Kim Dotcom Files Brief In His Trial In The Court Of Public Opinion

from the laying-out-the-arguments dept

A bunch of folks have been pointing us to the new "whitepaper" released by Kim Dotcom, which lays out two key things: why the lawsuit against him is a complete legal sham and also why it was driven by a corrupt connection between the US government and the MPAA. The paper is written by his lawyers, including Ira Rothken and Richard Amsterdam (whose addition to his legal team was discussed a few months ago). Frankly, most of this reads like the lawyers refining the eventual motion-to-dismiss filing that they expect to submit to the federal court (should it ever get there). The majority of it is taken up with the clear legal statements as to why the lawsuit is based on very questionable theories. The main point, as we've discussed before in the context of other cases, is that the DOJ seems to have completely made up a legal theory of contributory copyright inducement. While there is such a thing in civil contexts, it's not there in criminal contexts. Supporters of the DOJ will argue that there is aiding and abetting, but the rules there are quite different and, again, it doesn't look like Dotcom and crew would be guilty of such a charge.

The overall point is clearly stated in the whitepaper. Here's a snippet:
The fact of the matter is that the notion of criminal liability for secondary copyright infringement does not exist in U.S. law. The attempt by prosecutors to expand criminal liability for secondary infringement by couching it as “aiding and abetting” or “conspiracy” goes against established precedent in case law and repeated positions taken by the U.S. Congress.

The Copyright Act creates civil and criminal liability for various acts of copyright infringement, but it does not expressly give rise to liability for infringement committed by third parties. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has defined specific circumstances under which service providers may be held civilly liable (i.e., not criminally responsible) for direct copyright infringement by third parties, such as distributing “a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright.”

The fundamental legal problem with this aspect of the government’s case is that only Congress can create new criminal liability; judges cannot. Previous instances in which courts have imposed civil liability for secondary copyright infringement – based on application of common law principles – do not apply in criminal proceedings, as federal crimes are “solely creatures of statute.” Whatever authority the courts may have had to recognize a contributory theory of copyright liability in the civil context, the courts simply have no power to impose a basis for criminal liability beyond what is expressly authorized by statute.
One surprising inclusion is that the whitepaper supports this well known point -- that courts can't create new criminal liability -- by extensively quoting legal analysis from Jay Prabhu from years ago. This is a bit of dagger twisting by Dotcom's legal team. Prabhu, well after writing those analysis, took a job in the Justice Department, and eventually was put in charge of the DOJ's "cybercrime" unit -- and has been a key prosecutor against a number of copyright cases, including various domain seizures. In fact, he's the one who signed the indictment against Dotcom. To use his own words against the case is amusing.

The filing also lays out a number of arguments that we've seen before, including a further explanation of how the DOJ was being totally disingenuous in arguing that Megaupload refused to remove works it knew were infringing, by pointing out the files they mentioned were ones that Megaupload has clearly been asked to preserve as part of an investigation into copyright infringement.

There's also an interesting and more detailed than previous discussed defense on the point about Megaupload's rewards program. We had pointed out how silly it was to use this element against Megaupload, since it was a general rewards program to get people to make use of its cloud storage, and there was nothing in the program that induced more infringement (in fact, it seemed like a great tool for a content creator to make money by releasing his or her own works via the rewards program). On this, Dotcom's whitepaper points out not just those points, but also (1) the fact that lots of other sites have similar rewards programs (2) specific features Megaupload included in its rewards program that made it bad for infringement (including file size limits and required identification) and (3) the fact that they had dropped the program long before the indictment.

While I do wonder how wise it is to basically give the DOJ their opening brief way before they would actually see it in court -- and giving them a lot more time to respond to it -- there are a few reasons why this move could make sense. First, they're so damn confident in their argument that it doesn't really matter. That may be risky. Another point may be that it signals to the DOJ that they may want to look for ways to extricate itself from the case quickly, because it's not going to go as easy as the DOJ has assumed from the beginning. The other issue may be that Dotcom and his legal team realized long ago that the court of public opinion probably matters more in the long run than the federal court system in the US.

To that end, of course, the paper has a second section, which has received most of the attention: all about the supposed corrupt process that brought about the indictment. When Megaupload hired Richard Amsterdam, he specifically noted that the details of the case suggested a typical "contract prosecution," and the paper seeks to lay out that argument clearly, highlighting the close relationship between the Obama Administration (mainly via VP Joe Biden) and MPAA boss Chris Dodd.
Chris Dodd’s jump from the U.S. Senate into the cockpit of the MPAA was an equivalent move. As the new Chairman and CEO of the MPAA, Chris Dodd improperly leveraged his friendship with Joe Biden to achieve the MPAA’s objectives. Former Senator Dodd’s relationship with the Vice President– who comes off manipulated, a cheerfully credulous facilitator – together with the Obama Administration’s ravenous hunger for campaign contributions, has given the MPAA absolute control over how the U.S. Department of Justice plays the game in enforcing copyright law. This capture is nowhere more clearly demonstrated than in the Megaupload/Kim Dotcom prosecution.
Frankly, while this section is getting the most attention, I actually find it to be the weakest and most poorly supported part of the paper, which would probably be more compelling without it. I don't doubt that the close connections between the MPAA and various folks in the DOJ and in the VP's office contributed to Megaupload being a target, but trying to make it out as anything more than that seems like a stretch. Yes, the MPAA complained regularly about Megaupload, and that clearly helped put a target on its back. But, it's quite likely that the over-eager folks at the DOJ ran with this one on their own. The MPAA (with the help of the press) had worked over time to paint Kim Dotcom as "Dr. Evil" of the copyright world. Everything about the process of taking down Megaupload screams of a bunch of feds who totally bought into the theatrical version of the MPAA's vision, without much effort to understand what was really happening. The myriad mistakes and sloppiness in the case really suggest that the DOJ assumed that the stories the MPAA told were so accurate that everything about this case would be a layup. The investigation, the indictment, the raid, the handling of evidence -- all of it was done in a sloppy way -- as if they expected no one would challenge any of it.

