Dotcom raid illegal

[eLiNK]

Originally Posted by MikeOxlittle

Going after these 'small' sites like MegaUpload/Pirate Bay will make very little difference in the long run .... as long as Usenet servers are ignored.

I mean where do you think all the material comes from anyways?

from copyright holders?

[Lynx-lynx]

Some yet to be established facts and a bit more of the Megaupload New Zealand story - NZHerald.co.nz:

-------------------------

Megaupload millionaire Kim Dotcom claims Hollywood bosses pressured the US Government to tackle the filesharing website before the raid on his $30 million Auckland mansion.

................. "I do know from a credible source that it was Joe Biden, the best friend of former Senator and MPAA boss Chris Dodd, who ordered his former lawyer and now state attorney Neil MacBride to take Mega down,'' Dotcom told the TorrentFreak website.

"It is interesting that a man by the name of Mike Ellis of MPA Asia, an extradition expert and former superintendent of the Hong Kong police, was also at a meeting with Dodd, all studio bosses and Joe Biden. The same Mike Ellis met with the Minister of Justice Simon Power in New Zealand.''

Mr Power declined Dotcom's application to buy the mansion in Coatesville four months later after officials recommended the sale be approved. The decision came just days after the Crown Law Office started working on the FBI case.

Fellow minister Maurice Williamson had already approved the sale but changed his mind after Mr Power turned Dotcom down. It has since emerged that officials told the ministers of interest in Dotcom by the FBI after a tip from an unknown source to Immigration New Zealand in 2010.

Officials at Immigration NZ and the Overseas Investment Office investigated Megaupload, raising no concerns about its operation. They also investigated Dotcom's wealth, saying it had been earned legitimately.

Prime Minister John Key said Mr Power's rejection of the application was simply because he was conservative and believed it did not have the right feel.'

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10817283

[Elfwreck]

One of the things I find fascinating about this case, is that nobody on the "anti-piracy" side seems to be saying, "the feds should go after the individual users."

If a company provided, oh, bank robbers with anonymous getaway taxicabs, and you could call them and arrange for them to help you get away from any robbery (as well as call them to help you get your groceries home, or get a ride from a party where everyone's too drunk to drive safely), the authorities might well focus on the taxi service as the lynchpin that allowed hundreds of robberies to take place. However, I wouldn't expect the banks or other robbed stores to say, "that's fine; shut those down, and don't bother going after any of the actual robbers; that's obviously too much trouble."

None of the copyright owners involved seem to be pressuring the feds to go after *the people who infringed their copyrights,* rather than "the people who provided a service that made that infringement easy." I haven't seen any articles about copyright owners demanding lists of users and contents from the MegaUpload servers so they can prosecute specific people who infringed their copyrights. It's almost like they know that small-scale infringement doesn't cause them any notable damage and isn't worth spending any effort to stop or punish.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I haven't seen any articles about copyright owners demanding lists of users and contents from the MegaUpload servers so they can prosecute specific people who infringed their copyrights. It's almost like they know that small-scale infringement doesn't cause them any notable damage and isn't worth spending any effort to stop or punish.

You haven't heard about people being sued for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for sharing MP3 files? Where have you been?
The companies have largely shifted away from such tactics because they were very bad PR.

[Greg Anos]

and it cost them more than they got back...They could go bankrupt protecting their copyrights...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

You haven't heard about people being sued for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for sharing MP3 files? Where have you been?

In the Megaupload case? Do you have links to those stories?

I haven't seen *any* lawsuits actually go to court for filesharing through upload-file services, rather than P2P sharing. I've seen plenty of demands for settlements, often thrown at people who don't have the resources to fight them; all that proves is "the corporation filing the claim has a team of lawyers and the average college student doesn't." If a corporation went after college students for wearing baseball-caps backwards as a trademark violation (because it's "defamatory," perhaps), those students would also have no choice but to settle or go bankrupt trying to fight the charges.

The companies have largely shifted away from such tactics because they were very bad PR.

