• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.

Nell

Unending melancholy
Bold Member!
Just as the world debates the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) coming into law, one of the biggest and baddest piracy websites has been shut down with accusations that the owners have cost copyright holders over $500 million in lost revenue.

Megaupload and sister site Megavideo were infamous file-sharing and video websites that let users share and watch files, many of them illegal, and many of them movies and TV shows. The sites were shut down by a US government department.

It is reported that the Fed have taken into custody seven individuals, who they say are part of a, “Mega Conspiracy, a worldwide criminal organization whose members engaged in criminal copyright infringement and money laundering on a massive scaleâ€￾. If convicted, the defendants will face up to 20 years in jail and fined up to $175 million.

The shutdown of the high-profile sharing sites could be in direct response to the mass online protests against the planned PIPA and SOPA anti-piracy bills being debated in the US Congress. The Megaupload site was run by a man called Kim Dotcom and six other individuals.

The FBI said of the takedown, “The estimated harm caused by the conspiracy’s criminal conduct to copyright holders is well in excess of $500 million. The conspirators allegedly earned more than $175 million in illegal profits through advertising revenue and selling premium memberships.â€￾

This is huge news as megaupload was easily one the biggest file-sharing websites on the Internet. Although there re still plenty of others such as Rapidshare etc., the owners of those sites will not be sleeping well, we would imagine.

The site takedown notice comes just after massive website protests against the two piracy bills that are being debated by Congress. Although the acts are supposed to help in the fight against piracy and content theft, many think the powers are too great. Websites such as Google, Facebook and Wikipedia have protested (some with 24hr blackouts) that the internet should remain free and largely uncensored.

Even if the acts are not passed, the shutting down of high a high profile video sharing site shows the intentions of the US Government for the coming year.

http://www.worldtvpc.com/blog/megavideo-shut-beginning-piracy/

Popular file-sharing sites, Megaupload and Megavideo, were shut down by federal prosecutors on Thursday and hackers from Anonymous retaliated by launching an attack on federal and public Web sites: The online battle over Internet piracy just got personal.

Megaupload and Megavideo, content-sharing Web sites that receive more than 50 million hits per day, got taken down by the Department of Justice on Thursday after an indictment claimed the sites have committed copyright infringement.

The crackdown comes just one day after a mass online protest against two bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) currently being pushed forward and debated by Congress.

While the bills are being presented in an aim to stop music and video piracy, internet giants such as Google and Facebook are complaining that the legislation being proposed will lead to internet censorship.

Four company executives, including Megaupload's founder Kim Schmitz, were arrested after the indictment was delivered by the Department of Justice. The individuals have been accused of having involvement with copyright infringement and a conspiracy to commit money laundering, according to Wired.com.

The Department of Justice says the arrests made are unlinked to the SOPA and PIPA bills, but critics of the shutdown say this is the beginning of what will ultimately turn into widespread Internet censorship.

"You think it's a coincidence that the feds shutdown megavideo a day after the Websites blackout protesting the bills?" said freelance Web producer James Buran. "It's a war: Anonymos-1 Feds-1, let's see who makes the next move."

Those who try and access Megaupload's site are greeted with the following message:

"This domain name associated with the website Megaupload.com has been seized pursuant to an order issued by a U.S. District Court. A federal grand jury has indicted several individuals and entities allegedly involved in the operation of Megaupload.com and related Websites charging them with the following federal crimes: Conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and criminal copyright infringement."

Hours after the notice went up, Anonymous launched an attack on public Web sites including the Justice Department, Universal Music and other trade groups that represent the music and film industries and are the prime backers of SOPA and PIPA. All these sites are back online.

"The government takes down Megaupload? 15 minutes later Anonymous takes down government & record label sites," a hacker from Anonymous tweeted.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/technolo...pload-megavideo-shutdown-sopa-and-pipa-links/


It's started. I am pissed. I can't afford cable and use these sites to watch TV. :confused3::frustrating:
 
I read this article over on TorrentFreak yesterday. It details the indictment. Beyond the edited portion I included below, it discusses other violations and evidence.

