This entry was posted
on Friday, March 2nd, 2012 at 8:10 pm and is filed under Internet.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Right from the beginning I have thought that the fat Kraut from Coatesville was treated in an unjust manner.
I would be grateful if some contributor to this blog could tell us the name of ONE New Zealander that he has offended, defrauded or hurt.
I have searched my memory trying to find a precedent to the overkill in his arrest.
I have compared the actions of our police force against that obese Boche to their actions against the murderers of those poor unfortunate Kahui twins. If I was a police officer I would be sick with guilt.
There is something extremely worrying about this whole affair.
There is something extremely worrying about this whole affair.
Indeed, and it’s the fact that the US has been corrupted by the interests of “Big Content”. This whole affair was designed to shut Megaupload down without trial or hearing and they accomplished that. Whether or not he will be extradited or convicted, his company will likely never be what it once was and that’s all they ever wanted.
Right before this happened Megaupload was signing on big name artists such as Kayne West, Alicia Keys and Will I Am to endorse his company in the Megaupload song. Meanwhile he’s creating a new business model where artists would have received about 90% of the revenue generated from their creative works. No wonder they were intimidated and so they just had him shut down.
Imagine any other industry where a company can simply have their competitors shut down without so much as a trial or hearing.
The real tragedy is that neither National or Labour have the sense to smell what’s cooking.
Oh yeh, and look at the screeds of vitriol levelled at myself by various others when I dared to question the behavoir and the motivations behind all this. So many so slow to catch on.
But at last many are beginning to see whats going on.
Key should be ashamed and one has to point out that we can be sure that the police Minister kneww well before hand as did the Slimy bloody Attourney General so called.
My guess is that they knew way back before they passed the Law for the yanks.
Naive and were suckholed by the yanks and their Queer boy Ambassador.
Gees the Yanks piss miss off.
The Land of the Free and all that bullshgit. Worse than the communists.
This is just the sort of stuff Edison got up to 100 years ago. Their victims fled to California, and created Hollywood Where are Edison Studios now? There is some hope for Megaupload. ‘Hollywood” is not renowned for being Republican friendly. Assuming a Republican administration in 2013, the suits will likely be dropped. Presumably then, Megaupload might be able to pick up the pieces. Let’s hope so.
SOPA and PIPA were bipartisan initiatives. Big Content owns legislators on both sides of Congress. This isn’t about what Hollywood produces, it’s about the money these corporations make.
Assuming a Republican administration in 2013, the suits will likely be dropped.
David I’m afraid you don’t get it if you think campaign contributions and lobbyists hence US laws operate along political boundaries.
Republicans and Democrat “brands” are merely for the sheeple to give them a warm tummy and you can tell this by their elected representatives actions in all administrations since Reagan. The laws are designed by the corporatocracy and passed by their slaves a.k.a. senators and congressmen. If you don’t get that you don’t understand US politics 101.
Weihana 10:50/Leaping Jimmy 10:52 There was bi-partisan support. Then came the Wikipedia blackout. That made a lot of people on both sides of the house reassess their support for SOPA. Republicans can use it to drive a wedge between two traditionally Democratic constituenciess. Hollywood, and Silicon Valley. Additionally, they can pick up the Generation Y vote, and that if net users who don’t like restrictions. A lot of the contributors in the Republican leaning National Review oppose SOPA.
Some campaign contributions operate along political boundaries, some don’t. Not a lot of UAW money going to Republicans I think. Ditto for Hollywood money.
David my point was no matter which side it comes from its against the interest of the people and for the interests of the corporates. See my politics is dead post on GD and also see this movie by John Stossel of 60 Minutes where he shows the ridiculous approach undertaken these days by those in authoriti in the US.
Whether it shows up in this issue or the war on drugs or even local law enforcement, the approach in the US these days is ridiculously OTT authoritarianism and this Dotcom issue is simply them attempting to extend that approach into our system.
Megaupload has to fight the hostile actions of the FBI and Hollywood in closing down his site and attempting to extradite him to face copyright infringement action.
In his interview with Campbell on TV3, Mr Dotcom was absolutely correct in his assertion that he hasn’t done anything wrong and that he is not a criminal. Mr Dotcom is protected by his disclosure statement when online users enter his site, and is not personally liable for actions taken by users on his site.
