Or he pissed them because he was trying to go legit, hired his own artists, and was planning to release their music as legal downloads, putting him into direct competition with the traditional music companies.
I think you missed my point. AT&T and Comcast pay appropriate fees to content providers when they host files for consumer download.
So, you mean someone who hosts files is responsible for their legality, but not someone who transfers them?
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.
And the "incriminating private correspondence" is very vague and circumstantial. It basically shows that MegaUpload staff were aware of individual infringing users, but still rewarded them for the uploads which were legal (as far as the staff knew). The indictment is not to be taken as an impartial analysis; it's written to make as strong a case against MegaUpload as possible.
I don't doubt that Kim Dotcom was aware that most of the content on MegaUpload was illegal, and choose to do nothing about it. But to convict someone, you need actual evidence of something which is actually illegal.
If we give corrupt politicians and Wall Street bankers that benefit of the doubt, we must also give it to Kim Dotcom.
I was, sadly, not aware of what MegaUpload was until it was shut down, but I can think of a number of legal uses off the top of my head:
1. Here in Sweden, I can purchase a film or music album, rip it, and legally upload up it to a site such as MegaUpload (format shifting). I can then legally access it from anywhere I want, and legally share it with a close circle of friends (fair use).
2. If I want to transfer a file which is too large for email, I can upload it to a site such as MegaUpload and just email the link.
3. Some independent artists released their original music on MegaUpload, and earned money from it, since they got paid for each download.
Correct - in many countries it's legal to upload your legally purchased DVD, for example, to access it from different places, or to share it with a circle of close friends. In some countries, it's even legal to download material from anyone for private use. As far as we know, the copy of Dexter could have been legally uploaded and shared.
Up until this, it could be claimed to be negligence or willful ignorance (as it sounds like employees were merely making educated guesses, not legal deductions, about content) which at least possibly could be legally excused. This just makes it sound like Megaupload was specifically working with pirates to pirate a show.
And even that assumes Kim Dotcom was a cartoon buff who knew what Dexter was.
MegaUpload paid uploaders more the more their content was downloaded, without checking whether it was legal or not. They weren't encouraging pirated material specifically (and why should they -- they made just as much money if the material was legal).
There's one or a few internal messages where MegaUpload staff shows they're aware of individual infringing users, but choose to do nothing about it, and continue to pay them for the uploads that were not known to be infringing. It's a bit far-fetched to see this as a conspiracy to encourage people to upload pirated material.
In fact I believe the movie studios are stealing work from the public by lobbying to keep work on copyright for such a long time.
Especially when they extend copyright for works which have already been published. The rationale behind copyright is to encourage the production and publication of works, so when they extend copyright for already published works, it becomes blatantly obvious it's nnot about the public good, it's about enriching a few media companies which sit on copyright cash cows, such as Disney cartoons and Elvis Presley's or The Beatles' music.
Perhaps because MegaUpload had started to hire artists and was planning to release original music downloads, thus putting them into direct competition with the traditional music companies.
That would also explain why the music companies abused the DMCA system to remove MegaUpload's ad from YouTube, even though it contained no infringing material. (YouTube)
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.
What the internal correspondence actually shows is that a few of the staff used MegaUpload for their own personal pirating. There's no evidence that the leadership knew of or encouraged it.
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.
Oh, and I think the comparison between MegaUpload and an ISP is very apt. Both provide a neutral service with a variety of uses, but which people choose to use mainly for piracy. Very few people need a 100 Mbit/s connection if they're not going to pirate...
MegaUpload had a scheme where they paid more to uploaders the more their content was downloaded. They didn't make any distinction between legal or illegal material; they just choose not to check.
The DOJ got hold of an internal memo which showed they were aware of some individual uploaders that uploaded illegal material. And that's about it. The rest of the case is highly circumstantial, such as: MegaUpload has "facilitated" piracy by *not* providing a search feature on their site (which is an insane allegation because, 1: many people upload private files they only want to share with a few people, and 2: if they *had* provided a search feature, that could also be seen as evidence that they "facilitated" piracy.)
YouTube was established and still deals mostly in uploads shared by their creators. Their defense against charges of copyright infringement has been to remove infringing material as it is pointed out to them. Megaupload's response has been open defiance and taunting.
That's not what I read. When MegaUpload's received take-down requests from American companies, they've removed the infringing links on American servers, but let them remain on servers in other countries, which is entirely correct of them, since copyright laws are different in different countries.