MegaUpload: What Made It a Rogue Site Worthy of Destruction?
File-hosting services all around the world will have looked on in horror yesterday as MegaUpload, one of the world’s largest cyberlocker services, was taken apart by the FBI. Foreign citizens were arrested in foreign lands and at least $50 million in assets seized. So what exactly prompted this action? TorrentFreak read every word of the 72-page indictment so you don’t have to, and we were surprised by its contents.
[...]

In the U.S., online service providers are eligible for safe harbor under the DMCA from copyright infringement suits by meeting certain criteria. However, the indictment states that member of the “Mega Conspiracyâ€￾ (capital M, capital C no less) do not meet these criteria because…

…they are willfully infringing copyrights themselves on these systems; have actual knowledge that the materials on their systems are infringing (or alternatively know facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent); receive a financial benefit directly attributable to copyright-infringing activity where the provider can control that activity; and have not removed, or disabled access to, known copyright infringing material from servers they control.

Let’s cover the last point first – the apparent non-removal of known copyright material from MegaUpload’s servers. First, a little background on how MegaUpload’s user uploading system worked because this is absolutely crucial to the case against the site.

Mega had developed a system whereby files set to be uploaded by users were hashed in order to discover if a copy of the file already exists on the Mega servers. If a file existed, the user did not have to upload his copy and was simply given a unique URL in order to access the content in future. What this meant in practice is that there could be countless URLs ‘owned’ by various users but which all pointed to the same file.

Megaupload’s “Abuse Toolâ€￾ to which major copyright holders were given access, enabled the removal of links to infringing works hosted on MegaUpload’s servers. However, the indictment claims that it “did not actually function as a DMCA compliance tool as the copyright owners were led to believe.â€￾ And here’s why.

The indictment claims that when a copyright holder issued a takedown notice for content referenced by its URL, only the URL was taken down, not the content to which it pointed. So although the URL in question would report that it had been removed and would no longer resolve to infringing material, URLs issued to others would remain operational.

Furthermore, the indictment states that although MegaUpload staff (referred to as Members of the Conspiracy) discussed how they could automatically remove child pornography from their systems given a specific hash value, the same standards weren’t applied to complained-about copyright works.
[...]

The paperworks goes on to accuse MegaUpload of running a program between September 2005 and July 2011 which rewarded users for uploading infringing material.

A citation from an internal MegaUpload email from February 2007 entitled “reward paymentsâ€￾ claims to show that at least two key staff members knew that cash payments were being paid to users who uploaded infringing material including “full popular DVD ripsâ€￾ and “software with keygenerators (Warez)â€￾.
[...]

The issue of not taking down content is a fascinating one. MegaUpload is not on its own when it hashes content then allows users to access already-stored versions of the same files. Nevertheless, will taking down a specific URL and not the content itself be enough to appease the courts?

Finally, and despite the assertions of the MPAA, RIAA and the authorities, MegaUpload carried a huge amount of non-infringing content, giving the service itself “substantial non-infringing usersâ€￾. Nevertheless, all content has now been seized, leaving millions of people and companies without their personal data.
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-what-made-it-a-rogue-site-worthy-of-destruction-120120/
 
I don't really see the conspiracy part going through, and I read through the indictiment, I think this sums up my view on it.
[Where my concerns come in is in some of the "evidence" that's used to add to the overall indictment. To be clear, in a case like this, the issue is the evidence as a whole, combined to show intent and a general pattern to actions. So the allegations in the indictment don't necessarily mean that any individual action is, by itself, illegal. But, I still worry that some of the specific actions used to paint this picture are (1) potentially taken out of context, (2) are presented in a way that likely misrepresents the actual situation and (3) could come back to haunt other online services who are providing perfectly legitimate services.
•For example, the indictment points out that Megaupload did not have a site search, by which users could find material. That's interesting, but it seems like an odd piece of information in making the case. Other copyright cases have specifically found that having a search engine is part of an inducement claim -- so there's an argument that the idea not to have a search engine wasn't so much "conspiracy," as it was an attempt to follow the guidance of the court and to stay legal. To use the lack of a feature, that previously was shown to be a problem, as evidence of a conspiracy is crazy. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


