5 ms·

Dotcom: "We've hit the jackpot"

150 points by weisser 14y ago

DuskStar 14y ago
If this is all the FBI had as part of it's indictment, I wish Dotcom luck in getting damages...
powertower 14y ago
> When the FBI applied to seize the Megaupload site in 2012, it said the company had failed to delete pirated content and cited the earlier search warrant against the continued existence of 36 of the same 39 files. 1. It's been 3 years, I'm sure the warrant in reference did not impel MU to keep those files after the case against NinjaVideo was done and over with. This probably goes all the way back to "how" MU stored files... 1 copy for 1000s of uploads (as long as the hash/finger-print matches). And each of those videos was uploaded over and over, and MU kept them around / did not block transfers. And are now trying to make it seem like they had no choice but to keep sharing those videos FOREVER, letting everyone and anyone upload them, and letting everyone and anyone download them. I'm sure MU/KimDotCom has the original order to preserve the evidence in the NinjaVideo case, why not share it with us and let the media see the details of what was asked of them? 2. Are those the ONLY files referenced in the indictment against MU? Probably not... All the FBI has to do is prove at least one of the files listed in the warrant is valid and was brought in good faith, and then show the judge/jury the other 97% of MU traffic revolved around sharing pirated content. That article and KimDotCom's story seems to leave a lot out.
- weisser 14y ago
  I'm curious about all of this too. I submitted the article because I want to see what others think about the new information. The 1 copy for 1000s of uploads may have some interesting implications.
  - gizmo686 14y ago
    My guess is that they could succsefully argue that the 1 for 1000s is simply a technical optimization.
  - mylittlepony 14y ago
    But there is no such thing as "infringing files", only persons can infringe the law. And you cannot know who has rights over a file and who doesn't. One file link gets reported, you check it, its uploader is clearly infringing the copyright, so you remove the link. But if you remove the file, you might be doing so even for the copyrights holder(s) and everyone with a license.
- blahedo 14y ago
  > All the FBI has to do is prove at least one of the files listed in the warrant is valid and was brought in good faith... Maybe, maybe not. If this is allowed to stand, it encourages a strategy of "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks." I'm pretty sure there have been cases where a warrant was thrown out because of bad-faith information, even if some of the reasons for the warrant were good. This is certainly, at the least, a nice PR moment for Mega.
  - brudgers 14y ago
    "Throw everything against the wall and see what sticks," has been Standard Operating Procedure for the FBI since its inception. Hence, Al Capone being prosecuted for income tax evasion.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      Al Capone did fail to pay income tax. How is that similar?
      - chadzawistowski 14y ago
        It's the one charge they could manage to stick him with. It feels a little ironic, considering all the other crimes he's known for.
- rhizome 14y ago
  If those three files are going to be enough to extradite him and assassinate his company, YouTube better be calling in some favors posthaste. https://www.google.com/search?q=complete+movie&tbm=vid https://www.google.com/search?q=complete+movie&tbm=vid
- sesqu 14y ago
  1) According to previous news of this, the FBI did not explicitly tell MU to preserve the files, they simply told MU not to interfere. After the NinjaVideo case was closed, MU emailed the FBI about what to do with the evidence, but received no reply.
flxmglrb 14y ago
Yeah? Well the FBI owns the casino. Good luck with that.
pebb 14y ago
We are all Kim Dotcom now.
- aluhut 14y ago
  ..because he ate us. I don't trust this guy and I never will. That is not the first time he becomes Super Kimble before he rips everybody off.
  - Ziomislaw 14y ago
    and the alternative is FBI/US, are you sure you want to trust them? personally I don't cate if the guy gets rich, if he makes life unpleasant to FBI/US
    - aluhut 14y ago
      As I said and history has shown, he will make money AND sell everybody out to FBI/US.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Nobody's asking you to trust him. Heck, I don't trust you.
sophiabatka464 14y ago
The Central Park Five 2012 is a very nice Documentary movie. In 1989, five black and Latino teenagers from Harlem were arrested and later convicted of raping a white woman in New York City’s Central Park. They spent between 6 and 13 years in prison before a serial rapist confessed that he alone had committed the crime http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/11/the-central-park-five-2012-hd-movie-free-download http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/11/the-central-park-five-201... http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/11/the-central-park-five-2012-hd-movie-free-download http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/11/the-central-park-five-201... http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/11/the-central-park-five-2012-hd-movie-free-download http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/11/the-central-park-five-201... http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/11/the-central-park-five-2012-hd-movie-free-download http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/11/the-central-park-five-201...