I'm sure there was influence and pressure that went into this, but painting it as a case where Chris Dodd called up Joe Biden and said, "Destroy Megaupload" is probably a massive exaggeration. Instead, it seems quite likely that MPAA folks just kept playing up the theatrical version of Kim Dotcom as evil (and, Dotcom himself actually helped promote this sort of view of himself at times as well...), and then the DOJ's imagination combined with its general over-aggressive nature towards any copyright issues just sort of took over from there.

Either way, the paper is definitely a worthwhile read. I'm sure a group of folks at the DOJ are taking their time reading through it quite carefully. I imagine that we'll eventually see their response in court.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Jay (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 3:00am

    Raids and mercantilism

    I'm sure there was influence and pressure that went into this, but painting it as a case where Chris Dodd called up Joe Biden and said, "Destroy Megaupload" is probably a massive exaggeration.

    Mike, I have to wonder... How many stories have you done where the MPAA uses ICE to be their private police force?

    In 2011 they raided a fully authorized factory with no consequences.

    In 2010, you questioned their raid on the Pirate Bay.

    In 2007, you questioned why the FBI and the MPAA were training Swedish Police.

    And in March you explained why the best thing with the MPAA was censorship and freaking out.

    In 2012, you explained how the MPAA didn't want the public to have fair use.

    And yet, the same story over and over is how the MPAA or some industry uses their private police force to destroy competition not for innovation, but because they want to maintain their business model.

    The message should be clear: Beware of mercantilists who abuse the rules for their own money seeking purposes.

    Just to drive this point home, look at what Adam Smith had to say about such mercantilism:

    The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from [capitalists] ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whos interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

    “The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked... sell their commodities much above the natural price... The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got. The natural price, or the price of free competition, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken....”

    We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters [cartels]; though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour....

    People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

    In general, if any branch of trade, or any division of labor, be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so

    To which piracy and infringement challenge the status quo of the MPAA.

    It is the industry which is carried on for the benefit of the rich and powerful, that is principally encouraged by our mercantile system. That which is carried on for the benefit of the poor and the indigent, is too often, either neglected, or oppressed.

    And finally, let's call out the DoJ:

    Commerce and manufactures, in short, can seldom flourish in any state in which there is not a certain degree of confidence in the justice of government.

    What Kim is actually doing is calling out the bad behavior of the US government that has acted in bad faith to politicians getting money. This weakens the respect for the DoJ to carry out the powers of the state. Rather than look at the corruption right under its nose with the MPAA, it opts for a third party that was thought to be weak. He's called out the copyright monopoly.

    And I think that by showing the revolving door of justice, Kim's lawyers indeed have a strong case with the public on this issue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 3:47am

      Re: Raids and mercantilism

      I agree with you Jay. I do find it odd that Mike said it was unlikely that Dodd called Biden and said "Nuke the fuckers!" when it is plainly clear that that is what happened.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 3:53am

        Re: Re: Raids and mercantilism

        Well, that's because Dodd is unlikely to have used those exact words. The meaning, however, is pretty clear.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Jim L, May 8th, 2013 @ 6:25am

          Re: Re: Re: Raids and mercantilism

          Yeah, he probably would never have said *Nuke*

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 7:58am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Raids and mercantilism

            More likely he said "go Kim Jung-un on Kim Dotcom"?

            I mean the DOJ does seem to be acting rather stupidly and like they are trying to flex their muscles...

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 4:36am

      Re: Raids and mercantilism

      That. As much as one doesn't want to be cynical we must avoid being naive. It's pretty clear that this case was ordered by private entities (MAFIAA). And this would not be the first time. I'll repeat myself but I find it necessary: Goldman Sachs sold rotten derivatives while sorting them as good investments and had insurances made at AIG mainly. When things went wild the Government went in, bailed out AIG and Goldman Sachs filled their pockets. There are other (probably less outrageous) examples that can be brought here and I'm sure my fellow TD readers can help me here but the fact is that there is a great influence from private entities in the United States Government nowadays (not mentioning other countries *NZ*). So this may be perfectly true.

      I tend to assume in this case that Biden is just the clueless puppet in the process. Dodd used their 'friendship' to benefit the MAFIAA, his paymasters. But I will not be surprised if I find out Biden also benefited from all this.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 3:58am

    While there is such a thing in civil contexts, it's not there in criminal contexts. Supporters of the DOJ will argue that there is aiding and abetting, but the rules there are quite different and, again, it doesn't look like Dotcom and crew would be guilty of such a charge.

    I really don't understand the argument. Aiding and abetting is a crime under 18 USC 2. Conspiracy is a crime under 18 USC 371. How is the government making anything up? If Dotcom aided and abetted others to infringe, he's liable as if he himself infringed. If Dotcom conspired with others who infringed, he's liable as if he himself infringed. While the Copyright Act may not provide for indirect liability in civil suits, and judges found such liability to exist as a matter of common law, Title 18 explicitly provides for such liability. Mike, can you explain how the DOJ is making this up when it's right there in Title 18? This isn't judges making it up. It's literally right there in Title 18. This argument is so silly, it hurts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 4:51am

      Re:

      You skipped this part
      "The fact of the matter is that the notion of criminal liability for secondary copyright infringement does not exist in U.S. law."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 5:19am

        Re: Re:

        You are missing the point. The crime in the copyright act is direct copyright infringement. Title 18 makes it also a crime to induce or aid and abet direct copyright infringement. Thus, it is a crime explicitly listed in the US Code.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          That's more like it, May 8th, 2013 @ 5:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You are missing the point. The crime in the copyright act is direct copyright infringement. Title 18 makes it also a crime to induce or aid and abet direct copyright infringement. Thus, it is a crime explicitly listed in the US Code.


