7 ms·

This seems like an awful lot of wasted resources for what is, at worst, a minor crime that existed in a legal grey area.

by c3534l 8y ago

sonnyblarney 8y ago
The crime was quite sizeable involving millions of dollars, a lot of employees etc.. It was not so much 'grey' as you can't facilitate the distribution of copyrighted stuff - and they were brazen about it. If it were some hacker or kid in a basement, then yes, it would be more nuanced. I respect the fact we still need ongoing discussion about the meaning of copyright beyond our era ... but this guy I think was breaking the law. I hope he doesn't get one of those 4000-year American style sentences, you know, where they give you '10 years' for each movie downloaded though ... that stuff the American prosecutors do is ridiculous.
- ojm 8y ago
  Should Dropbox and other cloud storage vendors also be shut down by the FBI?
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    The argument could be made for any web site. Dropbox does not specifically encourage, promote or support the sharing of licensed content, moreover, they work with authorities where there is a problem. And of course, their 'boxes' tend not to designed for widespread public use. They are not hiding out in a jurisdiction wherein they can evade legal issues. Obviously the definition for 'the line' that is crossed is going to be difficult, but it has to be somewhere. I don't have huge faith that the American legal system is going to do well on this issue for thus single case, however, it's going to have to work it out over time. As cases make it to the Supreme Court, hopefully there will be more clarity.
    - tinus_hn 8y ago
      You can’t really use Dropbox for that because they’ll disable access to files that cause too much bandwidth usage.
    - thomastjeffery 8y ago
      AFAIK, Megaupload did not promote our encourage sharing of licensed content. It just filled that niche better than any other site at the time. Kim Dotcom may have chosen New Zealand for to evade legal issues, but I see nothing wrong with that. If you don't agree with one nation's laws, that is a perfectly valid reason to live elsewhere. He didn't just run his business there, he lives there.
  - wp381640 8y ago
    If you want to know the difference between Dropbox and other DMCA protected services and Megaupload you should read the indictment[0] Some highlights: * The DMCA takedown tool didn't remove copyright content but rather only shortcode links to that content. The copyright content remained on the servers and uploaders could generate new links without re-uploading the content * On the other hand when child porn or terrorism material were reported, they were correctly removed * Megaupload knew and could see most of their referral traffic was from warez sites and talked about it internally * They incentivized copyright content uploaders with payments and poached them from other warez file lockers * They removed uploader names of copyright files from public pages to make it harder for investigators to track upload groups * Employees of Megaupload would share warez/music/movies in internal emails with each other by searching Megaupload (a tool only available internally) * In emails to uploaders that were part of their rewards program (where you get paid more the more your content is downloaded or viewed) they used scene release file sizes to describe reward steps * In large payments to uploaders they'd leave internal comments like "lots of popular DVD rips", "keygens", "loads of pdfs - looks like scanned magazines" etc. * Internal emails would ask about finding particular releases and ask someone to use the internal search to locate them - ex. “the sopranos is in French :((( fuck.. can u pls find me some again ?" * Internal emails openly talked about which warez linking sites they liked the most - problems with viewing copyright content, fulfilling requests for copyright content, etc. * They were booted from AdSense, other ad networks and multiple payment gateways/providers for knowingly provided paid access to copyright content There is a lot more there - a lot of these aren't one off incidents. I come away from reading the indictement wondering how Megaupload and Dotcom ever thought they were going to get away with what they were doing - their attempts at protecting themselves, including their legal arguments at establishing plausible deniability and discussing the conspiracy so openly on plaintext emails on a US based server, were amateurish [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/megaupload_indictment.pdf?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/meg...
    - giancarlostoro 8y ago
      Wow I had no idea about most of that, I always wondered why them and not RapidShare or some other host that I remember being common for warez file sharing back then.
  - XalvinX 8y ago
    And Youtube too?
- Theodores 8y ago
  > '10 years' for each movie downloaded ...made me chuckle. Can't say I like the guy but as a society we have learned a fair bit from making him an example thus far. With Netflix and Spotify people don't need to be downloading dodgy MP3 files and whatnot, we have moved on from that era. Prosecuting him is a bit like if the Police came after me now for routinely riding my bike down a one-way street ten years ago when the street has been subsequently updated to have a bike lane with the on-street parking removed and a Boris bike dock added. Yes I was wrong to have broken the law but things have changed. I think they should go fully petty on him, take all his stuff and insist that he shed a few pounds for his own health. Make the conditions of his parole dependent on him not being 'plus plus size'. I think MegaUpload and Napster were important in getting us to where we are now, which is not the wild west it was.
  - cyberpunk0 8y ago
    You're right we download high quality mp3 and videos, because as much as people prop up Netflix and Spotify they fall far short of having a quality library to browse, Spotify less so. Netflix tends to replace what quality shows with more and more junk each update
- realusername 8y ago
  > The crime was quite sizeable involving millions of dollars, a lot of employees etc.. It was not so much 'grey' as you can't facilitate the distribution of copyrighted stuff - and they were brazen about it. All the links to megaupload could be reported by copyright holders and taken down if I remember, I don't see any facilitation of piracy.
  - yebyen 8y ago
    You might be technically correct, but for a service that mostly facilitates piracy, I don't think you can safely argue that strict compliance with certain codes ... should confer Safe Harbor to MegaUpload? I mean that's technically exactly what the law says, isn't it? But I'm saying, by any other objective standard, MegaUpload was nothing but a great big den of facilitation of piracy. But if they followed the guidelines for Online Service Providers, why aren't they entitled to Safe Harbor?
    - thomastjeffery 8y ago
      > MegaUpload was nothing but a great big den of facilitation of piracy. That's how many rightsholders see it, but that isn't the only perspective. Megaupload promoted consolidation by promoting download count. If a file is being downloaded more often, it must be more unique. Consolidation is one of the best ways to save on data storage. When they received takedown requests, they didn't just delete user data; they removed the link. This way they could brag about their data retention: users don't want to use a site that deleted their data because of alleged copyright infringement. Those two features weren't really provided anywhere outside Megaupload and BitTorrent, so naturally Megaupload was very successful. The copyright infringement was done by users, not Megaupload. Megaupload was taken down, and is fighting court battles because people want to compel it - and similar services - to police and enforce copyright.
tjpnz 8y ago
Exactly and NZ citizens are left footing most of the bill. I actually blame the previous government because it's thanks to their policy making that he's here in the first place. Basically if you're rich enough you can buy your way into NZ bypassing a lot of the checks everyone else is subject to.