•Separately, the indictment lists various feature choices as part of making its case. There is, for example, the fact that if certain files aren't downloaded in a certain amount of time, then they are deleted. The indictment presents this as evidence that the service is mainly for infringement, because it potentially precludes the idea that the site is used for long-term backup. Of course, that falsely assumes that long-term backup is the only legitimate use of a cyberlocker. But that might not be the case at all. The service could (and is) used to just distribute large files in a directed, short-term effort. If anything, the fact that files are deleted after they're done being shared highlights a key legal function of the site: it was used by people to exchange large files once or twice, since they're too big to share via email attachment.

On top of that, other, legitimate, sites have similar policies. The popular image hosting site Imgur does the same thing: if people don't access an image for an extended period of time, Imgur may delete it. That's not because it's encouraging infringement, but because it knows that the service is being used for short-term distribution.


•There is also the question of paying certain uploaders. However, there does seem to be a bit of a stretch in assuming that because some uploaders get lots of downloads by posting infringing content, all such "paid" users must be putting up infringing works. There are plenty of viral videos that are quite popular not because of infringement. In fact, much of this seems to be based on the simple assumption that encouraging more usage means they must be encouraging infringement. It's entirely possible that Dotcom did encourage infringement, but it feels like there should be more actual evidence of that, rather than pasting together a bunch of claims that could be interpreted in legitimate ways. Paying users for popularity is not, and should not, be evidence of criminality, or even infringement.


•There is also the claim that, while the company did remove some works upon takedown notice, it merely removed one link to the work, but left up other links. The issue here, as noted elsewhere in the indictment, is that Megaupload has a system for de-duplication -- so that if multiple people uploaded the same file, it only kept one version, but made it available at a different link for each person. This is the same sort of thing that lots of legitimate sites do, including Dropbox. The question, then, is if you do something like that with a locker service, and keep a single file, accessible through multiple locker links, what do you do if you get a takedown? This is still somewhat of an open question -- and was one of the points raised (in a civil copyright infringement context, which is very different) in the EMI vs. MP3tunes case. In that case, the company was told that it did, in fact, have to delete the actual file. But that raises other questions. Let's present a hypothetical: what if infringer A and authorized distributor B both upload the same file. The system de-dupes and uses a single file for each to access. Now, the copyright holder discovers A's version, and issues a takedown. It will automatically take down B's authorized work as well -- even though that copy was not infringing. Or... what if someone uploads a copy, but for their own personal use to access remotely, but never shares the link? In that case, no infringement is occurring... but DOJ seems to claim that the site would have to delete the file anyway, or there may be criminal risk. That's crazy.


•The complaint argues that because Megaupload's "top 100" list does not actually list the top 100 downloads on the site, this is more evidence of conspiracy. The issue here is that the list apparently removes files that are likely infringing. But... again, in other cases (like the IsoHunt case) such lists were also seen as proof of inducement. So, again it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If Megaupload's list showed infringing works, then they'd be charged with inducement... but removing them from the list makes them guilty of conspiracy?


•In addition, the indictment shows that, despite the company not being a US company, it did set up a DMCA agent, a tool to make removing files easier, and did take down works on request. There are some reasonable questions about if it ignored some takedown messages (likely) and the fact that it put limits on how many takedowns could be done per day with its tool. Those certainly work against the company in terms of retaining any DMCA safe harbors. Similarly, there is some evidence that the owners of the site may have uploaded infringing files themselves -- which, again, has no DMCA protections.


