FBI charges Megaupload operators with piracy crimes

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Sure, but calling it terrorism is rather silly.

When a group of people with an extremist agenda attacks a government, that is the term that tends to be used.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by azazel1024

Now as for the linking, it doesn't necessarily violate British law simply linking to copyrighted material, however it does violate US law.

It does? Which US law?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

When a group of private individuals attacks a government, that is the term that tends to be used.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

So he earned $230,000 in advertising by doing something that was deemed not against the law in the UK?

How does the monetary figure make it criminal if it wasn't against the law in the first place?

I don't know; that's what the BBC News report said the basis of the US extradition request was. Perhaps he's broken a law in the US? I'm interested to find out more.

This is the BBC story I read:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-16544335

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by teh603

Y'know, this could result in Dropbox closing, as well as Rapidshare and quite a few other services with legitimate, legal uses. Hell, case law from this could close the door on cloud computing.

It could close the door on just about any internet service that allows user content.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is "cyberterrorism". There's really no other term for it.

There are plenty of ways to classify the activities of groups like Anonymous. "Cyberterrorism" is more of a loaded political term than anything else. I think the Wikipedia article provides a decent discussion of "cyberterrorism."

Narrow Definition

If cyberterrorism is treated similarly to traditional terrorism, then it only includes attacks that threaten property or lives, and can be defined as the leveraging of a target's computers and information, particularly via the Internet, to cause physical, real-world harm or severe disruption of infrastructure.

There are some who say that cyberterrorism does not exist and is really a matter of hacking or information warfare. They disagree with labeling it terrorism because of the unlikelihood of the creation of fear, significant physical harm, or death in a population using electronic means, considering current attack and protective technologies.

If a strict definition is assumed, then there have been no or almost no identifiable incidents of cyberterrorism, although there has been much public concern.

Broad Definition

Cyberterrorism is defined by the Technolytics Institute as "The premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threat thereof, against computers and/or networks, with the intention to cause harm or further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives. Or to intimidate any person in furtherance of such objectives." [2] The term was coined by Barry C. Collin.[3]

The National Conference of State Legislatures, an organization of legislators created to help policymakers issues such as economy and homeland security defines cyberterrorism as:

[T]he use of information technology by terrorist groups and individuals to further their agenda. This can include use of information technology to organize and execute attacks against networks, computer systems and telecommunications infrastructures, or for exchanging information or making threats electronically. Examples are hacking into computer systems, introducing viruses to vulnerable networks, web site defacing, Denial-of-service attacks, or terroristic threats made via electronic communication.[4]

For the use of the Internet by terrorist groups for organization, see Internet and terrorism.

Cyberterrorism can also include attacks on Internet business, but when this is done for economic motivations rather than ideological, it is typically regarded as cybercrime.

As shown above, there are multiple definitions of cyber terrorism and most are overly broad. There is controversy concerning overuse of the term and hyperbole in the media and by security vendors trying to sell "solutions".[5]

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It does? Which US law?

It is considered contributory (or authorizing) copyright infringement, and it has been upheld in court, such as with Gershwin Publishing Corp vs Columbia Artists Managment, Inc. It was a major factor in the Grokster case.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Well, that is how it gets used, but doesn't mean stuff gets used in correctly. I mean, look at the term hacker. News media misused it, it spread, and now more people know it as how the news media used it, and not the original meaning. It used to just be someone who made things behave in a way other than what the original intended use was.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Sure, but calling it terrorism is rather silly.

I think a better term is "cybertantrum."

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

The fact that they made a lot of money is not proof of wrongdoing. I don't know much about how they run their business, but the service they provided was legitimate, even if it was used illegitimately. According to the Wikipedia article on Megaupload, they have 81 million unique visitors (I presume that it is per month), and a "Reach" of 4%. I don't know what that means, but I presume that means the percentage of visitors that use their service. 4% would be about 3.2 million users. If each paid 5$ per month for the service, that would be 16 million dollars a month, 192 million per year. For the kind of service they provide, I can't imagine many people being willing to pay more than a few bucks a month for legitimate uses. If they were charging quite a bit for the service, such as 10 or more dollars a month, then that would indicate that the vast majority of users were buying memberships for illegitimate reasons.

I thought I read in another article earlier today that it brought in 175 million, but don't quote me on that.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, that's the point that's often overlooked. The people running these pirate operations are serious criminals, making enormous profits from crime.

So in your opinion, is anybody who tries to run a service that allows public upload/storage a "serious criminal"?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It does? Which US law?

If you have a moment to read the story I posted the link to, I'd appreciate hearing your view on that. You're in a better position to answer the question than I am.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

So in your opinion, is anybody who tries to run a service that allows public upload/storage a "serious criminal"?

No. That's not the case, and not what I said.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, that's the point that's often overlooked. The people running these pirate operations are serious criminals, making enormous profits from crime.

So are gunmakers and vendors serious criminals considering they know that some of the people that buy their products will use them for illegal purposes?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

So are gunmakers and vendors serious criminals considering they know that some of the people that buy their products will use them for illegal purposes?

Personally, I do consider the armaments industry to be morally responsible for the death and misery their evil trade causes, but I'd respectfully suggest that that would be a better topic for the P&R forum if you'd like to raise it there.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

If you mean freedom to violate copyright, it won't make any difference to that. People who used it for that purpose will just move on to something else instead. As will people who used it for other purposes, of course.

Exactly. There are lots of sites like this. Take one down and two more will quickly spring up.

I'm assuming this site has someone check every ebook upload carefully before they are made available to the masses?

That's where this is heading. Forget ebook uploads though, even a comment posted on here could potentially be infringing on somebody's copyright somewhere. What's the minimum word/letter count to qualify for copyright status, it's fairly short isn't it?

Heck, with some of the topics that get discussed over and over on discussion forums all the time, it wouldn't surprise me if users are eventually infringing on each other's copyright.