9 ms·

Wow. This is a really interesting situation; I can't agree with this action at all. 1) The site complied with DMCA regulations, and removed material when asked

• adestefan 15y ago
  If you read the actual press release and not the little WSJ blurb, then you'll see that DoJ's indicment said that MegaUpload actually did not comply with the DMCA safe harbor provisions and they did directly promote piracy. Of course, it's now up to them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is true. As for the not US citizens, it's covered via the Berne Convention: The laws of the country where the copyright is registered applies. They probably spell out extradition, too.
  • gte910h 15y ago
    >Of course, it's now up to them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is true. Federal prosecutors have a 95 conviction rate for trials that go to jury. Almost everyone plea bargains.
    • adestefan 15y ago
      When you have enough work to keep you busy all the time it's easy to pick out all the winners.
      • gte910h 15y ago
        Or, people do really believe when their government tells them a person is guilty.
        • adestefan 15y ago
          As someone who has sat on a Federal jury that is definitely not true. As a matter of fact there were people that were outright convinced against the government and were only swayed when it was shown to be a pretty solid open and shut case.
          • etherealG 15y ago
            thanks for this post, it helps to know from someone who's actually been in the situation. out of interest, are you at all involved in the law profession? how did they handle explaining complicated law language etc. to you as a juror?
            • adestefan 15y ago
              I've been around enough lawyers to get the gist of what they're doing, but am not involved in the profession. A really good friend is a corporate lawyer and my mom was a courthouse clerk when I was a kid. The case was pretty clear cut; you can't carry a weapon as a convicted felon and once you cross state lines you fall under Federal jurisdiction. The guy was caught going from MD to DC and back to MD with two pistols during a police chase. He tossed one out the window while in DC and had the other one was on him when he finally wrecked his car just inside MD. The judge explained the law before we deliberated and also explained that his prior conviction had no bearing on him being guilty of this crime. Two people on the jury were convinced that he was just being made an example by the Feds. At the time there was pretty bad gun running between MD and DC and the local MD district attorney had a hard time getting gun convictions. BTW. Federal jury duty sucks. It's not a one day deal like it is for most county juries. Instead you're listed for an entire month. I had to go in 4 times before I was on a jury.
    • anamax 15y ago
      > Almost everyone plea bargains. Yup, because the feds have amazing resources and the "law" is such that everyone is guilty of enough "crimes" to get 100 years. In other words, feds win a rigged game.
      • angersock 15y ago
        The system works! :)
      • mbreese 15y ago
        In other words, they don't bring cases that they can't win. If you are Federally indicted, it's because they have more than enough evidence to convict. They don't like to lose cases, so they don't bring cases that are risky.
        • learc83 15y ago
          Exactly, our local District Attorney had a 100% conviction rate as DA because he handed off anything he wasn't positive he could win to his Assistant DAs. Also many times the Fed can pick and choose what they prosecute more so than local prosecutors. Many Federal cases are instead of or in addition to local prosecution, so they aren't always completely necessary because the defendant will likely get local jail time anyway.
        • anamax 15y ago
          > In other words, they don't bring cases that they can't win. That's not what I wrote. I wrote that they can convict anyone because they have vastly more resources and everyone commits several felonies/day, that is, is guilty. Are you claiming that being able to win because of extra resources is good or is it the "everyone is a criminal" part that you like?
          • mbreese 15y ago
            I know that's not what you wrote... because you said that the system was rigged. However, there is another (more likely) explanation - that the Federal prosecutors only bring cases to trial that they are likely to win. Out of the pool of possible cases that they could bring to trial, they only bring a fraction of those to trial. But the ones that they do bring are the ones that they feel they are more likely to win. The reason that they can win or settle so many of their cases isn't their extra resources (which can be vast). It's that they are selective in the cases they choose. This ends up being self-reinforcing too - the more cases that they settle, the more the reputation that they have a strong case, which increases the likelihood that the next case will settle. Their extra resources come into play when evaluating a single case, but when looking at the population of possible cases, it is their selectivity that skews the percentages in their favor.
• qeorge 15y ago
  I don't disagree with you, but its hard to deny that MegaUpload was full of copyrighted material. I always got the impression they were complying with the law in the most minimal sense, but had no real interest in preventing copyrighted works from being hosted on their site. In some ways MegaUpload reminds me of YouTube. Its hard to deny that they got big by providing access to copyrighted material, but have since become a legitimate service for sharing legal works.