This seems like an awful lot of wasted resources for what is, at worst, a minor crime that existed in a legal grey area.

by c3534l 8y ago

This seems like an awful lot of wasted resources for what is, at worst, a minor crime that existed in a legal grey area.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

The crime was quite sizeable involving millions of dollars, a lot of employees etc.. It was not so much 'grey' as you can't facilitate the distribution of copyrighted stuff - and they were brazen about it. If it were some hacker or kid in a basement, then yes, it would be more nuanced. I respect the fact we still need ongoing discussion about the meaning of copyright beyond our era ... but this guy I think was breaking the law. I hope he doesn't get one of those 4000-year American style sentences, you know, where they give you '10 years' for each movie downloaded though ... that stuff the American prosecutors do is ridiculous.

ojm 8y ago
Should Dropbox and other cloud storage vendors also be shut down by the FBI?
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  The argument could be made for any web site. Dropbox does not specifically encourage, promote or support the sharing of licensed content, moreover, they work with authorities where there is a problem. And of course, their 'boxes' tend not to designed for widespread public use. They are not hiding out in a jurisdiction wherein they can evade legal issues. Obviously the definition for 'the line' that is crossed is going to be difficult, but it has to be somewhere. I don't have huge faith that the American legal system is going to do well on this issue for thus single case, however, it's going to have to work it out over time. As cases make it to the Supreme Court, hopefully there will be more clarity.
  - tinus_hn 8y ago
    You can’t really use Dropbox for that because they’ll disable access to files that cause too much bandwidth usage.
  - thomastjeffery 8y ago
    AFAIK, Megaupload did not promote our encourage sharing of licensed content. It just filled that niche better than any other site at the time. Kim Dotcom may have chosen New Zealand for to evade legal issues, but I see nothing wrong with that. If you don't agree with one nation's laws, that is a perfectly valid reason to live elsewhere. He didn't just run his business there, he lives there.
- wp381640 8y ago
  If you want to know the difference between Dropbox and other DMCA protected services and Megaupload you should read the indictment[0] Some highlights: * The DMCA takedown tool didn't remove copyright content but rather only shortcode links to that content. The copyright content remained on the servers and uploaders could generate new links without re-uploading the content * On the other hand when child porn or terrorism material were reported, they were correctly removed * Megaupload knew and could see most of their referral traffic was from warez sites and talked about it internally * They incentivized copyright content uploaders with payments and poached them from other warez file lockers * They removed uploader names of copyright files from public pages to make it harder for investigators to track upload groups * Employees of Megaupload would share warez/music/movies in internal emails with each other by searching Megaupload (a tool only available internally) * In emails to uploaders that were part of their rewards program (where you get paid more the more your content is downloaded or viewed) they used scene release file sizes to describe reward steps * In large payments to uploaders they'd leave internal comments like "lots of popular DVD rips", "keygens", "loads of pdfs - looks like scanned magazines" etc. * Internal emails would ask about finding particular releases and ask someone to use the internal search to locate them - ex. “the sopranos is in French :((( fuck.. can u pls find me some again ?" * Internal emails openly talked about which warez linking sites they liked the most - problems with viewing copyright content, fulfilling requests for copyright content, etc. * They were booted from AdSense, other ad networks and multiple payment gateways/providers for knowingly provided paid access to copyright content There is a lot more there - a lot of these aren't one off incidents. I come away from reading the indictement wondering how Megaupload and Dotcom ever thought they were going to get away with what they were doing - their attempts at protecting themselves, including their legal arguments at establishing plausible deniability and discussing the conspiracy so openly on plaintext emails on a US based server, were amateurish [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/megaupload_indictment.pdf?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/meg...