•The indictment points out that Megaupload used its hashing system to maintain a list of known child porn and block those files from being re-uploaded. The problem here is that copyright is different than child porn. Child porn is a strict liability issue: it is always illegal. There are no extenuating circumstances. But copyrighted content is different. It could be authorized. It could be fair use. And that depends on the specific use, not the file. So using a hash system there doesn't make sense, whereas it can make sense for child porn.


•The indictment also lists all sorts of emails, some of which are more damaging than others, but some of which may be taken out of context. All of them seem to assume that Megaupload employees can easily tell, often just by file name, what's infringing and what's not. I think this is an assumption that many people who don't understand copyright law make. And while you can guess... it's not always so easy. The recording industry, for example, regularly uses cyberlockers as a legitimate way to distribute promo copies. How would Megaupload know if certain files were legit or not, without further details? Yes, there's obvious infringement happening on the site, but will Megaupload always know which specific files are infringing?


•The indictment discusses demands from Universal Music that Megaupload would need to meet before UMG would even discuss a potential license. This included: "proactive fingerprint filtering to ensure that there is no infringing music content hosted on its service; proactive text filtering for pre-release titles that may not appear in fingerprint databases at an early stage; terminate the accounts of users that repeatedly infringe copyright; limit the number of possible downloads from each file; process right holder take down notices faster and more efficiently." While the DMCA does require action against repeat infringers, there are no legal requirements for the other issues. It's not clear why that should be evidence here. The fact that Megaupload didn't go above and beyond what the law requires shouldn't be seen as evidence of wrongdoing...


•Many of the emails discuss the fact that, in general, there are infringing works on the site. Yeah, but that's the same issue in the YouTube case and other cases. General knowledge that your tool is used for infringement is kind of meaningless, because you can't take works down if you don't know what's actually infringing.


•Money laundering claims are tricky and perhaps there was some "money laundering" going on here, but this indictment seems to include basic payments to Megaupload's hosting companies. Using payments to companies for hosting as evidence of money laundering seems pretty extreme, and suggests the possibility that this is just a "lumping in" situation, just to pile on more things that look bad, but aren't illegal by themselves.
Do these kinds of things work together to paint a picture of the company encouraging infringement? It's certainly possible that a court will add up a bunch of things like this and insist that's true. My fear is that, at least with some of these points, there are perfectly reasonable, non-infringing contexts for them. Then, what I worry about, is that in later cases, these types of things are used as "evidence" against companies and services that are legit. Even worse, there's a real worry that it creates chilling effects for lots of legitimate services who do things like de-duplification, or have legitimate backup services. If you're running Amazon S3 or Dropbox, do you now suddenly change how you do business, just to avoid the possibility of being accused of racketeering and criminal copyright infringement? That's worrisome.

But the bigger overall issue is why this action and why now? Companies in the US have filed civil cases against Megaupload in the US and the company was willing to come to the US and deal in US courts. Taking it up to a criminal "conspiracy" and racketeering charge seems like overkill, with tremendous collateral damage and chilling effects./QUOTE]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...oj-considers-evidence-criminal-behavior.shtml

And I really don't see the Loss of Jobs(What jobs?) and loss of profit calculation(Over 500 Billion? How did they reach that number)
And I really don't think the MPAA understand anything, as this quote from Foxnews shows.
"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"

And I think Publicknowledge.org puts it pretty well.
Public Knowledge welcomes constructive dialog with people from all affected sectors about issues surrounding copyright, the state of the movie industry and related concerns. Cybersecurity experts, Internet engineers, venture capitalists, artists, entrepreneurs, human rights advocates, law professors, consumers and public-interest organizations, among others should be included. They were shut out of the process for these bills.

We suggest that in the meantime, if the MPAA is truly concerned about the jobs of truck drivers and others in the industry, then it can bring its overseas filming back to the U.S. and create more jobs. It could stop holding states hostage for millions of dollars in subsidies that strained state budgets can’t afford while pushing special-interest bills through state legislatures. While that happens, discussions could take place.
 