  • e1ven 15y ago
    That's the thing, right? "Complying in a minimal sense" is still complying. It shouldn't matter if their hearts were as dark as pitch. We can't legislate the hearts of men. We can only use their actions in determining their fate.
    • robryan 15y ago
      Depends about the wording of the law, can someone have 1 person who has the job of fulfilling the DMCA requests even though the workload would require say 10 people to respond in a reasonable amount of time?
      • waitwhat 15y ago
        DMCA takedowns must be "expeditious", which I don't believe has yet been clearly defined by the courts.
    • troll24601 15y ago
      If you bothered to read the indictment, you'd see they weren't complying and that they were actively facilitating.
• cbs 15y ago
  >From my perspective it looks like they were follow the letter of the law on all, or nearly all counts I used to see them as an agnostic upload bin, but I'm reading the indictment right now, and from my perspective, its certainly questionable. I'm going to copy some text from the indictment here. I can see legal defenses that they could try to counter these claims, but I don't want to get into that, I just want to put this out there. I may edit this later with more quotes, if I have time, I've only been skimming and only skimmed a few portions of the document. >The site complied with DMCA regulations, and removed material when asked When a file is being uploaded to Megaupload.com, the Conspiracy’s automated system calculates a unique identifier for the file (called a “MD5 hash”) that is generated using a mathematical algorithm. If, after the MD5 hash calculation, the system determines that the uploading file already exists on a server controlled by the Mega Conspiracy, Megaupload.com does not reproduce a second copy of the file on that server. Instead, the system provides a new and unique URL link to the new user that is pointed to the original file already present on the server. If there is more than one URL link to a file, then any attempt by the copyright holder to terminate access to the file using the Abuse Tool or other DMCA takedown request will fail because the additional access links will continue to be available On or about April 23, 2009, DOTCOM sent an e-mail message to VANDER KOLK, ORTMANN, and BENCKO in which he complained about the deletion of URL links in response to infringement notices from the copyright holders. In the message, DOTCOM stated that “I told you many times not to delete links that are reported in batches of thousands from insignificant sources. I would say that those infringement reports from MEXICO of “14,000” links would fall into that category. And the fact that we lost significant revenue because of it justifies my reaction.” On or about April 24, 2009, DOTCOM sent an e-mail to BENCKO,ORTMANN, and VAN DER KOLK indicating, “I remembered the steep drop of revenue at thesame time in 2008 and thought that this might have also been caused by careless mass link deletions. This made me very mad, especially because I told you that such mass deletions shouldbe prevented and sources checked much more carefully. I am sure such mass link deletions arealso contributing to a drop of revenue … In the future please do not delete thousands of links atones from a single source unless it comes from a major organization in the US.” On or about September 4, 2009, a representative of Warner BrothersEntertainment, Inc. (“Warner”) sent an e-mail to Megaupload.com, stating that Warner was “unable to remove links” to copyright-infringing content on Megaupload.com using the AbuseTool. In the e-mail, the Warner representative requested an increase in Warner’s removal limit,which is controlled by the Mega Conspiracy. On or about September 8, the representative sent afollow-up request, and on or about September 9, the representative sent another follow-uprequest. On or about September 10, ORTMANN sent an e-mail to DOTCOM, stating, “They arecurrently removing 2500 files per day - a cursory check indicates that it’s legit takedowns of content that they own appearing in public forums.” ORTMANN also stated, “We should complywith their request - we can afford to be cooperative at current growth levels.” DOTCOMresponded that the limit should be increased to 5,000 per day, but “not unlimited.” >2) The site did not directly promote piracy, which was Grokster decision. On or about February 13, 2007, ORTMANN sent an e-mail to VAN DERKOLK entitled “my concerns about the thumbnails table.” In the e-mail, ORTMANN asked VAN DER KOLK to create “a dummy lifetime premium user,” stating that “[t]his is very important to prevent the loss of source files due to expiration or abuse reports.” On or about October 25, 2008, VAN DER KOLK uploaded an infringingcopy of a copyrighted motion picture entitled “Taken 2008 DVDRip Repack [A Release LoungeH264 By Micky22].mp4” to Megaupload.com and e-mailed the URL link for the file to another individual. On or about October 25, 2009, VAN DER KOLK instructed a MegaConspiracy employee in German through e-mail how to alter the “featured” videos list onMegavideo.com and the Top 100 Megaupload.com list.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• troll24601 15y ago
  Your first two numbered points are not even close to true. If you bothered to read the indictment, you'd know this. Sadly, you (like most of HN) are raging without bothering to get any real information first.