You are totally ignoring the fact the indictment (which you probably haven't read) refers to emails sent by K.D. himself wherein he exposted his intentional desire to distribute copyrighted works. That's a bit different than setting up a cloud computing service, mostly in terms of it's unbelievable stupidity.
And what he profited off of was ads and premium accounts, not copyrighted works.
And why on earth would anyone visit the site and view the ads? Because Mr. Fatass posted pictures of his mans pubis up there? You can deny all you want that the value of Megaupload was the appeal of copyrighted content for which Megaupload had no rights at all but that's ludicrous and you should admit it. This is the essence of the trial. Stop being so obtuse.
I believe it's money well spent because you have a cynical dickhead like K.D. profiting off the hard work of people who worked very hard to create this content. They are not, as is so often claimed, rich fat cats. They are hairdressers and makeup artists and carpenters and special effects people and CGI artists and musicians. K.D. has no right to make a penny by making their creations available for the sole benefit of his company. It's wrong. That's why I believe it's money well spent.
I'm aware that assertions of the prosecution are not fact just like the assertions of the defense are not fact. I'm further aware that what is proven in a trial is not fact either [q.v. OJ Simpson trial]. Why try to predict the trial when we can just get it over with and at least get a better idea of the facts? K.Dotcom seems ready to do so.
The ridiculous part is the government wasting millions of dollars trying to enforce the rights of just a few very rich people
Where does it say that the MAFIAA represents only the interest of "a few very rich people"? The MAFIAA indirectly represents the interests of people who are not rich at all. They would include the various people who work on a large movie, extras, "baby" bands who are still struggling and people like Sly Stone who is reportedly homeless. And what's wrong with enforcing anyone's *rights*?
If the MAFIAA thinks its rights have been violated THEY should go and sue the violators (the users who uploaded the files). ONE BY ONE, and with their own resources
The MAFIAA itself doesn't have any rights. It acts as an interest group on behalf of its constituent memebers which, in turn, represent the artists with whom they have contracts. Why should each artist have sue anyone who distributes their songs for profit illegally? Do you have a problem with collective bargaining? Also, the laws as written -- at least in the US -- treat piracy as a criminal offense which is why the government is involved. If you disagree with piracy being criminalized, talk to your elected representatives to legislate differently. Also noteworthy is the fact that legislators in the United States passed the Digital Millenium Copyright Act which says that artists (and their representatives) *cannot* legally sue ISPs or online entities without first filing a takedown notice. This means Megaupload.com cannot be sued directly until it is proven that they have not honored a takedown notice. I'd be willing to bet that a civil action against Megaupload will follow the criminal action, much like the O.J. Simpson wrongful death suit followed the murder trial.
I am really tired of these people think they are entitled to their money by godly mandate and that the government should do any effort necessary to preserve it no matter the cost. If they can't prevail within the legal system, as everybody else, with their huge amount of resources, then maybe, just maybe they shouldn't anyway.
I'm reallly tired of people like Kim Dotcom who feel is it is their right to acquire millions of dollars on the backs of poor, hard-working artists when he doesn't actually create any music or video entertainment himself but somehow feels like it's OK for his company to collect and distribute digital copies of copyrighted works and earn money by letting the world download them and then blame the presence of such works on his customers.
Your perception that everyone who has an interest in a copyrighted work is a rich person is completely, utterly wrong. Look at the credits for a movie sometime. You might see a thousand people listed in the credits (e.g., carpenters, drivers, grip, makeup, costume, etc.). These people have an interest too. They might not have rights in the work, but they may be out of work when the movie doesn't make enough money. Personally, I'd rather those hardworking people make $15 an hour rather than have Kim Dotcom purchasing his tenth Ferrari.
If you really feel like producers of movies and music are out of line, I think a boycott would be the ethical thing to do. Expecting to enjoy the fruits of their labor for free is just plain scummy.
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.
Perhaps you should edify yourself. Read the indictment which asserts that he actively strove to make copyrighted works available not just to their "owners" but to the internet at large for the express purpose of making profit. Yes, it's only what the FBI alleges, but that appears to be precisely what the trial (it it happens) will be arguing. Not sure what you are talking about, this is what I'm talking about.
I think it's ridiculous that some think you can't have ads simply because there might be copyrighted works involved.
I think it's ridiculous that you think anyone really gives a fuck about Megaupload except to the extent that it could provide them with free access to copyrighted content they never paid for.