linuxhansl 14y ago
This is wrong on so many levels: * Why is the DHS tracking down copyright infringers?! * The FBI shuts down a site with hundred of thousands of user because of 36(!) infringing files * These files were ordered by the DHS not to be deleted * (From other articles) megaupload's users still do not have access to their data * (From other articles) the ISP running megaupload's servers is not allowed to shut them down (or repurpose them) and has to foot the bill. There's probably some other stuff going on that we do not know about, but this looks like a big clusterf*ck.
- Osiris 14y ago
  The FBI shuts down a site with hundred of thousands of user because of 36(!) infringing files This I've never understood. I thought the US upheld the principal of due process. Is it really possible to shut down a person's business without a civil or criminal conviction? What I find odd is that I'm not familiar with any cases outside of the Internet space where a business was shutdown during the process of an investigation. I'm sure there are examples somewhere, but it still seems wrong that the executive branch has the power to shut down a business without judicial review.
  - kristofferR 14y ago
    The US does not in any way uphold the principal of due process. I don't have time to write about it right now, but read up about civil forfeiture laws: http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/08/property-civil-forfeiture.html http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/08/property-civil-forfeiture.h...
- dangrossman 14y ago
  > Why is the DHS tracking down copyright infringers When DHS was established, a bunch of existing government agencies were rolled into it. One of them was Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is the federal agency with the most staff handling international IP law enforcement (traditionally, mostly counterfeiting). Copyright also falls under that category, so now DHS ends up being the one that investigates copyright infringement at the federal level.
epa 14y ago
The FBI does whatever it wants. The US government bends the law how it wants. I'm sure they will fabricate some sort of evidence to ensure this set back is not a set back.
ommunist 14y ago
It seems that the US government is illegally using the infringed copy of justice. I strongly believe that such organisation must delete itself and its illegal copies from the wetware of all abused customers.
Hupo 14y ago
I've seen many people bring up the fact that MegaUpload had the same file for multiple links and that they only took down links reported as infringing. Many people seem to come to the conclusion that this is automatically somehow representative of bad behavior, but I strongly disagree. Just because something is covered by copyright and is on MegaUpload, does not automatically make it infringing, even if some of the links to it might be. Consider that someone legally backs up his own files to MU and never shares links to them with anyone. Then someone else uploads the same content in an infringing manner. Should the first guy with his completely legal backups have his stuff deleted just because someone else did something infringing with the same files? He most certainly should not. Assuming that all links of the same file that was uploaded are automatically infringing is basically "guilty until proven innocent", and is very much not the way they should be treated. Hell, I have music and other copyrighted content perfectly legally backed up in the cloud myself, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to see it deleted just because someone else might have used the same service for infringing sharing of the same files. (and what cloud provider wouldn't want to optimize their service to only have one copy of each file in their back-end instead of wasting space with duplicates?) And, of course, this is very different to something like child porn, which is always illegal under US laws (where the stuff was hosted in case of MU). There can be no "non-infringing" use there, so it makes sense to delete all and every link to it. Not so much with just copyrighted content. And as we also know, deducing whether something is infringing or not isn't very clear cut either, like with Viacom issuing takedowns for Youtube videos its own employees had legitimately uploaded for marketing purposes.[1] [1] http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/18/youtube-viacom-secretly-uploading-content/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/18/youtube-viacom-secretly-upl... Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.
- DanBC 14y ago
  > Consider that someone legally backs up his own files to MU and never shares links to them with anyone. Then someone else uploads the same content in an infringing manner. Should the first guy with his completely legal backups have his stuff deleted just because someone else did something infringing with the same files? How likely is that though? I have no idea what hashing they used to compare files. But if I rip a CD track to MP3 and you rip a CD track to MP3 are we going to get files that have matching hashes? (Even if we use the same settings, and the same meta information.)