We had a good thing going and Megavideo abused it. They gave all and any copyrights the finger and even sold them.
I think the paranoia is over rated. There will always be sites to watch things for free. They may come and go, but as long as you can live with a fluid situation I think it will be ok. I know major cable and dish providers have been backing this heavily to no ones surprise.

I have no problem with people wanting to receive their royalties, but getting government to do it will lead to ills.
 
We had a good thing going and Megavideo abused it. They gave all and any copyrights the finger and even sold them.
I think the paranoia is over rated. There will always be sites to watch things for free. They may come and go, but as long as you can live with a fluid situation I think it will be ok. I know major cable and dish providers have been backing this heavily to no ones surprise.

I have no problem with people wanting to receive their royalties, but getting government to do it will lead to ills.

Actually, Musician earns more from selling digital download through Megaupload and other, instead of through MPAA, since they don't get majority of the profit earned, instead of giving a majority of it to the big companies, which is why many musician supported it.
 
Actually, Musician earns more from selling digital download through Megaupload and other, instead of through MPAA, since they don't get majority of the profit earned, instead of giving a majority of it to the big companies, which is why many musician supported it.

This is true and a huge reason why megavideo and megaupload will likely survive, they are largely legitimate.
 
The powers that be at the MPAA/RIAA are just trying to hold on to their outdated business models at the expense of the internet.
If they can't be nimble, let the dinosaurs die.
Piracy is a service problem. It can easily be eliminated by providing better service then the pirates.
 
I recall going to the movies, and during those stupid advertisements they force you to watch before they start the actual film was a guilt tripping load of tripe. They showed an "average joe" type of guy who supposedly works on set. Said guy basically tells us all that if we are recording this film to pirate; we may think we are only screwing over hollywood bigwigs and rich bastards, we're really starving this poor douche's family. We're child starving family abusing bastards.

So, when film companies lose revenue to piracy they take it out on the set janitor? And we're the bad guys?

I'm not pro-piracy or anything, but do you think maybe it's such a big problem because of the rampant overpayment of big name actors, directors and all the rest? Maybe I'd be more sympathetic if I didn't just spend 10 minutes watching fucking soft drink and car advertisements before getting to the movie I had to pay $12 to see.
 
I recall going to the movies, and during those stupid advertisements they force you to watch before they start the actual film was a guilt tripping load of tripe. They showed an "average joe" type of guy who supposedly works on set. Said guy basically tells us all that if we are recording this film to pirate; we may think we are only screwing over hollywood bigwigs and rich bastards, we're really starving this poor douche's family. We're child starving family abusing bastards.

So, when film companies lose revenue to piracy they take it out on the set janitor? And we're the bad guys?

I'm not pro-piracy or anything, but do you think maybe it's such a big problem because of the rampant overpayment of big name actors, directors and all the rest? Maybe I'd be more sympathetic if I didn't just spend 10 minutes watching fucking soft drink and car advertisements before getting to the movie I had to pay $12 to see.

See, this is my point entirely. The theater experience blows almost as much as the movies they are cranking out. It isn't just the overpaid actors, its the cut distributors and studios get.
Give the people a theater experience they can't get at home with a picture that actually follows a story and you remove piracy from the picture.
In '77, even if a kid down the street had a pirate copy of Star Wars it couldn't possibly have competed with the theater experience.
Guess the kitchen is getting a little hot for the profit margin of Battleship (the movie) and its ilk. http://www.battleshipmovie.com/
EDIT: I doubt this turd will even have a pirate audience.
 
See, this is my point entirely. The theater experience blows almost as much as the movies they are cranking out. It isn't just the overpaid actors, its the cut distributors and studios get.
Give the people a theater experience they can't get at home with a picture that actually follows a story and you remove piracy from the picture.

Yes!

And if the movie sucked ass, you're not going to get that wasted time period of your life back nor your money. Like in South Park when they wanted their money back for having to watch The Passion of the Christ. (Yes, I would pretty much follow the church of South Park if they had one.)