It's fine you believe it's a waste of time. I believe it's money well spent. Chances are it will set a precedent for other likely lawsuits. Law is all about precedent so I would hope the prosecutors have been careful in that regard.
So you believe Herr Fatass should be able to profit by intentionally taking other people's copyrighted work, actively making it available not just to its owners but to the world at large, and selling ads to the consumers without any license from the original copyright owners? I disagree.
As to whether it's a waste of taxpayer money or not, K.D.'s riches may or may not pay the taxpayers back. It all depends on the case.
Excellent post, sir.
Let me ask you a question: Do you think the Entity Framework and the.NET LINQ syntax are likely to be changed anytime soon? I'm working on a data migration from VB6 to.NET 4 and we are considering using Entity and LINQ but worry we'll just be going hook/line/sinker for another syntax that is doomed to change. Thoughts?
As I understand it, K.D. (I call him Herr Fatass) is one of seven that were indicted so they are in fact prosecuting other people. What they will likely do is try to get the little fish to rat on the big (fat) fish. Typical machiavellian legal stuff.
And, yes, we certainly can't just convict him with our opinions. Hopefully the stupid legal actions of law enforcement don't jeopardize the case (a distinct possibility I reckon). The case means a lot as it at least begins to define the boundaries of legal file sharing versus illegal file sharing. I'd love to see a trial happen.
What *might* happen if it goes to trial is that the prosecution might only be able to prove his complicity in a handful of situations -- and, given his wealth, he could certainly afford any associated fines. That is a distinct possibility.
It is certainly true that legal wrangling can rule out all kinds of potentially damning "evidence" for various reasons. That's hardly a reason to call the case a joke. Those emails may yet stand up in court. That arstechnica article I linked certainly suggests the case has legs.
I think you missed my point. AT&T and Comcast pay appropriate fees to content providers when they host files for consumer download. These other companies that host the copyrighted material do not. When some guy owns a warehouse that is selling stolen goods, you don't arrest the person who built the road. Likewise, if I own a storage warehouse, you don't arrest me when my customer with locker number #12345 has stolen goods in his locker.
The megaupload case hinges on the incriminating private correspondence of megaupload employees scheming to make copyrighted works available. Read the indictment.
You also have to read the indictment (and some decent legal analysis). The case hinges around private correspondence from the Megaupload guys in which they incriminate themselves by specifically organizing to make copyrighted works available. They are hardly disinterested couriers.
You should read the arstechnica article Iinked. It offers a different slant that you might find informative (and much more legally sound than our armchair opinions):
Because AT&T and Comcast actually pay money to companies when they host their copyrighted content. The cable companies and the content companies have a licensing arrangement. Megaupload has no such agreement and, according to the indictment, its employees actively worked to make copyrighted works freely available to people knowing full well they neither uploaded the file themself and knowing full well that the content creators did not want the content up there. You need to inform yourself about the case before spouting off.
Just out of curiosity, do support Matt Inman who writes the Oatmeal or funnyfunk.com which freeloaded off his comic strip and then tried to sue him for calling them out for it?
Read the indictment. The gov't claims to have evidence that he did in fact know about infringing works and actively worked to keep these works available. Thatis against the law -- even the DMCA.
Are you making that claim based on legal knowledge of the case or are you just talking out your ass? As I have read, the case is based on private emails of the indicted:
It quotes extensively from correspondence among the defendants, who work for Megaupload and its related sites. The correspondence, the indictment says, shows that the operators knew the site contained unauthorized content.
The indictment cites an e-mail from last February, for example, in which three members of the group discussed an article about how to stop the government from seizing domain names.
The Megaupload case is unusual, said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University, in that federal prosecutors obtained the private e-mails of Megaupload’s operators in an effort to show they were operating in bad faith.
“The government hopes to use their private words against them,” Mr. Kerr said. “This should scare the owners and operators of similar sites.”
And it hinges not on the evidence seized at the arrest in NZ but apparently on emails detailing the deliberate actions of the site's proprietors to make copyrighted content widely available not just to the customers who uploaded these files, but to any visitors to the site. If you read some discussion of real legal analysis, things don't look so rosy for fat old K. Dotcom.
As for the customers getting their files back, that's a different issue. It should be legal for me to store my music in the cloud.