150 points by weisser 14y ago

If this is all the FBI had as part of it's indictment, I wish Dotcom luck in getting damages...

> When the FBI applied to seize the Megaupload site in 2012, it said the company had failed to delete pirated content and cited the earlier search warrant against the continued existence of 36 of the same 39 files. 1. It's been 3 years, I'm sure the warrant in reference did not impel MU to keep those files after the case against NinjaVideo was done and over with. This probably goes all the way back to "how" MU stored files... 1 copy for 1000s of uploads (as long as the hash/finger-print matches). And each of those videos was uploaded over and over, and MU kept them around / did not block transfers. And are now trying to make it seem like they had no choice but to keep sharing those videos FOREVER, letting everyone and anyone upload them, and letting everyone and anyone download them. I'm sure MU/KimDotCom has the original order to preserve the evidence in the NinjaVideo case, why not share it with us and let the media see the details of what was asked of them? 2. Are those the ONLY files referenced in the indictment against MU? Probably not... All the FBI has to do is prove at least one of the files listed in the warrant is valid and was brought in good faith, and then show the judge/jury the other 97% of MU traffic revolved around sharing pirated content. That article and KimDotCom's story seems to leave a lot out.

weisser 14y ago
I'm curious about all of this too. I submitted the article because I want to see what others think about the new information. The 1 copy for 1000s of uploads may have some interesting implications.
- gizmo686 14y ago
  My guess is that they could succsefully argue that the 1 for 1000s is simply a technical optimization.
- mylittlepony 14y ago
  But there is no such thing as "infringing files", only persons can infringe the law. And you cannot know who has rights over a file and who doesn't. One file link gets reported, you check it, its uploader is clearly infringing the copyright, so you remove the link. But if you remove the file, you might be doing so even for the copyrights holder(s) and everyone with a license.
blahedo 14y ago
> All the FBI has to do is prove at least one of the files listed in the warrant is valid and was brought in good faith... Maybe, maybe not. If this is allowed to stand, it encourages a strategy of "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks." I'm pretty sure there have been cases where a warrant was thrown out because of bad-faith information, even if some of the reasons for the warrant were good. This is certainly, at the least, a nice PR moment for Mega.
- brudgers 14y ago
  "Throw everything against the wall and see what sticks," has been Standard Operating Procedure for the FBI since its inception. Hence, Al Capone being prosecuted for income tax evasion.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Al Capone did fail to pay income tax. How is that similar?
    - chadzawistowski 14y ago
      It's the one charge they could manage to stick him with. It feels a little ironic, considering all the other crimes he's known for.
rhizome 14y ago
If those three files are going to be enough to extradite him and assassinate his company, YouTube better be calling in some favors posthaste. https://www.google.com/search?q=complete+movie&tbm=vid https://www.google.com/search?q=complete+movie&tbm=vid
sesqu 14y ago
1) According to previous news of this, the FBI did not explicitly tell MU to preserve the files, they simply told MU not to interfere. After the NinjaVideo case was closed, MU emailed the FBI about what to do with the evidence, but received no reply.

flxmglrb 14y ago

Yeah? Well the FBI owns the casino. Good luck with that.

pebb 14y ago

We are all Kim Dotcom now.

aluhut 14y ago
..because he ate us. I don't trust this guy and I never will. That is not the first time he becomes Super Kimble before he rips everybody off.
- Ziomislaw 14y ago
  and the alternative is FBI/US, are you sure you want to trust them? personally I don't cate if the guy gets rich, if he makes life unpleasant to FBI/US
  - aluhut 14y ago
    As I said and history has shown, he will make money AND sell everybody out to FBI/US.
- rhizome 14y ago
  Nobody's asking you to trust him. Heck, I don't trust you.

