4 ms·

> A big part of megaupload's business was infringing property rights granted under U.S. law to Americans. If your actions are going to effect people in the U.S.

> A big part of megaupload's business was infringing property rights granted under U.S. law to Americans. If your actions are going to effect people in the U.S., obviously you should have to follow U.S. law. That is a poor argument. North Korea could decide to assign patent rights to "online shopping" to one of its citizens. This citizen now has an intellectual property right that every ecommerce website is infringing. Every site owner is failing to pay legally required royalties, depriving this citizen of those funds, using millions of copies of his invention without authorization. According to your rule of thumb, all these website operators should be required to follow NK law, so it'd be reasonable for them to land a helicopter in your yard and arrest you for violating it. What actually exists is a web of extradition treaties whereby nations have agreed to voluntarily transfer someone to another nation for prosecution in certain situations. There's almost always an absolute requirement for dual criminality -- that is, that the act is illegal in both nations. That's the test, and the treaties signed by both governments are the source of power, not "domestic effects" and whatever you think makes the US special. The case this article is about is an extradition hearing. To your reply: No, substituting NK for US in your own proposed system does not make a straw man.

rayiner 14y ago
Except in this case, the content is created in America by Americans, and the underlying property rights are widely recognized internationally. So yes, if none of those things were true your example might not be a strawman, but as it stands...
- kkowalczyk 14y ago
  Except that Megaupload was not selling duplicated CDs of albums of US musicians or some other obviously infringing activity. They provided a file hosting service, like Dropbox or Google Drive or Skydrive. Judge Mooner, I'm pretty sure, doesn't own rights to Sinead O'Connor's music and yet DOJ is not currently suing YouTube because of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t77DexLMjOU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t77DexLMjOU The rules for determining if a file sharing services like YouTube or DropBox or Megaupload violates copyright are not as clear as you seem to imply which is why e.g. Viacom lost it's case against YouTube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Yo...) It's far from clear that Megaupload violated U.S. law, let alone New Zealand's.
  - forrestthewoods 14y ago
    MegaUpload did not sell copyrighted material, but they did PAY users for hosting obviously copyright infringing material so that other users would pay MegaUpload to get fast download speeds on those files. I'm continuously amazed at how the Internet defends a certified scumbag who profited hundreds of millions of dollars off other people's work. Everyone does like free stuff I suppose.
    - belorn 14y ago
      So lets refine the arguments a bit. I could respond to the mudslinging, but that just get boring to read/write. If I understand you right, then the issues is not with the service that MegaUpload offered, but with the way that they marketed their services and encouraged new users. And marketing is important. Where I live (Sweden), we have quite strong laws regulating marketing activities. For one, marketing directed at kids (like games) are strictly unlawful, as it is deemed to have a negative impact on society. Same for advertisement regarding alcohol or tobacco. By the early 2000, they considered if they could enforce the same laws against international cable networks that sold and broadcasted inside Sweden, but decided that such enforcing of Swedish law could not be enforced outside the national border.
      - mpyne 14y ago
        What he's saying (I think) is that MegaUpload wasn't simply a service provider. They got their hands dirty and actively participated in paying to "seed" their own service with popular copyright-protected movies, TV shows, etc. IIRC they also paid for data center services hosted within the U.S. to ensure Americans had quick access to those services (including the deliberately-seeded IP-regime media files). You'll note that the Feds aren't going after Google Drive, Youtube, Dropbox, iCloud, whatever Microsoft's cloud offering is called, etc., and yet those services are just as capable of uploading media and hosting it publically.
      - forrestthewoods 14y ago
        My issue is that I find MegaUpload and Kim Dotcom actions fundamentally immoral. Whether it is or should be illegal is a separate matter. I am continuously surprised by the number of internet users who are typically opposed to his type of behavior, but support his immorality because he helps them get free things.
chii 14y ago
except that the US of A has the military muscle to enforce laws (if its own creation of course). There isn't really any other argument required - might makes right, when speaking on a world stage.
- notimetorelax 14y ago
  So it's a Yes then, USA is the world police?

rayiner 14y ago

Except in this case, the content is created in America by Americans, and the underlying property rights are widely recognized internationally. So yes, if none of those things were true your example might not be a strawman, but as it stands...

kkowalczyk 14y ago
Except that Megaupload was not selling duplicated CDs of albums of US musicians or some other obviously infringing activity. They provided a file hosting service, like Dropbox or Google Drive or Skydrive. Judge Mooner, I'm pretty sure, doesn't own rights to Sinead O'Connor's music and yet DOJ is not currently suing YouTube because of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t77DexLMjOU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t77DexLMjOU The rules for determining if a file sharing services like YouTube or DropBox or Megaupload violates copyright are not as clear as you seem to imply which is why e.g. Viacom lost it's case against YouTube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Yo...) It's far from clear that Megaupload violated U.S. law, let alone New Zealand's.
- forrestthewoods 14y ago
  MegaUpload did not sell copyrighted material, but they did PAY users for hosting obviously copyright infringing material so that other users would pay MegaUpload to get fast download speeds on those files. I'm continuously amazed at how the Internet defends a certified scumbag who profited hundreds of millions of dollars off other people's work. Everyone does like free stuff I suppose.
  - belorn 14y ago
    So lets refine the arguments a bit. I could respond to the mudslinging, but that just get boring to read/write. If I understand you right, then the issues is not with the service that MegaUpload offered, but with the way that they marketed their services and encouraged new users. And marketing is important. Where I live (Sweden), we have quite strong laws regulating marketing activities. For one, marketing directed at kids (like games) are strictly unlawful, as it is deemed to have a negative impact on society. Same for advertisement regarding alcohol or tobacco. By the early 2000, they considered if they could enforce the same laws against international cable networks that sold and broadcasted inside Sweden, but decided that such enforcing of Swedish law could not be enforced outside the national border.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      What he's saying (I think) is that MegaUpload wasn't simply a service provider. They got their hands dirty and actively participated in paying to "seed" their own service with popular copyright-protected movies, TV shows, etc. IIRC they also paid for data center services hosted within the U.S. to ensure Americans had quick access to those services (including the deliberately-seeded IP-regime media files). You'll note that the Feds aren't going after Google Drive, Youtube, Dropbox, iCloud, whatever Microsoft's cloud offering is called, etc., and yet those services are just as capable of uploading media and hosting it publically.
    - forrestthewoods 14y ago
      My issue is that I find MegaUpload and Kim Dotcom actions fundamentally immoral. Whether it is or should be illegal is a separate matter. I am continuously surprised by the number of internet users who are typically opposed to his type of behavior, but support his immorality because he helps them get free things.

chii 14y ago

except that the US of A has the military muscle to enforce laws (if its own creation of course). There isn't really any other argument required - might makes right, when speaking on a world stage.

notimetorelax 14y ago
So it's a Yes then, USA is the world police?