I will say again that Islam is not the silliest. That would have to be Scientology. But we are getting off track and ignoring the fact that "silly" is a subjective impression. There is no absolute silliness scale.
And what topic am I dodging exactly? I think all religions are fairly silly but have tremendous respect for their social consequences which are both positive and negative. The reason for singling out the Crusades (both ancient and the Iraq invasion) was to refute the assertion that Christians are somehow better than Muslims today or ever. I was raised Christian but believe it's more important to recognize the reality that people are born into groups they did not choose and are only able to escape the superstitions of that group by becoming educated and recognizing what is actually going on in the world. We try to justify our wars in philosophical or political ways because we have that luxury. Where resources are more tight, people are less educated and act more primitively and savagely. Despite our luxury of resources and philosophical ponderings, we still kill lots of innocent people. How the fuck are we "better" than them?
Actually, no. My argument is that religious extremism is a very good way of whipping up hatred between different groups if you want them to fight each other. My preferred idea of "fighting" against religious extremism is to point out how stupid it is, not to kill people.
And you can in fact have non-religiously motivated warfare -- WWI and WWII were not religious in their conception. They were nationalistic.
Your typical Christian doesn't even aspire to be like Jesus.
That says it all to me really. To paraphrase, "your typical Christian doesn't even pay any attention to the New Testament."
My finding of "bad" verse in the Bible is hardly any more silly than assuming that Christians are better people than Muslims. I'd be willing to bet that wars initiated by predominantly Christian nations have killed far, far more people than wars initiated by Islamic nations. Let's consider a few: * The Crusades * The Napoleonic Wars * The United States Civil War * World War I * World War II
Nice xenophobic oversimplification. Muslim Arabs advanced mathematics, surgery, art, astronomy, etc. during the Islamic Golden Age. They recently built the world's tallest building (or rather they paid migrant workers to build it). They have a ski slope in a mall in the middle of the desert.
Slashdot Mirror
You are totally ignoring the fact the indictment (which you probably haven't read) refers to emails sent by K.D. himself wherein he exposted his intentional desire to distribute copyrighted works. That's a bit different than setting up a cloud computing service, mostly in terms of it's unbelievable stupidity.
And what he profited off of was ads and premium accounts, not copyrighted works.
And why on earth would anyone visit the site and view the ads? Because Mr. Fatass posted pictures of his mans pubis up there? You can deny all you want that the value of Megaupload was the appeal of copyrighted content for which Megaupload had no rights at all but that's ludicrous and you should admit it. This is the essence of the trial. Stop being so obtuse. I believe it's money well spent because you have a cynical dickhead like K.D. profiting off the hard work of people who worked very hard to create this content. They are not, as is so often claimed, rich fat cats. They are hairdressers and makeup artists and carpenters and special effects people and CGI artists and musicians. K.D. has no right to make a penny by making their creations available for the sole benefit of his company. It's wrong. That's why I believe it's money well spent.
I'm aware that assertions of the prosecution are not fact just like the assertions of the defense are not fact. I'm further aware that what is proven in a trial is not fact either [q.v. OJ Simpson trial]. Why try to predict the trial when we can just get it over with and at least get a better idea of the facts? K.Dotcom seems ready to do so.
The ridiculous part is the government wasting millions of dollars trying to enforce the rights of just a few very rich people
Where does it say that the MAFIAA represents only the interest of "a few very rich people"? The MAFIAA indirectly represents the interests of people who are not rich at all. They would include the various people who work on a large movie, extras, "baby" bands who are still struggling and people like Sly Stone who is reportedly homeless. And what's wrong with enforcing anyone's *rights*?
If the MAFIAA thinks its rights have been violated THEY should go and sue the violators (the users who uploaded the files). ONE BY ONE, and with their own resources
The MAFIAA itself doesn't have any rights. It acts as an interest group on behalf of its constituent memebers which, in turn, represent the artists with whom they have contracts. Why should each artist have sue anyone who distributes their songs for profit illegally? Do you have a problem with collective bargaining? Also, the laws as written -- at least in the US -- treat piracy as a criminal offense which is why the government is involved. If you disagree with piracy being criminalized, talk to your elected representatives to legislate differently. Also noteworthy is the fact that legislators in the United States passed the Digital Millenium Copyright Act which says that artists (and their representatives) *cannot* legally sue ISPs or online entities without first filing a takedown notice. This means Megaupload.com cannot be sued directly until it is proven that they have not honored a takedown notice. I'd be willing to bet that a civil action against Megaupload will follow the criminal action, much like the O.J. Simpson wrongful death suit followed the murder trial.