I should be able to demand compensation for sitting through "The Break Up" and I didn't even pay to see that steaming pile of romcom shit. Mental anguish alone should net me millions.

Oh and Supernova, I spent that entire movie wishing they'd all just fucking die. Every single one of them.
 
Good goddamn. I just visited that Battleship site. Based on the board game? I don't recall any aliens hiding out last time I played. Will the catchphrase be "You sunk my battleship!"?

For that matter, why the hell would aliens that powerful need to hide in the ocean? Or anywhere?

*Spoiler, or about to save you from wasting precious time watching this movie*

This has reminded me of that crapfest "Signs" where the aliens everyone is terrified of can be killed ... with water. How the fuck does a species that could assumably be wiped out by light showers even come close to taking over the planet? Shit, just wait for a foggy day. It took some dude's dead wife's last words to figure out that water kills them? Really? Somehow the aliens managed to avoid rain, pools, fog, hoses, taps, puddle and every other form of water until that point? What about the water that is always in the air?

We don't need your stinking logic!
 
Yes!

And if the movie sucked ass, you're not going to get that wasted time period of your life back nor your money. Like in South Park when they wanted their money back for having to watch The Passion of the Christ. (Yes, I would pretty much follow the church of South Park if they had one.)

I should be able to demand compensation for sitting through "The Break Up" and I didn't even pay to see that steaming pile of romcom shit. Mental anguish alone should net me millions.

Oh and Supernova, I spent that entire movie wishing they'd all just fucking die. Every single one of them.

Actually, people in Jolly good england are getting their money back for the movie "The Artist"

And to the peopl asking for refund, the Director approves..
"If I could give any advice to people it would be that they should ask for their money back whenever they see a film they don't expect. If it's not written on the poster 'this is a bad movie' and they think it's a bad movie, ask for a refund!”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...car-favourite-The-Artist-has-no-dialogue.html

But not all movie should have a deep plot, character or have a message to be enjoyed, I think Battleship, transformer are the same, movie for the explosion and action.
And I don't really think it's a good idea or habit to judge something, until you have seen it.
For example, Real Steel, the trailer and premise didn't interest me, as I thought it would be a hip-hop robot action CGI fest, but was rather suprised by the father/son plot and direction.

Now if you want a terrible movie, go see Moscow Zero.
 
And I don't really think it's a good idea or habit to judge something, until you have seen it.

I refuse to allow you to revoke my right to believe that the Spice Girls movie really sucked even though I've never seen it.

That said, I've got nothing against stupid movies as a whole, in fact, sometimes, I'd really rather just watch stuff blow up, or get beaten up or things that are ridiculously stupid. Such as "Frankenhooker" and "Shocker" and many over the top kung fu movies. I distinctly recall one with a fight scene involving the characters turning into various household appliances. It was awesome. And stupid. Really really stupid.
 
I refuse to allow you to revoke my right to believe that the Spice Girls movie really sucked even though I've never seen it.

That said, I've got nothing against stupid movies as a whole, in fact, sometimes, I'd really rather just watch stuff blow up, or get beaten up or things that are ridiculously stupid. Such as "Frankenhooker" and "Shocker" and many over the top kung fu movies. I distinctly recall one with a fight scene involving the characters turning into various household appliances. It was awesome. And stupid. Really really stupid.

Of course you can, it's your life and own personal opinion, which is why I included the word "I" and "think" as it's just a opinion.:aetsch:
 
The powers that be at the MPAA/RIAA are just trying to hold on to their outdated business models at the expense of the internet.
If they can't be nimble, let the dinosaurs die.
Piracy is a service problem. It can easily be eliminated by providing better service then the pirates.

I had a great post all lined up to reply to this, but of course I timed out, ugh.

Anyway, gist was, I agree with that. Netflix was my example. Great idea, streaming is excellent and the easiest way for most people to go. Netflix is a fine example of how you fuck that up. Make sure all your content is out of date, don't update anything for a month at a time and make sure your interface pisses off your users. Excellent ways to endear yourself to your customers!
Reasons like that are why it's so much easier to get a torrent, wait 5-10 minutes for it to download and watch. Done. No hassle.