          I assume this crime listed in the US Code applies to everyone anywhere in the world?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 5:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            People outside of the US can violate US law. It's not even debatable.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 5:46am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The more important question is, should they be punished by the US system, when the NZ system fits just as well?

              IMO, the answer is a resounding "NO".

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Rikuo (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 6:00am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              People outside of Saudia Arabia can violate Saudi law by saying on a website viewable by Saudis "Muhammed was an evil prick". It's not even debatable.
              The question is...does Saudia Arabia have the right to go after such persons? To demand that local governments use SWAT style raids to go after the speaker? To use false warrants and withhold key evidence?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 6:29am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You're missing the point, boy.

          Title 18 doesn't cover actions done without your knowledge or approval.
          If I don't know my adult son is storing illegal drugs in my house, am I responsible?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Rekrul, May 8th, 2013 @ 3:54pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            If I don't know my adult son is storing illegal drugs in my house, am I responsible?

            Technically no, but under today's drug laws and the asset seizure regulations, I wouldn't rule out a prosecutor trying to take your house anyway.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 5:57pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Which makes it an acceptable outcome? So far your argument seems to boil down to 'Well we really can't stop them so we may as well just defend their actions.'.

              I will however repeat that aiding and abetting requires active knowledge and participation. Or are you promoting legal definitions of 'active knowledge' to mean 'vague proclamations made outside the fully functional reporting system'?

              If so, any system that allows user generated content, from youtube down to this commenting system, becomes an impossible to manage liability.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Violated (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 7:18am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You do make a valid point when companies cannot assist people with committing a crime. However, MegaUpload is protected by DMCA safe-harbour, where until such a time it has been proved by a Court Judge that they have committed offences warranting safe-harbour removal, then Mega has no crime to answer to when there is simply no infringement done by MegaUpload.

          To try and work this any other way is to try to both ignore and violate DMCA law.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Karl (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 8:56am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The crime in the copyright act is direct copyright infringement.

          Direct copyright infringement is not a crime. It must be "willful," and it must be either for profit; worth over $1000; or a pre-release ("leaked" or "camcorded") copy.

          If the primary infringement does not meet this criteria, it is not criminal. Furthermore, "evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright." It's all in 17 USC 506.

          18 USC 2 makes it a crime to willfully "aid, abet, counsel, command, induce or procure" criminal infringement, but doing the same for civil infringement is not in any way a criminal act.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 6:25am

      Re:

      "I really don't understand the argument. Aiding and abetting is a crime under 18 USC 2. Conspiracy is a crime under 18 USC 371."

      If a criminal steals your car to make a getaway are you "aiding and abbeting" him. boy?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rob, May 8th, 2013 @ 6:49am

      Re: Conspiracy

      For the 18 USC 371 the conspiracy has to be to commit a federal offence. The problem is the copyright infringement offence is clearly by the will of Congress only an offence by the person who has actually committed the copyright infringement. Megaupload can't conspire to do something that isn't illegal. Given the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA for service providers Megaupload believed it's actions where legal. Bingo the conspiracy has to fall over because of a lack of mens rea, criminal intent.

      The 18 USC 2, Aiding and abetting, has the same mens rea issue to get over. How can there be criminal intent on Megauploads part when DMCA says as a service provide they are not accountable for the actions of users.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Tom Anderson, May 8th, 2013 @ 7:00am

      Re: WOW

      Wait, so there are no previous cases, just some handwaving by an Anonymous Coward, and she or he really expected a response?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 7:50am

      Re:

      Thank you for bringing up a valid point. If you could do it without trying to insult people you might get listened to.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 8:21am

      Re:

      I really don't understand the argument. Aiding and abetting is a crime under 18 USC 2.

      I guess you missed this part of the article?
      Supporters of the DOJ will argue that there is aiding and abetting, but the rules there are quite different and, again, it doesn't look like Dotcom and crew would be guilty of such a charge.

      There are more details in the white paper. Here are the relevant sections, with the footnotes included in the text:
      The Copyright Act creates civil and criminal liability for various acts of copyright infringement, but it does not expressly give rise to liability for infringement committed by third parties. See MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930 (2005) (the Act “does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another” (quoting Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 434 (1984)); Demetriades v. Kaufmann, 690 F. Supp. 289, 291-92 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (“Federal copyright law, unlike patent law, does not expressly create any form of derivative, third-party liability.”). Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has defined specific circumstances under which service providers may be held civilly liable (i.e., not criminally responsible) for direct copyright infringement by third parties, such as distributing “a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright.” See Id., at 919, 936-37.

      The fundamental legal problem with this aspect of the government’s case is that only Congress can create new criminal liability; judges cannot. Previous instances in which courts have imposed civil liability for secondary copyright infringement – based on application of common law principles – do not apply in criminal proceedings, as federal crimes are “solely creatures of statute.” See Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 424 (1985) (citing United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32 (1812)). Whatever authority the courts may have had to recognize a contributory theory of copyright liability in the civil context, the courts simply have no power to impose a basis for criminal liability beyond what is expressly authorized by statute.