sophiabatka464 14y ago

The Central Park Five 2012 is a very nice Documentary movie. In 1989, five black and Latino teenagers from Harlem were arrested and later convicted of raping a white woman in New York City’s Central Park. They spent between 6 and 13 years in prison before a serial rapist confessed that he alone had committed the crime http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/11/the-central-park-five-2012-hd-movie-free-download http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/11/the-central-park-five-201... http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/11/the-central-park-five-2012-hd-movie-free-download http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/11/the-central-park-five-201... http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/11/the-central-park-five-2012-hd-movie-free-download http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/11/the-central-park-five-201... http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/11/the-central-park-five-2012-hd-movie-free-download http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/11/the-central-park-five-201...

linuxhansl 14y ago

This is wrong on so many levels: * Why is the DHS tracking down copyright infringers?! * The FBI shuts down a site with hundred of thousands of user because of 36(!) infringing files * These files were ordered by the DHS not to be deleted * (From other articles) megaupload's users still do not have access to their data * (From other articles) the ISP running megaupload's servers is not allowed to shut them down (or repurpose them) and has to foot the bill. There's probably some other stuff going on that we do not know about, but this looks like a big clusterf*ck.

Osiris 14y ago
The FBI shuts down a site with hundred of thousands of user because of 36(!) infringing files This I've never understood. I thought the US upheld the principal of due process. Is it really possible to shut down a person's business without a civil or criminal conviction? What I find odd is that I'm not familiar with any cases outside of the Internet space where a business was shutdown during the process of an investigation. I'm sure there are examples somewhere, but it still seems wrong that the executive branch has the power to shut down a business without judicial review.
- kristofferR 14y ago
  The US does not in any way uphold the principal of due process. I don't have time to write about it right now, but read up about civil forfeiture laws: http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/08/property-civil-forfeiture.html http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/08/property-civil-forfeiture.h...
dangrossman 14y ago
> Why is the DHS tracking down copyright infringers When DHS was established, a bunch of existing government agencies were rolled into it. One of them was Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is the federal agency with the most staff handling international IP law enforcement (traditionally, mostly counterfeiting). Copyright also falls under that category, so now DHS ends up being the one that investigates copyright infringement at the federal level.

epa 14y ago

The FBI does whatever it wants. The US government bends the law how it wants. I'm sure they will fabricate some sort of evidence to ensure this set back is not a set back.

ommunist 14y ago

It seems that the US government is illegally using the infringed copy of justice. I strongly believe that such organisation must delete itself and its illegal copies from the wetware of all abused customers.

Hupo 14y ago

I've seen many people bring up the fact that MegaUpload had the same file for multiple links and that they only took down links reported as infringing. Many people seem to come to the conclusion that this is automatically somehow representative of bad behavior, but I strongly disagree. Just because something is covered by copyright and is on MegaUpload, does not automatically make it infringing, even if some of the links to it might be. Consider that someone legally backs up his own files to MU and never shares links to them with anyone. Then someone else uploads the same content in an infringing manner. Should the first guy with his completely legal backups have his stuff deleted just because someone else did something infringing with the same files? He most certainly should not. Assuming that all links of the same file that was uploaded are automatically infringing is basically "guilty until proven innocent", and is very much not the way they should be treated. Hell, I have music and other copyrighted content perfectly legally backed up in the cloud myself, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to see it deleted just because someone else might have used the same service for infringing sharing of the same files. (and what cloud provider wouldn't want to optimize their service to only have one copy of each file in their back-end instead of wasting space with duplicates?) And, of course, this is very different to something like child porn, which is always illegal under US laws (where the stuff was hosted in case of MU). There can be no "non-infringing" use there, so it makes sense to delete all and every link to it. Not so much with just copyrighted content. And as we also know, deducing whether something is infringing or not isn't very clear cut either, like with Viacom issuing takedowns for Youtube videos its own employees had legitimately uploaded for marketing purposes.[1] [1] http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/18/youtube-viacom-secretly-uploading-content/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/18/youtube-viacom-secretly-upl... Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

DanBC 14y ago
> Consider that someone legally backs up his own files to MU and never shares links to them with anyone. Then someone else uploads the same content in an infringing manner. Should the first guy with his completely legal backups have his stuff deleted just because someone else did something infringing with the same files? How likely is that though? I have no idea what hashing they used to compare files. But if I rip a CD track to MP3 and you rip a CD track to MP3 are we going to get files that have matching hashes? (Even if we use the same settings, and the same meta information.)