4 ms·

Not only am I not a lawyer, I also don't know/remember many of the details of this case. And I said likely, not definitely, guilty in my opinion. Regarding men

by corin_ 12y ago

Not only am I not a lawyer, I also don't know/remember many of the details of this case. And I said likely, not definitely, guilty in my opinion. Regarding mens rea, I imagine it's tougher to argue that you thought you were legal technically than to argue you had no idea you might be breaking the law? E.g. Someone who has never heard of magic mushrooms but find then growing and sells them has a better chance of not being convicted for selling illegal drugs than someone who knows and had researched the laws and thinks they have a technicality to allow them to sell? Of course that's assuming they were wrong about the technicality.

new299 12y ago
Just, in case it's of interest, statements from Kim suggest that he was trying to comply with the DMCA. That all major studios has direct access to the platform to delete links. I personally find the issues unclear, as obviously to a degree as he suggests below, Youtube and other providers are in a similar position: "Well, of course everybody knows that the internet is being used for legitimate and illegitimate uses. I think every online service provider has the same challenges that we have. YouTube, Google, everybody is in the same boat. So what you need to understand here is that we provided the content owners with an opportunity to remove links that were infringing on their rights. So, not only did they have an online form where they could take down infringing links, they had direct delete access to our servers so they could access our system and remove any link that they would find anywhere on the internet without us being involved. They had full access and we’re talking about 180 partners, including every major movie studio, including Microsoft and all big content producers and they have used that system heavily and you need to understand that that system was not even something that was even required by the law. We provided that voluntarily and they have removed over 15 million links." From: http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/campbelllive/kim-dotcoms-first-tv-interview-im-no-piracy-king-2012030118#ixzz3PH3S7eWO http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/campbelllive/kim-dotcoms-firs...
- Pyxl101 12y ago
  An objection that I heard mentioned previously: removing the links didn't remove the actual content, which could be available through another link (or hundreds of links, some in private forums, etc.). So actually getting content off the platform was tough. Mentioned in: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/why-the-feds-smas... On the other hand, who can say whether content is illegal in all contexts. Perhaps your pirated movie is my legitimate backup.
  - new299 12y ago
    Yes, I guess it could be argued that this is part of the way they managed their deduplication system, and that once all links had been removed the context would be removed. Certainly similar arguments could probably be used for copyrighted material on Dropbox, and I imagine there maybe a deduplication on Youtube, and similar issues also. If this really is the only issue it seems like quite a weak case to me, as with more diligence the copyright holders could have removed all copies. But I guess we'll never know all the details.
    - Consultant32452 12y ago
      Well, it literally cost a user nothing to create a new link to the same data. Meanwhile the copyright holder would have to submit a DMCA take down for every single link before a new link could be created. Also, MegaUpload changed their policy to only allow one request at a time. So you couldn't, for example, submit a list of the thousand links to your movie. You'd have to submit 1,000 DMCA take downs. I think it's pretty obvious they were doing everything in their power to drag their feet and facilitate copyright infringement.
      - acqq 12y ago
        "Dragging one's feet" isn't a crime.
        Consultant32452 12y ago
        Dragging your feet is a crime if it's reasonable to believe that the purpose of dragging your feet is to facilitate crime. And I think anyone with a brain recognizes that's what was going on.
        acqq 12y ago
        Try to figure out how his service was fundamentally different than Youtube except for later being owned by superrich Google. Let's bet that Google earned more money by distributing unlicesed material than Kim could in 10 of his lives. Then consider how much years Google needed to start to be even slightly effective. Wasn't that dragging the feet? The justice for small guys and superrich is not the same. Kim is a small guy in this comparison.
belorn 12y ago
Thinking that something might happen is not the same as having an intent to cause it to happen. That would make every reader of Cardinal Richelieu to have mens rea to any crime. I also know that by visiting HN I might cause enough drain on their servers that a server breakdown happens, yet I have no intention to cause that. What the prosecutor might argue however, is that mens rea is not needed for cases of assisting criminal copyright infringement. This is what happened in the pirate bay trial, as the prosecutor brought up precedent cases in which an friend of an accused held up a window during a burglary, and got sentenced even if he was not aware what his friend was up to.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- abhorrence 12y ago
  Parent was discussing mens rea ("guilty mind"). Essentially there are certain classes of crimes where whether or not you were of guilty mind (you knew or had reasonable suspicion that what you were doing was illegal) actually matters somewhat, usually for sentencing purposes.