      There have been other cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court rejected attempts by prosecutors to expand criminal copyright liability. In one such case, Dowling v. United States, a California man was charged criminally for selling bootleg recordings of Elvis Presley concerts through the U.S. Postal Service. After the matter had worked its way through the court system, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun succinctly stated the rule that applies equally here: “The precision with which [Congress] has addressed the problem of copyright infringement for profit, as well as the precision with which it has chosen to apply criminal penalties in this area, demonstrates anew the wisdom of leaving it to the legislature to define crime and prescribe penalties.” Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, 228 (1985). [...]

      Congress has had a number of opportunities to expand criminal liability for secondary copyright infringement, but instead has moved in the opposite direction. For example, in 2004, Congress rejected a bill that would have created secondary liability under the Copyright Act. See Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004, S. 2560, 108th Cong. (2003). Subsequently, Congress twice amended the Copyright Act’s criminal provisions, and both times it omitted any reference to vicarious or contributory liability. See Prioritizing Resources And Organization For Intellectual Property Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-403, §201(a), 122 Stat 4256 (2008); Family Entertainment And Copyright Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-9, §103(a), 119 Stat 218 (2005).

      It would be a radical departure to extend secondary liability into criminal proceedings when Congress has taken affirmative steps to scale back even civil liability of this sort. [...]

      Notwithstanding the U.S. government’s improper attempt to extend criminal liability to alleged secondary infringement, the government’s indictment also falls short because it makes no attempt to allege facts that could constitute “double willfulness,” namely that Megaupload willfully aided and abetted a willful primary infringer. The government perhaps omitted such allegations because it was aware that Megaupload and its executives took steps to reduce potential copyright infringement by the company’s third-party users.

      The prosecution’s allegation of a “Mega Conspiracy” is not enough to cure its flawed theory of criminal secondary infringement because conspiracy requires “a specific agreement to commit a specific crime.” See United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 839, 860 (4th Cir. 1996). Any “agreement” amongst the defendants could not possibly have contemplated secondary copyright infringement because, as noted, no such crime exists. Moreover, the indictment does not allege any “agreement” between the defendants and the third-party users, nor does it assert even a single instance of direct criminal infringement by any of the users. Therefore, even if secondary infringement were a viable legal theory for criminal liability, the indictment fails to set out a viable case for conspiracy.

      The tl:dr; version:

      Secondary civil liability based on common law (a la Napster or Grokster) is not criminal liability. There is no secondary criminal liability, and Congress rejected all attempts to create it.

      To show "aiding and abetting," and "conspiracy," you need to show Megaupload willfully aided and abetted a willful primary infringer, and that there was a a specific agreement to commit that specific infringement. The government has not even alleged these things, much less shown them.

      Hope you understand now.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Rikuo (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 8:24am

        Re: Re:

        "The government has not even alleged these things, much less shown them."

        No but they have shown proof of money laundering when MU paid its bills to Carpathia...wait what?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 9:37am

      Re:

      The main point, as we've discussed before in the context of other cases, is that the DOJ seems to have completely made up a legal theory of contributory copyright inducement. While there is such a thing in civil contexts, it's not there in criminal contexts. Supporters of the DOJ will argue that there is aiding and abetting, but the rules there are quite different and, again, it doesn't look like Dotcom and crew would be guilty of such a charge.


      Yeah, Mike asserted this point before - that there's no criminal liability for "inducing" criminal copyright infringement. And still, it doesn't make sense to me. As the AC above points out, 18 USC Section 2 says those who aid, abet, or "induce" others to violate any of the criminal statutes in title 18 (which would include criminal infringement) is guilty as a principle. In other words, that the person can be held criminally liable as though he himself committed the violation. This is a much older and established part of US than the Grokster opinion. Mike says above that "supporters of the DOJ will argue that there is aiding and abetting, but the rules there are quite different." But one doesn't have to "support" the DOJ to read Section 2 and see that it criminalizes "inducing" someone else to commit a crime (as well as the more familiar "aiding" or "abetting" them). I have no idea what "different rules" Mike is talking about - he's never made that clear in the past. Certainly there are some differences between civil and criminal liability, such as the standards of proof, the requirements to show intent in criminal cases, etc. But those differences are illustrated in any criminal copyright case, of which there have been many over the years.

      Mike, is there some distinction you have in mind? Because it just isn't making any sense.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 11:36am

        Re: Re:

        As the AC above points out, 18 USC Section 2 says those who aid, abet, or "induce" others to violate any of the criminal statutes in title 18 (which would include criminal infringement) is guilty as a principle. In other words, that the person can be held criminally liable as though he himself committed the violation. This is a much older and established part of US than the Grokster opinion. Mike says above that "supporters of the DOJ will argue that there is aiding and abetting, but the rules there are quite different." But one doesn't have to "support" the DOJ to read Section 2 and see that it criminalizes "inducing" someone else to commit a crime (as well as the more familiar "aiding" or "abetting" them).

        As Karl explained above, and as we've discussed in detail in the past: you have to show aiding and abetting *CRIMINAL* infringement. They may be able to show support for civil infringement, but that's different and doesn't qualify here.

        Nowhere do the charges even attempt to show any specific *criminal* infringement.

        As in the Rojadirecta case, they're mixing and matching the different elements of criminal copyright infringement. They need to show that someone *willfully* engaged in significant infringement for profit (or worth a significant amount or a pre-release copy). The government doesn't even make this argument.