  - giancarlostoro 8y ago
    Wow I had no idea about most of that, I always wondered why them and not RapidShare or some other host that I remember being common for warez file sharing back then.
- XalvinX 8y ago
  And Youtube too?
Theodores 8y ago
> '10 years' for each movie downloaded ...made me chuckle. Can't say I like the guy but as a society we have learned a fair bit from making him an example thus far. With Netflix and Spotify people don't need to be downloading dodgy MP3 files and whatnot, we have moved on from that era. Prosecuting him is a bit like if the Police came after me now for routinely riding my bike down a one-way street ten years ago when the street has been subsequently updated to have a bike lane with the on-street parking removed and a Boris bike dock added. Yes I was wrong to have broken the law but things have changed. I think they should go fully petty on him, take all his stuff and insist that he shed a few pounds for his own health. Make the conditions of his parole dependent on him not being 'plus plus size'. I think MegaUpload and Napster were important in getting us to where we are now, which is not the wild west it was.
- cyberpunk0 8y ago
  You're right we download high quality mp3 and videos, because as much as people prop up Netflix and Spotify they fall far short of having a quality library to browse, Spotify less so. Netflix tends to replace what quality shows with more and more junk each update
realusername 8y ago
> The crime was quite sizeable involving millions of dollars, a lot of employees etc.. It was not so much 'grey' as you can't facilitate the distribution of copyrighted stuff - and they were brazen about it. All the links to megaupload could be reported by copyright holders and taken down if I remember, I don't see any facilitation of piracy.
- yebyen 8y ago
  You might be technically correct, but for a service that mostly facilitates piracy, I don't think you can safely argue that strict compliance with certain codes ... should confer Safe Harbor to MegaUpload? I mean that's technically exactly what the law says, isn't it? But I'm saying, by any other objective standard, MegaUpload was nothing but a great big den of facilitation of piracy. But if they followed the guidelines for Online Service Providers, why aren't they entitled to Safe Harbor?
  - thomastjeffery 8y ago
    > MegaUpload was nothing but a great big den of facilitation of piracy. That's how many rightsholders see it, but that isn't the only perspective. Megaupload promoted consolidation by promoting download count. If a file is being downloaded more often, it must be more unique. Consolidation is one of the best ways to save on data storage. When they received takedown requests, they didn't just delete user data; they removed the link. This way they could brag about their data retention: users don't want to use a site that deleted their data because of alleged copyright infringement. Those two features weren't really provided anywhere outside Megaupload and BitTorrent, so naturally Megaupload was very successful. The copyright infringement was done by users, not Megaupload. Megaupload was taken down, and is fighting court battles because people want to compel it - and similar services - to police and enforce copyright.

tjpnz 8y ago

Exactly and NZ citizens are left footing most of the bill. I actually blame the previous government because it's thanks to their policy making that he's here in the first place. Basically if you're rich enough you can buy your way into NZ bypassing a lot of the checks everyone else is subject to.