For example, here in Sweden, I'm allowed to upload my legally purchased film or music album (format-shifting) and then share it with a close circle of friends. In some countries, it's legal to copy from anyone for private use. I'd be pretty annoyed if my (legal) copy of a film or album disappeared from the servers just because an American uploaded the same file illegally.
Needless to say, the American media companies didn't like this. They want American law to apply all over the world.
When several persons uploaded the same (identical) file, MegaUpload produced different links to the same copy of the file (de-duplication). When they received take-down requests, they only removed the links which were included in the take-down request, and let the file and the other links remain. Again, this is correct of them, since the same file may be uploaded illegally by some users and legally by others.
So basically, this guy bought a $24 million house by selling ad space and premium accounts to media that he neither made, nor owned, nor invested in, nor had a legal right (as dubious as those may be) to distribute? I get that you can't stop people from sharing, but anyone can see the negative repercussions of people making millions of dollars off of the transaction, when he is neither the sharer, the viewer, nor the author. He's a middleman and this money was ill-gotten; he's happy to play the victim to you guys but it's not about your right to copy, not remotely. It's about his right to make money off copying.
MegaUpload only provided a service to the pirates. It played the role of a neutral carrier, and the actual pirating was done by their customers.
Sure, 90% or more of everything on MegaUpload was probably pirated, and the owner(s) probably knew it. But if that makes them guilty, then anyone who earns money on BitTorrent clients is also guilty, since 90% or more of the content on BitTorrent is probably pirated. Same thing with Internet service providers who sell 100 Mbit connections to private persons -- almost nobody needs that kind of capacity if they don't download illegally.
I'll grant you that it's a bad idea to SAVE money in BitCoin, since the system is new and untested, and it may be cracked, or the government may decide to shut down the BitCoin banks and traders.
That's just the terms of service for their web site. It means if their site goes down and you lose money because you can't conduct your business, you can't sue them. They're still obligated to pay back your money if they lose it.
Traditional banks have similar terms for their web sites. For example, First American Bank:
FAB makes no, and disclaims all, representations or warranties of any kind, expressed or implied, as to the operation of the site or the information, content, materials, services or products referenced on or linked from this site, including, but not limited to, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, implied warranties arising from course of dealing or course of performance or warranties that the site or the server that makes it available will be free of viruses or other harmful components.
BitCoins are many people's imaginary currency, and nobody controls it, so it can't be artificially inflated or deflated (for example, if someone wants to create a temporary fix to unemployment).
In Western countries, politicians have relinquished power over the currency to a central bank for the very reason to avoid short-sighted and populist decisions.
Of course, the lack of control also means the BitCoin currency can't be artificially inflated or deflated to mitigate the effects of speculation or economic recess. It's an interesting experiment, but it remains to be seen if it'll work in the long run.
Not only that, but there are regulations in place to ensure protections.
What protections are there besides the government stepping in if the bank goes bankrupt?
It doesn't actually, since a terms of service for bitcoins can be legally binding in where it says there is no warranty of services. Banks cannot do that.
But no BitCoin bank actually puts that in their terms of service, since nobody would use their services if they did.
I agree with the deflation problem, and I have to admit I don't know how BitCoin will scale to high transaction volumes.
I don't think ease of use will be a problem in the long term. I think the wallet system is pretty intuitive (unlike, for example, public key encryption), and the clients will become even easier to use over time.
BitCoin doesn't have to be adopted by the average Joe to be significant to the economy, either. It's very attractive to use for buying and selling illegal goods, and for illegal currency transfers. I think that'll keep it alive, despite its other problems, and the legal uses of BitCoin will also benefit from it.
I've actually been relatively open-minded about Bitcoin in general, but this really does make them look like they're trying to cut everyone off and make off with the money. I mean, the combination of risk and technical know-how here really ought to result in a certain standard of paranoia.
I think it's plain incompetency, since they're still in business and trying to reimburse their customers. It's probably far more profitable for them to keep running the business and invest in security, than to run off with the money they've earned so far.
If they were trying to run off with people's savings, they'd take far more than $87 000...
I only see two long-term threats to BitCoin:
1. The BitCoin protocol itself is hacked so people can print unlimited money or steal other people's money directly. 2. It has deflation built in, which may cause people to hoard BitCoins, which in turn makes it unusable as an exchange medium.
I think the restoration fee is because they're a business and want to earn money. They get customers by offering the backup for free, so they have to charge for something else.
And testing your backups once a year for a whopping $25 is still helluva lot better than not having any backups at all for $0.
Slashdot Mirror
Or he pissed them because he was trying to go legit, hired his own artists, and was planning to release their music as legal downloads, putting him into direct competition with the traditional music companies.