        It, at best, is arguing that there is some civil infringement, and then that Dotcom and crew induced *civil* infringement for profit. But that's not how the law works.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 12:23pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          As Karl explained above, and as we've discussed in detail in the past: you have to show aiding and abetting *CRIMINAL* infringement. They may be able to show support for civil infringement, but that's different and doesn't qualify here.

          Dotcom was arguing that there's no such thing as contributory criminal infringement. You agreed in your article: "The main point, as we've discussed before in the context of other cases, is that the DOJ seems to have completely made up a legal theory of contributory copyright inducement."

          Are you now saying that there can be indirect liability for criminal infringement under 18 USC 2? Which is it? Does it exist, or does it not exist? Don't conflate the issue of whether such a crime exists with whether such a crime was committed here. I understand that you think it can't be proved here, but I want to know if you agree that it exists. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can one be criminally liable for inducing another infringe or not?

          Nowhere do the charges even attempt to show any specific *criminal* infringement.

          That's not true. The indictment has all sorts of information about how they induced criminal infringement and even stuff about the principals engaging in it themselves (like the part I quoted above about "Taken"). How is "Taken" not an example of "specific *criminal* infringement"? Please explain why you think this is not an example of such criminal infringement.

          As in the Rojadirecta case, they're mixing and matching the different elements of criminal copyright infringement. They need to show that someone *willfully* engaged in significant infringement for profit (or worth a significant amount or a pre-release copy). The government doesn't even make this argument.

          The government alleges that Megaupload itself provided the profit. The indictment alleges violations of 506(a)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Subpart (A) only requires that it be "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain," not "significant infringement for profit" as you contend. Just any old profit will do. And Subpart (C) requires "distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution." The government alleged that with "Taken." How is the government "mixing and matching the different elements"? Seems like they are getting it exactly right. Please explain what the government has mixed up. For reference: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/506

          It, at best, is arguing that there is some civil infringement, and then that Dotcom and crew induced *civil* infringement for profit. But that's not how the law works.

          "Taken" alone is criminal infringement. How is it "at best . . . some civil infringement"? That's a crime under Subpart (C). Please explain why in your opinion it's not. Thanks!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Rob, May 8th, 2013 @ 9:15pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Was Taken uploaded from within the USA to a server within the USA?

            If a 3rd party within the USA uploaded to Megaupload Virginia servers and Van Der Kolk only upload to a European server which was MD5 hash matched to a previously existing USA copy then it is outside the jurisdiction of the DOJ in any case.


            The fact that "some" of Megaupload's servers where in the USA does not create a nexus for every action of every user globally to come within USA jurisdiction. A user in Spain uploading and downloading to a server in Germany is outside the bounds of DOJ mandate.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          horse with no name, May 8th, 2013 @ 8:41pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Criminal infringement is easy to show, as those people who were posting videos on Mega as part of their pay for downloads program were getting commercial benefit.

          It should also be pointed out that Kim's own subsidiary companies were some of the biggest beneficiaries of sending people to download copyright material and getting paid a commission. It's hard for Kim to deny knowledge as he was on both sides of the transaction.

          I think it is more important that Kim (and his lawyers) have gone public with this and other pieces, including a poor post on torrentfreak from one of the lawyers. They are so desperate to get the public on their side, which is an indication that they know they are toasted, and the only place they might be able to win is a site like Techdirt.

          Legally, Kim is toast. It's not a question of if, it's the question of when.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 9th, 2013 @ 6:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Oh, wow, his lawyer posted on TorrentFreak? That is desperate. And Mike pretending like there's no "specific criminal infringement" alleged when there in fact is shows desperation on his part too. Funny how he ran away rather than just admit that such specific infringement is alleged. I wonder why he can't just admit something so clear and undeniable. I wonder too why he can't make a clear statement on whether inducing another to commit criminal infringement is itself a crime. How can he expect others to take him seriously when he does stuff like this? I'm reminded of how he can't admit the possibility that Aaron Swartz did anything wrong. You'd think a guy who espouses evidence-based reality so much would gladly discuss reality based on evidence. Weird. Almost like he doesn't care about reality.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Karl (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 11:45am

        Re: Re:

        The "inducement" standard in Grokster, is not the same as the "aiding and abetting" (which includes "inducement") sections of criminal law.

        Here's the text from Grokster:
        For the same reasons that Sony took the staple-article doctrine of patent law as a model for its copyright safe-harbor rule, the inducement rule, too, is a sensible one for copyright. We adopt it here, holding that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.

        As you can see, it's not developed from any copyright statute, but derived from the common law doctrines of patent laws. It also invokes liability for any distributor of a device who is "promoting its use to infringe copyright."

        That would not be enough for criminal aiding and abetting (or "inducing"). For example, see the California Criminal Jury Instructions on aiding and abetting:
        To prove that the defendant is guilty of a crime based on aiding and abetting that crime, the People must prove that:

        1. The perpetrator committed the crime;
        2. The defendant knew that the perpetrator intended to commit the crime;
        3. Before or during the commission of the crime, the defendant intended to aid and abet the perpetrator in committing the crime;
        AND
        4. The defendant's words or conduct did in fact aid and abet the perpetrator's commission of the crime.

        Someone aids and abets a crime if he or she knows of the perpetrator's unlawful purpose and he or she specifically intends to, and does in fact, aid, facilitate, promote, encourage, or instigate the perpetrator's commission of that crime. [...]

        If a specific intent crime is aided and abetted, the aider and abettor must share the requisite specific intent with the perpetrator.