Frankly the over the top raid by NZ Police was ridiculous, a raid designed to capture world headlines but totally out of synch with the alleged offences. Mr Dotcom should go on the offensive and seek damages from the NZ Police and the FBI.
i>Mr Dotcom should go on the offensive and seek damages from the NZ Police and the FBI.
Kev
It would be interesting to see how forthcoming the FBI are when it comes to their sovereignity if an attempt were made to sue them from New Zealand. I would bet a cup of coffee the litigant would get the don’t come Monday smartish.
At long last, KB showing somewhat of the real picture….in pictures, for those who are a bit slow….or still hold to the belief in the uprightness, transparency & inherent even-handedness of governing bodies.
@bhudson, surely you jest! It’s shades of Dave Henderson vs the IRD…..the FBI will make it all up if the law/facts/etc don’t square with the charges. I hope Dotcom gets his day in court but under a more equitable arrangement than the current circumstances where he is guilty in real terms, if not in the fantasy land of “presumption of innocence until proven guilty” that we have believed should be the norm.
He’s the scapegoat, come hell or high water the US federal govt will have their show trial & slay the beast called “copyright infringement”. Personal lives, facts & justice be damned.
the FBI will make it all up if the law/facts/etc don’t square with the charges.
While I am not questioning their integrity, it is not the FBI that will decide whether or not he is guilty.
If he has committed offences, then he will be penalised according to US law. If he hasn’t, then he won’t. And surely, if he and others are so convinced of his innocence, then they should be crying out for him to get back there as soon as possible to defend the charges.
…it is not the FBI that will decide whether or not he is guilty.
….the courts, DoJ. Take your pick…..quibbles, quibbles.
…then they should be crying out for him to get back there as soon as possible to defend the charges.
Oh boy. He’s going to be going back in shackles whether he wants to or not….with our help, having bent over & taken our suppository from the US federal govt inspired by big film & recording industry.
Being an establishment toady might spin your wheels but don’t you ever feel like parking on yellow lines from time to time? If you feel so uninspired by the whole deal, why comment?
If you feel so uninspired by the whole deal, why comment?
I don’t feel so uninspired by the whole deal at all. Quite the opposite. And I hold with the opposite – that the rule of law should be upheld.
The copyright holders have legal rights and governments have a core role to see that those legal rights are upheld. Coercion through refusing or neglecting to uphold the law is not the way to change commercial business models.
Dear Dazzy, Henderson is an ideologue fool, who beleives Taxation is theft and he has a moral responsibility to keep the government from collectng it. He is before the courts at the moment charged with helping his company in Queenstown avoid paying tax on employees wages. And also Henderson is a cowboy who swindled his investors in his swag of failed property investment companies due to a complete lack of moral compunction of any sort. So dont get sucked in like the fool Hide.
Yes, the rule of law should be upheld but don’t be so convinced they’re always right, as you seem to imply. There’s enough out there to suggest that those “representing” copyright holders, in this instance Hollywood & the recording industry, are flexing their own particular brand of muscle with the aid of the US government (who have their own agenda’s to push around this area) no less to maintain the status quo and their positions as the power players in their respective industries.
He, Dotcom, hasn’t refused or neglected to uphold the law. I doubt he would’ve made his millions without seeking some pretty weighty legal opinion especially about the cross border ins-and-outs of his business model. He does not come across as that naive. On the face of it, he would seem to be correct about his position with regards to the copyright issues and his business’ and users liabilities.
Swampy, I haven’t kept up with his dealings recently but he was royally f’ed over by the IRD & my point in bringing him up was that govt depts can & will stuff you if they have the inclination to do so, by hook or by crook. There are some parallels, though not in detail.
I have no doubt that the copyright holders are using the laws to protect their positions. That said, ignoring property rights is not the answer. (The answer, such as it is, is simple supply and demand: if you don’t like their practises, don’t consume their content (in any format). If enough people feel the same way, the businesses will have to adapt their models to retain revenue and profit.)
My reference to refusing or neglecting to uphold the law wasn’t aimed at Dotcom, but at governments – It is not appropriate to seek to have business change their models by having our government ignore the rights of the copyright holders.
