has meant the difference between making rent and getting evicted on one occasion. And you are generalizing the seizure of his company to the case at large. I would agree the seizure is heavy-handed and may well be found illegal, but I don't believe that should get in the way of prosecuting him. As I understand it, the seizure of his company would not be required to prosecute him. I guess we'll find out. On a personal note, I believe (with no evidence whatsoever) that the vast majority of files on MegaUpload were not legal. As for society repulsing copyright, that is society's right. I'm anxious to see how society sorts it out and expect that courts will sluggishly fall in line with society who appears to be practicing some civil disobedience. Things are certainly changing. I'm anxious to see if the courts match my ideas of what copyright law should mean. I firmly believe Kim DotFatAss is every bit as wrong as funnyjunk.com when they stole the Oatmeal and monetized it.
No, he stole my stuff.
Sorry, but you are insane. The MAFIAA does not represent the rights of anyone but big business'. The common work does not benefit from copyright at all. Most work in US is generated by small companies. Big companies outsource most of their jobs. And guess what, small companies are the mostly negatively affected by copyright issues.
It is you, sir, who are insane. The people who are directly represented by the MAFIAA, in turn, depend on and funnel money to tiny folks like you and I that provide small services: catering, craft services, drivers, etc. You obviously haven't the slightest inkling of how music of movies or TV get made.
The employees are either very rich artists, who don't really deserve all the money they already made, or common works that could work anywhere for basically the same amount of money they are payed.
Stop with YOUR fallacious arguments about how a rich asshole fat cat like Kim Dotcom is somehow a valid business man. He is not. Neither he nor anyone else is entitled to make money on the backs of content for which he has no rights.
One more thing, the effect Kim has over MAFIAA business is mostly irrelevant. He is not the cause but just a symptom of the majority's repulse of copyright. Copyright was something created by society for a purpose and corrupted along the way. It will be gone sooner or later as society repudiates it, and no force can prevent it.
It's more relevant than you'd like to admit. Society repulses copyright at their own peril. If society chooses to repudiate it, let it be legally done.
I definitely want the trial to happen. As anyone would, I wish that the legal outcome would enforce my perceptions of ethicality here. If he's innocent of profiteering (according to my personal definitions) then I hope they let him go even though I find him revolting. I don't know if he's guilty of intentionally making copyrighted works (to which he has no right) freely available on the internet for his own enrichment, but if he is, I hope he gets imprisoned and fined. As for confiscating all his assets, I have not yet commented on that. I don't know he it jibes with the law and withold comment except to say HAHA FUCK HIM. Because he's a douche.