        For aiding and abetting, merely "promoting its use" is not enough. You have to have actual knowledge of the specific crime, actively aid in it, and share the principal's mens rea.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 4:16am

    Forgot to mention that the superseding indictment alleges direct infringement by one of the Mega crew:
    On or about October 25, 2008, VAN DER KOLK uploaded an infringing copy ofa copyrighted motion picture entitled "Taken 2008 DVDRipRepack [A Release Lounge H264 By Micky22].mp4" to Megaupload.com and e-mailed the URL link for the file to another individual. An infringing copy ofthis copyrighted work was still present as of October 27, 2011, on a server in the Eastern District ofVirginia controlled by the Mega Conspiracy.
    I get that you want to defend Dotcom et al. to the end of time, but you should at least admit that direct infringement is also alleged.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 4:39am

      Re:

      Alleged, not proven with solid evidence. And further documents revealed that many copyrighted files were kept online because law enforcement ASKED Megaupload to keep them online not to disrupt an investigation. At least admit that.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 4:49am

      Re:

      Yeah, the file may have been there, but what you curiously left out in that quote is the part where Van Der Kolk told Megaupload staff/management that "hey, there's an infringing file here!" Who was the "other individual" that Van Der Kolk e-mailed?
      Without being told, Kim Dotcom would not have known about the file or whether to delete it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Rikuo (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 4:55am

        Re: Re:

        Okay my bad. I thought Van Der Kolk was just some guy, had to look him up and found out he was one of the people arrested along with DotCom.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Violated (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 7:30am

        Re: Re:

        Also no MegaUpload staff has the required skills to preform a detailed media check to confirm the copyright status of a suspect file.

        Had he said "look there is an infringing file here" then someone else would soon ask "Where is your proof that this file is infringing? Maybe the rights holder themselves personally uploaded it where it would cause criminal damage and customer interference to delete it falsely".

        Since there is no evidence here, where the law does not require a confirmation check, then the file would remain until the rights holder confirm it is an infringing file through a DMCA take-down request.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 5:18am

      Re:

      Okay, so it's alleged that Van Der Kolk uploaded Taken to MU. And that three years later, there was still a copy of Taken on the servers. Was the copy that was seen in 2011 the same as the one Kolk was alleged to have uploaded? Could the Kolk upload have been deleted, and then someone else uploaded a copy of the movie, someone other than Kolk?
      This isn't just to try and defend Kolk, but these are serious questions that must be asked when one is doing a criminal investigation. In a criminal investigation, you have to prove to a certain degree that the man being charged is guilty. Did someone download the named .mp4 file and was it confirmed, under oath by the movie's studio, that it is indeed their copyrighted work?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      anonymouse, May 8th, 2013 @ 5:48am

      Re:

      There is much more here that needs to be investigated than someone sharing one file.
      You seem to think that one file being shared is more important than the fact that the full might of the US government was used in a civil case.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rob, May 8th, 2013 @ 6:23am

      Re: Taken 2008

      We know 100% that Van Der Kolk was not in the USA when he is alleged to have uploaded the "Taken 2008" file because he has never been to the USA. Was the server that he connected to in Virginia or one in Europe where he was likely residing in 2008? Is the file currently in Virginia the actual copy Van Der Kolk uploaded or a MD5 hash clone of the copy he is alleged to have uploaded which was uploaded by another 3rd party to the server in the USA? As for the email was that to/from people outside the USA? The answer to these questions is important because by and large non-Americians can do what they like outside of the USA and it's none the the DOJ's business.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Anonymous Howard (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 8:06am

      Re:

      Does uploading a file to a file locker constitutes infringement in itself?

      What if he and the person who he emailed the link already legally owned the movie? Is that makes it an infringement?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 12:40pm

      Re:

      Forgot to mention that the superseding indictment alleges direct infringement by one of the Mega crew:

      FYI, from merely reading the paragraph that you supplied, that is not enough to allege criminal infringement. Direct infringement it may be, but there's no allegation of willfulness and private financial gain. (That file certainly wasn't worth $1000, and since it's called a "DVDRip," it's likely not a pre-release.)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 1:04pm

        Re: Re:

        Or it was a rip of pre-release screener. We're just guessing here, which is not productive. The indictment alleges that it was a work being prepared for commercial distribution, which is a violation of 506(a)(1)(C). Mike is saying that there's no allegation of specific criminal infringement. That is an allegation of specific criminal infringement. I'm waiting to see if Mike can explain why he says no such allegation exists when there clearly it does.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ERL (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 5:00am

    US Corruption

    Wow, I wish U.S. journalism and commentary was as intelligent and incisive as well as direct and frank about matters US govt. corruption as I see here on my first go around on techdirt. There is so little in the US that openly criticizes the govt in the printed word. People in the US are seriously deprived of any relevant or topical or truly newsworthy considerations. Anyways as an American I'm making this meta comment having just availed myself first time reading material, this "lite" article. Thank you. ERL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 6:03am

    i'm sure there are more people that believe Dodd did contact Biden and that a request was put in and then agreed. i think that like so many other reports on this site, as soon as you are expected to back something, unless it is something you wrote, you back off Mike. that is as gutless a move as any!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, May 8th, 2013 @ 6:21am

    But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!

    He's just saying that "teh internets" overturns established law that clearly covers secondary profiting. -- I have to construct a hypothetical because the law so clearly covers the sitch that isn't done, but it's easy to have an exact analog with physical media: "someone" burns infringing DVDs that they place anonymously in a booth run by Dotcom, who of course claims he doesn't know what the content is even though labeled; Dotcom sells both advertising and admission to enter the booth for best choice of the content. -- And it'd clearly be illegal.



    My 1000th post (with this email address, actually well over 2000 if prior one weren't mysteriously deleted).



    Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
    http://techdirt.com/
    Where Mike sez: uploader + file host + links site + downloader = perfectly "legal" symbiotic piracy.
    02:20:53[c-401-8]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Arthur Treacher, May 8th, 2013 @ 6:27am

      Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!

      Hey, it's OOTB1, shill, propagandist and legalist! Where's your brother, OOTB2?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 6:41am

      Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!

      "someone" burns infringing DVDs that they place anonymously in a booth run by Dotcom, who of course claims he doesn't know what the content is even though labeled; Dotcom sells both advertising and admission to enter the booth for best choice of the content.

      Let me fix the flawed analogy for you. Someone burns infringing DVDs and stores in a company with a theoretical infinite warehouse. That company provides robots that automatically carry the contents to said storage and provides means for the owner to share access to his "locker" and even copy the contents to others but in no part of the process they know what's being stored or copied (3D printing!!!). They only take action when warned that something is wrong. Now multiply that by millions of unidentified objects being stored and retrieved every second.

      Now you have proper analogy. Physical storing companies don't meddle in what is inside their lockers unless law enforcement asks for info. And the MAFIAA has it soft on them, the DMCA doesn't require warrants.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      S. T. Stone, May 8th, 2013 @ 6:49am

      Re: Insane ramblings

      But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!


      He’d have to deal with laws concerning counterfeiting and theft and such in that instance. Copyright doesn't generally cover the media. It covers the content, and content doesn’t ‘exist’ in the same way as a piece of paper or a plastic disc.

      Dotcom also deserves the same protections and rights afforded to anyone else under both New Zealand and United States law. His ‘crime’ and the zeal with which the major media corporations and their United States government lapdogs want to prosecute him should not somehow make him an ‘exception’ to the rule of law. If he broke the law (which seems likely), the government should have no problem acting within the boundaries of its own laws to prove that he broke the law. The government should not twist its own laws in an attempt to ‘send a message’ about copyright infringement. (Oh, and that goes just as much for New Zealand as it does for the United States.)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 7:03am

      Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!

      Only 1000 posts?

      Pathetic. I must've made hundreds of thousands by now.

      Don't believe me? Just go through the archives and count the posts made by "Anonymous Coward".

      You can't compete man.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      RD, May 8th, 2013 @ 7:10am

      Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!

      "My 1000th post (with this email address, actually well over 2000 if prior one weren't mysteriously deleted)."

      2000 instances of rhetoric, ramblings, and lies is nothing to brag about.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 7:11am

      Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!

      "My 1000th post"
      You...you actually counted? You kept a notebook and jotted down the amount of times that your email address + username combination were used?
      Tell me...have you gone to a doctor about this? You've just admitted to OCD.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 7:15am

      Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!

      "who of course claims he doesn't know what the content is even though labeled;"
      Because labels are always truthful, aren't they? There's never been a case of a file being other than what it's called.
      I uploaded "Batman_Begins_1080p.mkv" to a cyberlocker once. It was in reality a jpeg with a smiley face.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 7:39am

      Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!

      ""someone" burns infringing DVDs that they place anonymously in a booth run by Dotcom, who of course claims he doesn't know what the content is even though labeled; (because labels cannot be trusted) Dotcom sells both advertising and admission to enter the booth for best choice of the content. (and whenever he was told something was in his booth illegally, he got rid of it...funny how you left that out)
      And it'd clearly be illegal. (where, under the DMCA, as long as he gets rid of the illegal stuff, he should be fine...even though he's not a US citizen, has never set foot in the US, and has no duty to follow US laws).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 7:59am

      Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!

      1000th post? Does that mean you're done?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 8:31am

      Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!

      On April 18, 2013, the Viacom court rejected the argument that YouTube was only entitled to safe harbor protection if it could prove that it was unaware of infringement. The court noted that service providers serve a useful function, and pointed out that given the volume of content being uploaded/downloaded on a site like YouTube, “no service provider could possibly be aware of the contents of
      each such video.” Congress put the burden on the copyright owner to notify the service provider of infringements – in writing and with specified contents – and the court concluded that the burden could not be shifted back to YouTube to disprove its knowledge. YouTube was entitled the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions because Viacom was not able to prove that YouTube had actual knowledge of specific acts
      of infringement.

      The Viacom court also emphasized that the benefits of DMCA safe harbor protection did not require
      affirmative monitoring by YouTube based on some general awareness that infringement may be occurring. Nothing in the DMCA required YouTube to affirmatively seek out facts indicating infringing activity. Even though YouTube could potentially locate infringements using its own dentification
      tools, it had no duty under the DMCA to do so.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Rikuo (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 8:42am

        Re: Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!

        "Even though YouTube could potentially locate infringements using its own dentification
        tools, it had no duty under the DMCA to do so."

        Correction - While Youtube can potentially find copyrighted works on its site without being told by a copyright holder...it cannot tell whether any such found files are there with or without the holder's permission.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 9:18am

          Re: Re: Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!

          The 2 paragraphs that i stated was copied and pasted from the Whitepaper.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DP, May 9th, 2013 @ 4:29am

      Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!

      The whole lot should be deleted, if you ask me.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Violated (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 7:02am

    Joe Biden & Chris Dodd

    "I'm sure there was influence and pressure that went into this, but painting it as a case where Chris Dodd called up Joe Biden and said, 'Destroy Megaupload' is probably a massive exaggeration"

    I would more term that somewhere between 100% valid and a little exaggeration.

    Let us remember that Joe Biden is a huge sucker for the anti-piracy propaganda where very early in the Presidency he had a big meeting with the MPAA (no doubt about lobbying funds) where right after that Joe Biden stated to the press...