Having said that, I cannot agree that Dotcom appearing on Campbell Live claiming that he is innocent constitutes clear evidence that he is. It will be up to the courts to determine that and they will investigate all of the allegations and evidence – like, for instance, allegedly only removing specific links when copyright holders complained, not removing the content, thus leaving it available through other links that the copyright holders were not aware of. (Whether that has implications for a Safe Harbour defence, or the disclaimers presented to the users, will be for the courts to determine.)
It really comes back to it being over to the courts to determine. And that requires his return to the US.
He’s going back, he’s going back….we all know that will likely occur.
To keep falling back to a default position of it “…being over to the courts to determine.” is both obvious and wearisome. Shed the white coat man!
It’s not a question of not liking their practices, rather a question of them maintaining their positions through what can only be construed to be underhanded tactics via govt lock-down with the consent of our own govt fish heads. Potentially blocking or disallowing alternative business models with the aid of government agencies is appropriate then? That’s what the upshot of it will seem to be.
Having said that, I cannot agree that Dotcom appearing on Campbell Live claiming that he is innocent constitutes clear
evidence that he is. It will be up to the courts to determine that and they will investigate all of the allegations and evidence
I don’t think you get it. His business is shut down, right now… no trial, no hearing just shut down. His business is toast by the stroke of an official’s pen. THAT is what they wanted and they got it. The criminal charges are a sham. It doesn’t take much to get a bunch of idiots on a grand jury to indict someone, especially when the authorities are cherry picking the evidence to present them. You think the grand jury was told that media companies had direct access to Megaupload servers to delete infringing content?
Imagine if Microsoft could shut down Apple, or if Mcdonalds could shut down Burger King. It’s corrupt as hell and it’s a direct consequence of the influence these media giants wield in American politics.
When acquitted (if he is ever extradited) Dotcom will not be able to take any retribution against the authorities without absolute proof of bad faith, nor does our system provide any compensation to people in Dotcom’s position.
We rely on our authorities to act in good faith and this is a situation where I don’t believe they are and that is the problem. Not being found guilty is small comfort when your business has been destroyed and your life turned upside down.
The only conspiracy going on here is between the MPAA and the FBI.
You think the grand jury was told that media companies had direct access to Megaupload servers to delete infringing content?
How very disingenuous. “Media companies” did not have direct access to delete content. Dotcom’s own reference was that they had access to delete “links”. The links are just that, they are not the content. The copyright holders did not have access to remove the content.
The allegations against Megaupload are very clear that, despite ‘take-down notices’ the content was not deleted from the servers – that allegation is that only the specific links in each notice were. It would seem that the prosecutors do not believe that is sufficient and it will be tested as to whether or not that has implications on the Safe Harbour defence (the DMCA protection Dotcom claims.)
When acquitted…
Just because you have decided the outcome Weihana, doesn’t mean it is actually going to be the result. If he is convicted, will you be back here to congratulate the authorities for taking action to uphold the law? For my part, I do not know if he is guilty or not. I do, however, have faith in the US justice system to determine that. Unlike some, I do not believe it to be in the pocket of big business.
Dazza, there is a lot more to the Henderson vs IRD saga – like he recently lost a court case where he had been obstructing the tax department for 14 years. Once that kind of detail becomes obvious its clear he has pathalogical loathing of taxation then it becomes obvious the spin in his favour looks like Joe Karam with David Bain. All makes that movie and all the rest of it look lightweight.
Reality – Henderson the cowboy is getting done now for a whole lot of stuff – not just tax – that shows him up for what he really is.
Weihana,
You think the grand jury was told that media companies had direct access to Megaupload servers to delete infringing content?
How very disingenuous. “Media companies” did not have direct access to delete content. Dotcom’s own reference was that they had access to delete “links”. The links are just that, they are not the content. The copyright holders did not have access to remove the content.
Neither do they have access to delete the content from Youtube as such. If they delete it and then it’s found out subsequently that the deletion was improper… whoopsie?
The allegations against Megaupload are very clear that, despite ‘take-down notices’ the content was not deleted from the servers – that allegation is that only the specific links in each notice were. It would seem that the prosecutors do not believe that is sufficient and it will be tested as to whether or not that has implications on the Safe Harbour defence (the DMCA protection Dotcom claims.)
