FBI charges Megaupload operators with piracy crimes

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kiwipippa

The extradition request for the 4 guys in New Zealand - a quote from the NZ Herald this morning:

I think Harry was talking about a different case, not the MegaUpload one.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

In almost all cases for comments people upload comments that are their own work.

Yes, but what happens if two people upload the same comment?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by azazel1024

Web linking. However, he knew that the links he was posting (a lot were NOT user generated links, he actively posted the links himself) were to infringing material.

Makes sense now, thanks. I hadn't heard about this story before, and previous posts were making it sound like just posting the links was enough to commit infringement (which is why I was asking about it). For contributory infringement, yeah, that makes a big difference.

Still not 100% sure why extradition was granted though, if the links (intentional or not) weren't illegal in the UK. Were his servers in the US?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I think Harry was talking about a different case, not the MegaUpload one.

Yes, it's a different case entirely.

[azazel1024]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I don't think intent matters.



Given how short most of them are, I can easily see it. There just aren't that many ways to say the same thing over and over, without eventual duplication. You've never read a post in the plethora of pro/anti copyright discussions on here over the years and had deja-vu?



Have you seen what the civil penalties are for copyright infringement? Not to mention that many forums don't draw revenue from comments directly, but can be argued to do so indirectly via ad space, etc. That's how the pirate bay made their revenue, wasn't it?



If things "progress" to where the hosting site can be held liable, do you think sites would be willing to take the risk?

The only point I'm trying to make is this. If you really think about it, is there really all that much difference between sites that allow users to upload files and sites that allow users to post comments? Both are potentially at risk for the content they host to infringe on copyright.

The only obvious distinction I can find is that files (music/movies/ebooks) are much larger than comments. However, I'm not aware of any difference outlined in copyright law based on the size of the copyrighted work in question, is there?

You could probably dig through case law and copyright law and figure out just how large a written work needs to be to be considered copyright. One other thing to consider though is that public comments don't necessarily fall under copyright automatically (and might not be copyrightable). So something posted to a website as a "public" comment may also not necessarily automatically fall under copyright protection.

That aside, even if it did fall under copyright protection, you then get in to the various issues of fair use and copyright law for how the posts/comments are being used and how profit is being derived from them (newspapers make a profit, or at least they used to, and they use copyrighted materials all the time...just in an editorial or news making manner so it is fair use, but they are making money off copyrighted materials).

Next you also have the issue of, do the forum operators KNOW that the copyright infringing activity is occuring and are doing nothing about it and/or don't do anything if notified.

In the case of Megaupload, apparently in the inditement, it specifically mentions several cases where Megaupload employees (documented in emails) used their own internal search engines to find copyrighted materials that had been uploaded to their file locker site for personal use (In a specific case mentioning if one employee could use the search engine to find episodes of Seinfield for the other employee to watch). That would be a good example of knowing that they were hosting copyrighted materials uploaded by users and doing nothing about it.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

In almost all cases for these file hosting sites people upload files that are other people's work.

Megaupload wasn't just for pirates: angry users out of luck for now

You might find that article interesting. A lot of people used Megaupload for legal purposes, and they have now lost their files and access to the site, despite not having broken the law.

[azazel1024]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Makes sense now, thanks. I hadn't heard about this story before, and previous posts were making it sound like just posting the links was enough to commit infringement (which is why I was asking about it). For contributory infringement, yeah, that makes a big difference.

Still not 100% sure why extradition was granted though, if the links (intentional or not) weren't illegal in the UK. Were his servers in the US?

It hasn't been granted yet. The UK is still trying to decide whether or not to push for extradition or not, and the UK courts are currently deciding it as well.

[teh603]

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?

IIRC, the American firearm industry got hit by a couple of lawsuits exactly like that and had to get special protection from Congress; otherwise our police forces and military wouldn't have the option to "buy American" like so many of them prefer to. Never mind the effect it would have on hunting, and indirectly through that the environment and the cattle ranching industry.

Unfortunately, web hosting and message boards are in a totally different situation, and under attack by a rival industry with the ability to dominate public media instead of a couple of noisy fringe groups. While the Brady campaign and its allies might have been able to bring out voters, their campaign money was and still is chicken feed compared to what the RIAA and MPAA members can provide.

[azazel1024]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Megaupload wasn't just for pirates: angry users out of luck for now

You might find that article interesting. A lot of people used Megaupload for legal purposes, and they have now lost their files and access to the site, despite not having broken the law.

It is sad that it impacts completely innocent users. When it comes down to it, I'd bet probably 85+% of the uploaded materials, at least on a per file basis if not total bytes, probably was completely legit.

However, a lot of the revenue stream and a lot of the traffic and content was/was because of copyright infringing files.

Its not necessarily the best comparison, but it is a little bit like shutting down a cruise ship and kicking off the passengers because authorities found out that the cruise line was using its ship to smuggle some drugs in the hold.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Still not 100% sure why extradition was granted though, if the links (intentional or not) weren't illegal in the UK. Were his servers in the US?

I believe they were, yes.

This case has only reached the Magistrate's Court - the very lowest level of the British Court system. It's got a long way to go before he'll find himself on a plane to the US.

[thebestjeter]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

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

Originally Posted by HarryT

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

But if you download a book from a torrent site, you are undoubtedly a "criminal" in Harry's mind. Or at least, he doesn't find inappropriate to call a MR user "criminal" because she has used the words 'book' and 'torrent' in the same sentence.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Megaupload wasn't just for pirates: angry users out of luck for now

You might find that article interesting. A lot of people used Megaupload for legal purposes, and they have now lost their files and access to the site, despite not having broken the law.

Megaupload is most well known for the distribution of pirated movies, games, software and the like, but a certain percentage of the site's usage—how much, we don't know—was legitimate.

I don't see 'a lot' in there.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Yes, but what happens if two people upload the same comment?

If they have both independently come up with the same comment, nothing at all, why should it?

[azazel1024]

RE: Firearms industry. At least in my opinion, moral and otherwise, sure they know some of their guns are going to get in to the hands of criminals or those who will later commit crimes, and that is a bad thing. However, the vast majority of sales and weapons are going to perfectly law abiding people.

To me the real issue lies more with actual gun dealers and a lot of the lobbiest groups who push for things like sales without any background checks or documentation (like is legal in, as far as I know, all states between private citizens, at gunshows, etc...just not from authorized dealers). On top of that the dealers that KNOW they are selling to strawmen.

If the manufacturers KNEW that they were selling to a criminal or those that actively sell to criminals, then darned right they should be shut down and brought up on charges immediately. Simply knowing that some of their guns will end up in the hands of criminals to me is a different moral/legal ground though. Now for some of the gunstores and dealers...well a few of them SHOULD be in jail.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by thebestjeter

Or at least, he doesn't find inappropriate to call a MR user "criminal" because she has used the words 'book' and 'torrent' in the same sentence.

Actually, the person involved said something like "I download all my books from torrent sites". Somewhat different from "using the word book and torrent in the samer sentence", don't you think? It is, and remains, the official policy of MR not to encourage or assist such endeavours. Sorry if that offends you.