    "But piracy is theft. Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

    As I am a supporter of the so called "piracy" culture then it is damned depressing to hear the back-up leader of the United States make a total logics failure and to not even understand the law at hand.

    The US Administration by obvious political mandate then joined in to the Copyright War with the DHS's ICE programme which we know as "Operation in our Sites".

    So at last we come to the MegaUpload case when obviously the MPAA had a big problem here for two reasons. First is that MegaUpload was very popular with the pirates where we really need no other reason for the MPAA to go nuclear. Second is that on this service the pirates were winning. Sure Mega complied with DMCA take-down requests into tens if not hundreds of thousands but the pirates could upload a new copy and distribute the link in mere seconds.

    Clearly a major thorn to the MPAA but then we add on SOPA and PIPA which was aimed to target such foreign services. I can say until the Internet freaked out that the MPAA who lobbied SOPA hard was expecting an easy pass and why they put it on the quick route.

    One thing I damned well know about a new law coming into affect is that the Copyright Cartels will always use this time to bully and harass the market. Do you not think they would not single out a key example to scare everyone... like... MegaUpload?

    Naturally SOPA was a big deal and Chris Dodd could easily contract VP Joe Biden to say "lets hammer down this theft of millions of our media starting with criminal MegaUpload?" Joe Biden has no reason not to say "ok, lets do that". Out there somewhere is that truth but the odds of us getting Dodd or Biden on the stand under oath is remote.

    We do at least know one other fact about VP Biden when he did indeed authorise an attack on the file sharing market to cut of site's advertising and payment services. It is sad to say that we have seen the affects of that one often.

    This is the War on Infringement. The US Administration headed by VP Joe Biden got involved. Mega was destroyed by political mandate. All this ignores the actual law, but law is not their point, only bullying through law abuse.

    Mega's lawyers now highlight those facts for all to see.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Anonymous Howard (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 7:32am

      Re: Joe Biden & Chris Dodd

      Wait, doesn't the 3letter agencies record every electronic communications?
      Someone try and file a FOIA request on dodd and biden :D

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Chris Brand, May 8th, 2013 @ 9:38am

    Copyright and crime

    It's cases like this that make it clear that it's a huge mistake to have such a concept as "criminal copyright infringement". It just makes the law so much more confusing for very little benefit. When copyright was a purely civil matter, it was up to the rightsholders to decide who to go after and what to accuse them of, which seems far better than using taxpayer money to decide who's business to prop up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 10:39am

    I'm surprised to see Mike downplaying the connection between the MPAA and the Megaupload raid given the timeline of events.

    12/18/12 - SOPA blackouts manage to stop SOPA. MPAA CEO Chris Dodd throws a temper tantrum and threatens to cut campaign contributions.

    12/19/12 - The DOJ shuts down Megaupload.

    It seems clear to me that the White House proceeded with the Megaupload takedown ahead of schedule to appease Chris Dodd.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 12:07pm

    Timely, recommended article today on Copyhype: http://www.copyhype.com/2013/05/do-kim-dotcoms-lawyers-think-hes-guilty-the-answer-may-shock-you/

    And a previous article about whether the DMCA safe harbors apply in a criminal case: http://www.copyhype.com/2012/01/megaupload-and-the-dmca/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), May 8th, 2013 @ 2:28pm

      Re:

      Great article there. I notice it completely leaves out the SWAT style raid for a guy accused of copying files; the illegitimate warrants; the removal of hard drives by the FBI to the US against the orders of the New Zealand court ; the accusation that MU paying its bill to Carpathia is somehow evidence of money laundering; the surveillance of DotCom by an intelligence body not authorized for domestic surveillance.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 8th, 2013 @ 3:59pm

    Speaking of court of public opinion it is my opinion, as a member of the public, that copy'right' be abolished and that the government stop wasting taxpayer money on protecting the profits of government protected monopolists and corrupt corporations just because politicians and bureaucrats and other governmental department employees want campaign contributions and revolving door favors.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dnyt, May 8th, 2013 @ 4:30pm

    So, if Megaupload is responsible to its users then why Carpathia hosting is not responsible for its clients?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      art guerrilla (profile), May 9th, 2013 @ 12:42pm

      Re:

      really...

      ...and the fleas upon them, and the fleas upon *those* fleas, etc, etc, etc ad infinitum, until we end up with bill gates being the origin of all infringement evil...
      hee hee hee

      art guerrilla
      aka ann archy
      eof

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Wally (profile), May 9th, 2013 @ 8:20am

    The sum up...

    I'm sure there was influence and pressure that went into this, but painting it as a case where Chris Dodd called up Joe Biden and said, "Destroy Megaupload" is probably a massive exaggeration. Instead, it seems quite likely that MPAA folks just kept playing up the theatrical version of Kim Dotcom as evil (and, Dotcom himself actually helped promote this sort of view of himself at times as well...), and then the DOJ's imagination combined with its general over-aggressive nature towards any copyright issues just sort of took over from there.

    I think that pretty much sums up the general idea quite perfectly...Though in Kim Dotcom's case, I think he was lashing out of the frustration when he was sort "not helping" his case. In my opinion he did exactly as any innocent human being would have done and should do in this case when innocence is as clear as a bell...fight the accusers and of course lash out angrily.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 9th, 2013 @ 3:31pm

    "[T]he paper is definitely a worthwhile read."

    Yes it is, in a cheap, dime store novel kind of way...

    When "briefs" are filed in the court of public opinion, almost always it means that a positive reception before a court of law is not a likely outcome.

    Lawyers can be a crafty lot, but here it seems the lawyers have taken the craft of fiction to an new level.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This