I am really tired of these people think they are entitled to their money by godly mandate and that the government should do any effort necessary to preserve it no matter the cost. If they can't prevail within the legal system, as everybody else, with their huge amount of resources, then maybe, just maybe they shouldn't anyway.
I'm reallly tired of people like Kim Dotcom who feel is it is their right to acquire millions of dollars on the backs of poor, hard-working artists when he doesn't actually create any music or video entertainment himself but somehow feels like it's OK for his company to collect and distribute digital copies of copyrighted works and earn money by letting the world download them and then blame the presence of such works on his customers. Your perception that everyone who has an interest in a copyrighted work is a rich person is completely, utterly wrong. Look at the credits for a movie sometime. You might see a thousand people listed in the credits (e.g., carpenters, drivers, grip, makeup, costume, etc.). These people have an interest too. They might not have rights in the work, but they may be out of work when the movie doesn't make enough money. Personally, I'd rather those hardworking people make $15 an hour rather than have Kim Dotcom purchasing his tenth Ferrari. If you really feel like producers of movies and music are out of line, I think a boycott would be the ethical thing to do. Expecting to enjoy the fruits of their labor for free is just plain scummy.
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.
Perhaps you should edify yourself. Read the indictment which asserts that he actively strove to make copyrighted works available not just to their "owners" but to the internet at large for the express purpose of making profit. Yes, it's only what the FBI alleges, but that appears to be precisely what the trial (it it happens) will be arguing. Not sure what you are talking about, this is what I'm talking about.
I think it's ridiculous that some think you can't have ads simply because there might be copyrighted works involved.
I think it's ridiculous that you think anyone really gives a fuck about Megaupload except to the extent that it could provide them with free access to copyrighted content they never paid for. It's fine you believe it's a waste of time. I believe it's money well spent. Chances are it will set a precedent for other likely lawsuits. Law is all about precedent so I would hope the prosecutors have been careful in that regard.
So you believe Herr Fatass should be able to profit by intentionally taking other people's copyrighted work, actively making it available not just to its owners but to the world at large, and selling ads to the consumers without any license from the original copyright owners? I disagree. As to whether it's a waste of taxpayer money or not, K.D.'s riches may or may not pay the taxpayers back. It all depends on the case.
Excellent post, sir. Let me ask you a question: Do you think the Entity Framework and the .NET LINQ syntax are likely to be changed anytime soon? I'm working on a data migration from VB6 to .NET 4 and we are considering using Entity and LINQ but worry we'll just be going hook/line/sinker for another syntax that is doomed to change. Thoughts?
As I understand it, K.D. (I call him Herr Fatass) is one of seven that were indicted so they are in fact prosecuting other people. What they will likely do is try to get the little fish to rat on the big (fat) fish. Typical machiavellian legal stuff. And, yes, we certainly can't just convict him with our opinions. Hopefully the stupid legal actions of law enforcement don't jeopardize the case (a distinct possibility I reckon). The case means a lot as it at least begins to define the boundaries of legal file sharing versus illegal file sharing. I'd love to see a trial happen.
What *might* happen if it goes to trial is that the prosecution might only be able to prove his complicity in a handful of situations -- and, given his wealth, he could certainly afford any associated fines. That is a distinct possibility.
It is certainly true that legal wrangling can rule out all kinds of potentially damning "evidence" for various reasons. That's hardly a reason to call the case a joke. Those emails may yet stand up in court. That arstechnica article I linked certainly suggests the case has legs.
I think you missed my point. AT&T and Comcast pay appropriate fees to content providers when they host files for consumer download. These other companies that host the copyrighted material do not. When some guy owns a warehouse that is selling stolen goods, you don't arrest the person who built the road. Likewise, if I own a storage warehouse, you don't arrest me when my customer with locker number #12345 has stolen goods in his locker.
The megaupload case hinges on the incriminating private correspondence of megaupload employees scheming to make copyrighted works available. Read the indictment.
You also have to read the indictment (and some decent legal analysis). The case hinges around private correspondence from the Megaupload guys in which they incriminate themselves by specifically organizing to make copyrighted works available. They are hardly disinterested couriers.