I think most people would rather pay a reasonable amount of money for a legal access to movies and music. Most would rather go the "acceptable" route, than have the pants sued off them by people that have a fuckton more money than they could ever dream of.

If the government, music and movie industries would work WITH us, instead of against us, I think it would be much more beneficial for everyone.

I think this way, and I am one of the cheapest SOB's you could come across. Keep pushing though, and people will be pushing back.
 
I refuse to allow you to revoke my right to believe that the Spice Girls movie really sucked even though I've never seen it.

That said, I've got nothing against stupid movies as a whole, in fact, sometimes, I'd really rather just watch stuff blow up, or get beaten up or things that are ridiculously stupid. Such as "Frankenhooker" and "Shocker" and many over the top kung fu movies. I distinctly recall one with a fight scene involving the characters turning into various household appliances. It was awesome. And stupid. Really really stupid.

SHOCKER WAS AN EPIC CLASSIC !
That 5 year old chick on the bulldozer screaming"come on mother fuckers" was priceless.
 
https://www.cnet.com/news/kim-dotcom-loses-latest-battle-to-recover-seized-assets/
Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom shouldn't be allowed to recover seized assets, argues a Justice Department filing with the US Supreme Court. The brief, filed on Friday, cited his fugitive status as well as a lack of evidence supporting claims that poor health was preventing him from entering the US.

Dotcom has been in the news since 2012, when the FBI and the US Department of Justice shut down file-sharing site Megaupload and charged the site's operators with the piracy-related offences. The US government also seized $42 million in assets. Dotcom, alongside Mathias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk and Finn Batato, are wanted for trial in the US on 13 counts, including copyright infringement, conspiracy to commit racketeering, money laundering and wire fraud.

In February, the New Zealand High Court found that Dotcom, a New Zealand resident, and his co-accused were eligible for extradition to the United States.
[....]
 
Such bullshit they persecuted this dotcom guy. He did nothing wrong to attain his fortune. All he did was make a fucking website. IT was other people who uploaded copyrighted material and contributed to piracy...which is a victimless crime anyways.
He would have been able to use that excuse, except that his site was responsible for distributing it. Unlike places like piratebay etc who use peer to peer via torrents to transfer files, or sites that host but don't allow downloads, megaupload itself transferred the files.
 
Almost ten years after Megaupload was taken down the lawsuits against the site and its founder Kim Dotcom are still pending. The criminal case in the US awaits the outcome of the New Zealand extradition process and two civil cases, filed by the RIAA and MPA, were this week put on hold until April 2022, but they will likely start much later.
[....]
The Megaupload defendants fiercely contested the extradition request, which they are still doing to this day. After spending millions of dollars in legal fees, the end of this process is still nowhere in sight.

Without extraditions, the criminal proceeding in the U.S. remains pending and the latest update in the court docket dates back five years.

This delay also affects the civil cases filed by the RIAA and the MPAA, which plan to hold the Megaupload defendants liable for millions in music and movie piracy damages respectively.

Since the civil cases can potentially influence the criminal proceedings, Megaupload’s legal team previously asked to put these cases on hold, and last week they requested another extension, which was swiftly granted by the federal court in Virginia.

With no objections from the MPA and RIAA, it is no surprise that the stay until April 2022 was granted. If anything, these motions serve as a bi-annual reminder of the lack of progress in the Megaupload case.

The extradition process in New Zealand may very well continue for several more years. And in the event that the defendants are extradited, it will take much longer before the criminal case concludes. This means that 2022 may eventually become, 2023, 2025, 2032, and so on.

 
I find it ridiculous that some people still think piracy doesnt ruin livelihood, a movie for example,you need writers,set builders,cameramen,catering, actors,directors etc.It all cost money ,I guess it all comes from thin air,and dont get me started on the music industry.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top