Not complying with safe harbor is not in itself a crime. The question is did they believe they were? Clearly they had hired expensive legal advice. Did they contact Dotcom to discuss the matter? Apparently not. Not once. Just one day it’s helicopters and swarms of police.
DMCA SAFE HARBOR: BELIEVE IT AND IT WILL BECOME REAL: As a matter of criminal law, the discussion of whether Megaupload did what it needed to do to qualify for the DMCA Safe Harbor misses the point. Did they register an agent? Did they have a repeat infringer policy? These are all interesting CIVIL questions. But from a criminal law perspective, the important question is did Defendants BELIEVE they were covered by the Safe Harbor? This is because criminal infringement requires a showing of willfulness. The view of the majority of Federal Courts is that “willfulness” means a desire to violate a known legal duty, not merely the will to make copies.
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6795
Just because you have decided the outcome Weihana, doesn’t mean it is actually going to be the result. If he is convicted, will you be back here to congratulate the authorities for taking action to uphold the law? For my part, I do not know if he is guilty or not. I do, however, have faith in the US justice system to determine that. Unlike some, I do not believe it to be in the pocket of big business.
Again you miss the point. His business is already fucked without a trial. I too think the US justice system is pretty good. Not perfect but pretty damn good. But that is irrelevant if the authorities can fuck you over without a trial or a hearing and they have done that.
The bottom line is that if they thought he wasn’t complying with civil law requirements properly then they should have discussed the matter with him to try and remedy it. Instead they conspired to distort the truth in front of an ignorant jury to get an indictment so they could shut his company down.
Neither do they have access to delete the content from Youtube as such. If they delete it and then it’s found out subsequently that the deletion was improper… whoopsie?
I see no demand from the copyright holders that they have direct access to delete the material. But a ‘take-down’ notice means just that – the material is to be removed. They and the US authorities clearly contend that Megaupload failed to do so (deleting links only and only making links available to the copyright holders to delete themselves – not the content.)
A mistake? Surely the company would be able to restore from backup. Or the end user could restore from their own? Of course the end users wouldn’t be entrusting precious material which they had no backup for to a provider that wasn’t storing a backup of their data, now would they?
The view of the majority of Federal Courts is that “willfulness” means a desire to violate a known legal duty, not merely the will to make copies.
It would seem, by the nature of the allegation (I don’t claim to have insight into their line of argument), that the authorities will be arguing that by only removing links and not content, by leaving the content accessible through other links, that Megaupload was showing a willfulness to allow that material to be accessed inappropriately – to be willfully in violation.
His business is already fucked without a trial.
If the finding is against the copyright holders/authorities, I am sure action will be taken to seek redress. I am equally sure that action would be taken, and lobbying felt at the highest levels, to amend the provisions. On the other hand, if he is found guilty then it really does reinforce the validity of the provisions that allow the authorities to act quickly to prevent further loss.
We both seem to have confidence that the justice system in the US is sufficiently independent to reach the lawful conclusion
It would seem, by the nature of the allegation (I don’t claim to have insight into their line of argument), that the authorities will be arguing that by only removing links and not content, by leaving the content accessible through other links, that Megaupload was showing a willfulness to allow that material to be accessed inappropriately – to be willfully in violation.
But as pointed out the argument over whether removing links is enough misses the point. It may or may not show that they failed to comply with safe harbor provisions, but that in itself is not enough to show intent. Otherwise your argument is that the fact they did the act shows they intended to do it.
If the finding is against the copyright holders/authorities, I am sure action will be taken to seek redress.
Such as and from whom? Proof would be needed of bad faith. How can this be proved? A weak case is not necessarily bad faith. But using a bit of common sense, noting that this appears a very weak case, noting the influence the entertainment industry holds in American politics, it’s not unreasonable to be suspicious of their true motives and in my view those motives are to shut down a company on the basis of a bogus prosecution.
I am equally sure that action would be taken, and lobbying felt at the highest levels, to amend the provisions.
Pfft. Tui ad.
On the other hand, if he is found guilty then it really does reinforce the validity of the provisions that allow the authorities to act quickly to prevent further loss.
For a company that has operated for years? In principle one can easily understand the need for the government to be able to stop crime without having to first prove the crime in a court of law. But this situation appears to me an abuse of that power.