I think you missed my point. AT&T and Comcast pay appropriate fees to content providers when they host files for consumer download.
So, you mean someone who hosts files is responsible for their legality, but not someone who transfers them?
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.
And the "incriminating private correspondence" is very vague and circumstantial. It basically shows that MegaUpload staff were aware of individual infringing users, but still rewarded them for the uploads which were legal (as far as the staff knew). The indictment is not to be taken as an impartial analysis; it's written to make as strong a case against MegaUpload as possible.
I don't doubt that Kim Dotcom was aware that most of the content on MegaUpload was illegal, and choose to do nothing about it. But to convict someone, you need actual evidence of something which is actually illegal.
If we give corrupt politicians and Wall Street bankers that benefit of the doubt, we must also give it to Kim Dotcom.
I was, sadly, not aware of what MegaUpload was until it was shut down, but I can think of a number of legal uses off the top of my head:
1. Here in Sweden, I can purchase a film or music album, rip it, and legally upload up it to a site such as MegaUpload (format shifting). I can then legally access it from anywhere I want, and legally share it with a close circle of friends (fair use).
2. If I want to transfer a file which is too large for email, I can upload it to a site such as MegaUpload and just email the link.
3. Some independent artists released their original music on MegaUpload, and earned money from it, since they got paid for each download.
Correct - in many countries it's legal to upload your legally purchased DVD, for example, to access it from different places, or to share it with a circle of close friends. In some countries, it's even legal to download material from anyone for private use. As far as we know, the copy of Dexter could have been legally uploaded and shared.
Up until this, it could be claimed to be negligence or willful ignorance (as it sounds like employees were merely making educated guesses, not legal deductions, about content) which at least possibly could be legally excused. This just makes it sound like Megaupload was specifically working with pirates to pirate a show.
And even that assumes Kim Dotcom was a cartoon buff who knew what Dexter was.
MegaUpload paid uploaders more the more their content was downloaded, without checking whether it was legal or not. They weren't encouraging pirated material specifically (and why should they -- they made just as much money if the material was legal).
There's one or a few internal messages where MegaUpload staff shows they're aware of individual infringing users, but choose to do nothing about it, and continue to pay them for the uploads that were not known to be infringing. It's a bit far-fetched to see this as a conspiracy to encourage people to upload pirated material.
In fact I believe the movie studios are stealing work from the public by lobbying to keep work on copyright for such a long time.
Especially when they extend copyright for works which have already been published. The rationale behind copyright is to encourage the production and publication of works, so when they extend copyright for already published works, it becomes blatantly obvious it's nnot about the public good, it's about enriching a few media companies which sit on copyright cash cows, such as Disney cartoons and Elvis Presley's or The Beatles' music.
Perhaps because MegaUpload had started to hire artists and was planning to release original music downloads, thus putting them into direct competition with the traditional music companies.
That would also explain why the music companies abused the DMCA system to remove MegaUpload's ad from YouTube, even though it contained no infringing material. (YouTube)
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.
What the internal correspondence actually shows is that a few of the staff used MegaUpload for their own personal pirating. There's no evidence that the leadership knew of or encouraged it.
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.
Oh, and I think the comparison between MegaUpload and an ISP is very apt. Both provide a neutral service with a variety of uses, but which people choose to use mainly for piracy. Very few people need a 100 Mbit/s connection if they're not going to pirate...
I guess Kim Dotcom is lucky that he resides in New Zealand, not the USA, then. As does his company.
MegaUpload had a scheme where they paid more to uploaders the more their content was downloaded. They didn't make any distinction between legal or illegal material; they just choose not to check.
The DOJ got hold of an internal memo which showed they were aware of some individual uploaders that uploaded illegal material. And that's about it. The rest of the case is highly circumstantial, such as: MegaUpload has "facilitated" piracy by *not* providing a search feature on their site (which is an insane allegation because, 1: many people upload private files they only want to share with a few people, and 2: if they *had* provided a search feature, that could also be seen as evidence that they "facilitated" piracy.)
YouTube was established and still deals mostly in uploads shared by their creators. Their defense against charges of copyright infringement has been to remove infringing material as it is pointed out to them. Megaupload's response has been open defiance and taunting.
That's not what I read. When MegaUpload's received take-down requests from American companies, they've removed the infringing links on American servers, but let them remain on servers in other countries, which is entirely correct of them, since copyright laws are different in different countries.
For example, here in Sweden, I'm allowed to upload my legally purchased film or music album (format-shifting) and then share it with a close circle of friends. In some countries, it's legal to copy from anyone for private use. I'd be pretty annoyed if my (legal) copy of a film or album disappeared from the servers just because an American uploaded the same file illegally.