When the majority of the public thinks enforcing the law is a bad idea, it's time to change the law. If public sympathy overwhemingly goes to the accused, over and over, the prosecutions may not be in the public interest.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

One of the things I find fascinating about this case, is that nobody on the "anti-piracy" side seems to be saying, "the feds should go after the individual users. ................ None of the copyright owners involved seem to be pressuring the feds to go after *the people who infringed their copyrights,* rather than "the people who provided a service that made that infringement easy." I haven't seen any articles about copyright owners demanding lists of users and contents from the MegaUpload servers so they can prosecute specific people who infringed their copyrights. It's almost like they know that small-scale infringement doesn't cause them any notable damage and isn't worth spending any effort to stop or punish. "

Appears that no one in New Zealand used the Megaupload facility or one would think that the appropriate authorities would have taken action against them in order to bolster the case.

Or authorities really are just not interested in the individual users.

Not sure there's a lot of anti Megaupload sentiment in NZ since prior to this case being brought the Kiwi government couldn't find that Dotcom's business or wealth was illegal.



NB I'm not aware of any individual New Zealand residents having had legal action taken against them for using the Megaupload and associated software, is anyone else?

[Lynx-lynx]

Some of the NZ Herald's latest offerings, 5:30 AM Thursday Jul 5, 2012 (NZ Time):

----------------------------------------
FBI agents posed as customers of the file-sharing site Megaupload while investigating Kim Dotcom, says his legal team.

They are also believed to have intercepted phone and Skype conversations, the High Court at Auckland was told by Paul Davison, QC.

The result of those investigations should be among evidence made available to Dotcom and his three co-accused, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk to prepare for the extradition hearing in August on criminal copyright violation and related charges. The details were aired during a judicial review hearing into an order for the United States to produce evidence against the accused.

............................ Much of the evidence is held in the US after the FBI seized computer servers holding vast volumes of information. There is also evidence seized in New Zealand, which is now being argued before the court after the search warrants used to take it were ruled invalid.

Crown lawyer John Pike said the disclosure ordered by the District Court was of a magnitude not found in similar cases. He said the current order captured 22 million emails and hundreds of thousands of documents.

He said extradition should be limited to the "record of case" - the document produced at the extradition hearing which had an assurance from the prosecuting state it was "a proper and tryable case".

---------------------

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology...ectid=10817479

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

One of the things I find fascinating about this case, is that nobody on the "anti-piracy" side seems to be saying, "the feds should go after the individual users."

Perhaps it's so self-evident that it doesn't need saying? I'm sure that the overwhelming majority of us are against piracy.

[stonetools]

Perhaps it's so self-evident that it doesn't need saying? I'm sure that the overwhelming majority of us are against piracy.

Not so sure about that. Lots of folks here and elsewhere seem A-OK about downloading free stuff from the Internet. Inany case, the strategy seems clear-go after the major facilitators of piracy and the individuals will take care of themselves.

[stonetools]

When the majority of the public thinks enforcing the law is a bad idea, it's time to change the law. If public sympathy overwhemingly goes to the accused, over and over, the prosecutions may not be in the public interest.

Yet juries, far more representative of the public than Internet using hipsters, have returned guilty verdicts in most, if not every, case against copyright violators. That may be a better measure of public sympathy towards both downloaders and pirates than folks who benefit from using those networks. Just sayin'.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Inany case, the strategy seems clear-go after the major facilitators of piracy and the individuals will take care of themselves.

Nothing is ever easy. Let's put aside for a moment the question what were the intentions of Megaupload owner, and see if there are... unintended consequences.

One way of seeing the phenomenon of piracy is that it is, in essence, an abuse of technology for illegal activity. Since this hunt started, all file sharing sites were shut down, and what was once a legal use of RapidShare (put encrypted content for other person to pick it up, therefore bypassing the e-mail limits) is now not possible.

It is not so trivial to go after facilitators without, at the same time, hurting the infrastructure. For example, it is perfectly possible to abuse a web server to host (encrypted, some forum somewhere on the net has a link and a password) pirated book. A hunt for facilitator (in this instance, a site offering free hosting) will shut down that service type. Can we, in broader sense, afford to enter that circle of fighting perverse usage of the technology?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ankh

One way of seeing the phenomenon of piracy is that it is, in essence, an abuse of technology for illegal activity. Since this hunt started, all file sharing sites were shut down

Were they? Sites like "RapidShare" still appear to be very much alive.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Were they? Sites like "RapidShare" still appear to be very much alive.

Personal cloud storage, if I am not mistaken.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ankh

Personal cloud storage, if I am not mistaken.

From their "About Us" page:

Millions of Customers use the service every day to store large files or make them available to friends...