by corin_ 12y ago

new299 12y ago

Just, in case it's of interest, statements from Kim suggest that he was trying to comply with the DMCA. That all major studios has direct access to the platform to delete links. I personally find the issues unclear, as obviously to a degree as he suggests below, Youtube and other providers are in a similar position: "Well, of course everybody knows that the internet is being used for legitimate and illegitimate uses. I think every online service provider has the same challenges that we have. YouTube, Google, everybody is in the same boat. So what you need to understand here is that we provided the content owners with an opportunity to remove links that were infringing on their rights. So, not only did they have an online form where they could take down infringing links, they had direct delete access to our servers so they could access our system and remove any link that they would find anywhere on the internet without us being involved. They had full access and we’re talking about 180 partners, including every major movie studio, including Microsoft and all big content producers and they have used that system heavily and you need to understand that that system was not even something that was even required by the law. We provided that voluntarily and they have removed over 15 million links." From: http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/campbelllive/kim-dotcoms-first-tv-interview-im-no-piracy-king-2012030118#ixzz3PH3S7eWO http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/campbelllive/kim-dotcoms-firs...

Pyxl101 12y ago
An objection that I heard mentioned previously: removing the links didn't remove the actual content, which could be available through another link (or hundreds of links, some in private forums, etc.). So actually getting content off the platform was tough. Mentioned in: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/why-the-feds-smas... On the other hand, who can say whether content is illegal in all contexts. Perhaps your pirated movie is my legitimate backup.
- new299 12y ago
  Yes, I guess it could be argued that this is part of the way they managed their deduplication system, and that once all links had been removed the context would be removed. Certainly similar arguments could probably be used for copyrighted material on Dropbox, and I imagine there maybe a deduplication on Youtube, and similar issues also. If this really is the only issue it seems like quite a weak case to me, as with more diligence the copyright holders could have removed all copies. But I guess we'll never know all the details.
  - Consultant32452 12y ago
    Well, it literally cost a user nothing to create a new link to the same data. Meanwhile the copyright holder would have to submit a DMCA take down for every single link before a new link could be created. Also, MegaUpload changed their policy to only allow one request at a time. So you couldn't, for example, submit a list of the thousand links to your movie. You'd have to submit 1,000 DMCA take downs. I think it's pretty obvious they were doing everything in their power to drag their feet and facilitate copyright infringement.
    - acqq 12y ago
      "Dragging one's feet" isn't a crime.
      - Consultant32452 12y ago
        Dragging your feet is a crime if it's reasonable to believe that the purpose of dragging your feet is to facilitate crime. And I think anyone with a brain recognizes that's what was going on.
        acqq 12y ago
        Try to figure out how his service was fundamentally different than Youtube except for later being owned by superrich Google. Let's bet that Google earned more money by distributing unlicesed material than Kim could in 10 of his lives. Then consider how much years Google needed to start to be even slightly effective. Wasn't that dragging the feet? The justice for small guys and superrich is not the same. Kim is a small guy in this comparison.

belorn 12y ago

Thinking that something might happen is not the same as having an intent to cause it to happen. That would make every reader of Cardinal Richelieu to have mens rea to any crime. I also know that by visiting HN I might cause enough drain on their servers that a server breakdown happens, yet I have no intention to cause that. What the prosecutor might argue however, is that mens rea is not needed for cases of assisting criminal copyright infringement. This is what happened in the pirate bay trial, as the prosecutor brought up precedent cases in which an friend of an accused held up a window during a burglary, and got sentenced even if he was not aware what his friend was up to.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

abhorrence 12y ago
Parent was discussing mens rea ("guilty mind"). Essentially there are certain classes of crimes where whether or not you were of guilty mind (you knew or had reasonable suspicion that what you were doing was illegal) actually matters somewhat, usually for sentencing purposes.