Needless to say, the American media companies didn't like this. They want American law to apply all over the world.
When several persons uploaded the same (identical) file, MegaUpload produced different links to the same copy of the file (de-duplication). When they received take-down requests, they only removed the links which were included in the take-down request, and let the file and the other links remain. Again, this is correct of them, since the same file may be uploaded illegally by some users and legally by others.
So basically, this guy bought a $24 million house by selling ad space and premium accounts to media that he neither made, nor owned, nor invested in, nor had a legal right (as dubious as those may be) to distribute? I get that you can't stop people from sharing, but anyone can see the negative repercussions of people making millions of dollars off of the transaction, when he is neither the sharer, the viewer, nor the author. He's a middleman and this money was ill-gotten; he's happy to play the victim to you guys but it's not about your right to copy, not remotely. It's about his right to make money off copying.
MegaUpload only provided a service to the pirates. It played the role of a neutral carrier, and the actual pirating was done by their customers.
Sure, 90% or more of everything on MegaUpload was probably pirated, and the owner(s) probably knew it. But if that makes them guilty, then anyone who earns money on BitTorrent clients is also guilty, since 90% or more of the content on BitTorrent is probably pirated. Same thing with Internet service providers who sell 100 Mbit connections to private persons -- almost nobody needs that kind of capacity if they don't download illegally.
Why would conservatives feel slandered? There's nothing wrong with the 1800's.
I'll grant you that it's a bad idea to SAVE money in BitCoin, since the system is new and untested, and it may be cracked, or the government may decide to shut down the BitCoin banks and traders.
That's just the terms of service for their web site. It means if their site goes down and you lose money because you can't conduct your business, you can't sue them. They're still obligated to pay back your money if they lose it.
Traditional banks have similar terms for their web sites. For example, First American Bank:
FAB makes no, and disclaims all, representations or warranties of any kind, expressed or implied, as to the operation of the site or the information, content, materials, services or products referenced on or linked from this site, including, but not limited to, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, implied warranties arising from course of dealing or course of performance or warranties that the site or the server that makes it available will be free of viruses or other harmful components.
BitCoins are many people's imaginary currency, and nobody controls it, so it can't be artificially inflated or deflated (for example, if someone wants to create a temporary fix to unemployment).
In Western countries, politicians have relinquished power over the currency to a central bank for the very reason to avoid short-sighted and populist decisions.
Of course, the lack of control also means the BitCoin currency can't be artificially inflated or deflated to mitigate the effects of speculation or economic recess. It's an interesting experiment, but it remains to be seen if it'll work in the long run.
Life as an introverted, brooding pessimist with no friends or sense of humour is hell, but at least it won't last as long.
Not only that, but there are regulations in place to ensure protections.
What protections are there besides the government stepping in if the bank goes bankrupt?
It doesn't actually, since a terms of service for bitcoins can be legally binding in where it says there is no warranty of services. Banks cannot do that.
But no BitCoin bank actually puts that in their terms of service, since nobody would use their services if they did.
But the bank is covering the loss of $87 000, so government insurance wouldn't make any difference. The problem in this case is lacking security.
I agree with the deflation problem, and I have to admit I don't know how BitCoin will scale to high transaction volumes.
I don't think ease of use will be a problem in the long term. I think the wallet system is pretty intuitive (unlike, for example, public key encryption), and the clients will become even easier to use over time.
BitCoin doesn't have to be adopted by the average Joe to be significant to the economy, either. It's very attractive to use for buying and selling illegal goods, and for illegal currency transfers. I think that'll keep it alive, despite its other problems, and the legal uses of BitCoin will also benefit from it.
I've actually been relatively open-minded about Bitcoin in general, but this really does make them look like they're trying to cut everyone off and make off with the money. I mean, the combination of risk and technical know-how here really ought to result in a certain standard of paranoia.
I think it's plain incompetency, since they're still in business and trying to reimburse their customers. It's probably far more profitable for them to keep running the business and invest in security, than to run off with the money they've earned so far.
If they were trying to run off with people's savings, they'd take far more than $87 000...
I only see two long-term threats to BitCoin:
1. The BitCoin protocol itself is hacked so people can print unlimited money or steal other people's money directly.
2. It has deflation built in, which may cause people to hoard BitCoins, which in turn makes it unusable as an exchange medium.
I think the restoration fee is because they're a business and want to earn money. They get customers by offering the backup for free, so they have to charge for something else.
And testing your backups once a year for a whopping $25 is still helluva lot better than not having any backups at all for $0.