You should read the arstechnica article Iinked. It offers a different slant that you might find informative (and much more legally sound than our armchair opinions):
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/legal-experts-say-megaupload-faces-long-odds/
Mod parent up.
Because AT&T and Comcast actually pay money to companies when they host their copyrighted content. The cable companies and the content companies have a licensing arrangement. Megaupload has no such agreement and, according to the indictment, its employees actively worked to make copyrighted works freely available to people knowing full well they neither uploaded the file themself and knowing full well that the content creators did not want the content up there. You need to inform yourself about the case before spouting off.
Just out of curiosity, do support Matt Inman who writes the Oatmeal or funnyfunk.com which freeloaded off his comic strip and then tried to sue him for calling them out for it?
Read the indictment. It claims he did know and that his emails prove he know and that he actively worked to make copyrighted works available.
Read the indictment. The gov't claims to have evidence that he did in fact know about infringing works and actively worked to keep these works available. Thatis against the law -- even the DMCA.
Not when it's deemed by a court to violate some law somewhere.
Are you making that claim based on legal knowledge of the case or are you just talking out your ass? As I have read, the case is based on private emails of the indicted:
It quotes extensively from correspondence among the defendants, who work for Megaupload and its related sites. The correspondence, the indictment says, shows that the operators knew the site contained unauthorized content.
The indictment cites an e-mail from last February, for example, in which three members of the group discussed an article about how to stop the government from seizing domain names.
The Megaupload case is unusual, said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University, in that federal prosecutors obtained the private e-mails of Megaupload’s operators in an effort to show they were operating in bad faith.
“The government hopes to use their private words against them,” Mr. Kerr said. “This should scare the owners and operators of similar sites.”
And it hinges not on the evidence seized at the arrest in NZ but apparently on emails detailing the deliberate actions of the site's proprietors to make copyrighted content widely available not just to the customers who uploaded these files, but to any visitors to the site. If you read some discussion of real legal analysis, things don't look so rosy for fat old K. Dotcom.
As for the customers getting their files back, that's a different issue. It should be legal for me to store my music in the cloud.
I hope fat old K. Dotcom chokes on his bratwurst.
I was thinking more about the five stages of grief (Kübler-Ross model), the first of which is denial:
1) Denial
2) Anger
3) Bargaining
4) Depression
5) Acceptance
I'd put old Steve Balls somewhere between #1 and #2.
I will say again that Islam is not the silliest. That would have to be Scientology. But we are getting off track and ignoring the fact that "silly" is a subjective impression. There is no absolute silliness scale.
And what topic am I dodging exactly? I think all religions are fairly silly but have tremendous respect for their social consequences which are both positive and negative. The reason for singling out the Crusades (both ancient and the Iraq invasion) was to refute the assertion that Christians are somehow better than Muslims today or ever. I was raised Christian but believe it's more important to recognize the reality that people are born into groups they did not choose and are only able to escape the superstitions of that group by becoming educated and recognizing what is actually going on in the world. We try to justify our wars in philosophical or political ways because we have that luxury. Where resources are more tight, people are less educated and act more primitively and savagely. Despite our luxury of resources and philosophical ponderings, we still kill lots of innocent people. How the fuck are we "better" than them?
Actually, no. My argument is that religious extremism is a very good way of whipping up hatred between different groups if you want them to fight each other. My preferred idea of "fighting" against religious extremism is to point out how stupid it is, not to kill people.
And you can in fact have non-religiously motivated warfare -- WWI and WWII were not religious in their conception. They were nationalistic.
Your typical Christian doesn't even aspire to be like Jesus.
That says it all to me really. To paraphrase, "your typical Christian doesn't even pay any attention to the New Testament."
My finding of "bad" verse in the Bible is hardly any more silly than assuming that Christians are better people than Muslims. I'd be willing to bet that wars initiated by predominantly Christian nations have killed far, far more people than wars initiated by Islamic nations. Let's consider a few:
* The Crusades
* The Napoleonic Wars
* The United States Civil War
* World War I
* World War II
Nice xenophobic oversimplification. Muslim Arabs advanced mathematics, surgery, art, astronomy, etc. during the Islamic Golden Age. They recently built the world's tallest building (or rather they paid migrant workers to build it). They have a ski slope in a mall in the middle of the desert.
ER, I meant Hebrews taking the land of *Israel* from the prior inhabitants after leaving Egypt.