March 2nd, 2012 at 9:32 pm
Right from the beginning I have thought that the fat Kraut from Coatesville was treated in an unjust manner.
I would be grateful if some contributor to this blog could tell us the name of ONE New Zealander that he has offended, defrauded or hurt.
I have searched my memory trying to find a precedent to the overkill in his arrest.
I have compared the actions of our police force against that obese Boche to their actions against the murderers of those poor unfortunate Kahui twins. If I was a police officer I would be sick with guilt.
There is something extremely worrying about this whole affair.
March 2nd, 2012 at 9:40 pm
Excellent.
March 2nd, 2012 at 9:46 pm
KB finally gets its face out of the sand over an exercise known to John Key before the raid against this innocent family.
March 2nd, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Tauhei Notts,
There is something extremely worrying about this whole affair.
Indeed, and it’s the fact that the US has been corrupted by the interests of “Big Content”. This whole affair was designed to shut Megaupload down without trial or hearing and they accomplished that. Whether or not he will be extradited or convicted, his company will likely never be what it once was and that’s all they ever wanted.
Right before this happened Megaupload was signing on big name artists such as Kayne West, Alicia Keys and Will I Am to endorse his company in the Megaupload song. Meanwhile he’s creating a new business model where artists would have received about 90% of the revenue generated from their creative works. No wonder they were intimidated and so they just had him shut down.
Imagine any other industry where a company can simply have their competitors shut down without so much as a trial or hearing.
The real tragedy is that neither National or Labour have the sense to smell what’s cooking.
March 2nd, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Oh yeh, and look at the screeds of vitriol levelled at myself by various others when I dared to question the behavoir and the motivations behind all this. So many so slow to catch on.
But at last many are beginning to see whats going on.
Key should be ashamed and one has to point out that we can be sure that the police Minister kneww well before hand as did the Slimy bloody Attourney General so called.
My guess is that they knew way back before they passed the Law for the yanks.
Naive and were suckholed by the yanks and their Queer boy Ambassador.
Gees the Yanks piss miss off.
The Land of the Free and all that bullshgit. Worse than the communists.
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:00 pm
This is just the sort of stuff Edison got up to 100 years ago. Their victims fled to California, and created Hollywood Where are Edison Studios now? There is some hope for Megaupload. ‘Hollywood” is not renowned for being Republican friendly. Assuming a Republican administration in 2013, the suits will likely be dropped. Presumably then, Megaupload might be able to pick up the pieces. Let’s hope so.
cheers
David Prosser
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:50 pm
‘Hollywood” is not renowned for being Republican friendly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislators_who_support_SOPA_or_PIPA
SOPA and PIPA were bipartisan initiatives. Big Content owns legislators on both sides of Congress. This isn’t about what Hollywood produces, it’s about the money these corporations make.
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Assuming a Republican administration in 2013, the suits will likely be dropped.
David I’m afraid you don’t get it if you think campaign contributions and lobbyists hence US laws operate along political boundaries.
Republicans and Democrat “brands” are merely for the sheeple to give them a warm tummy and you can tell this by their elected representatives actions in all administrations since Reagan. The laws are designed by the corporatocracy and passed by their slaves a.k.a. senators and congressmen. If you don’t get that you don’t understand US politics 101.
March 3rd, 2012 at 6:11 am
Weihana 10:50/Leaping Jimmy 10:52 There was bi-partisan support. Then came the Wikipedia blackout. That made a lot of people on both sides of the house reassess their support for SOPA. Republicans can use it to drive a wedge between two traditionally Democratic constituenciess. Hollywood, and Silicon Valley. Additionally, they can pick up the Generation Y vote, and that if net users who don’t like restrictions. A lot of the contributors in the Republican leaning National Review oppose SOPA.
Some campaign contributions operate along political boundaries, some don’t. Not a lot of UAW money going to Republicans I think. Ditto for Hollywood money.
cheers
David Prosser
March 3rd, 2012 at 7:06 am
David my point was no matter which side it comes from its against the interest of the people and for the interests of the corporates. See my politics is dead post on GD and also see this movie by John Stossel of 60 Minutes where he shows the ridiculous approach undertaken these days by those in authoriti in the US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFfVeXhtRa0
Whether it shows up in this issue or the war on drugs or even local law enforcement, the approach in the US these days is ridiculously OTT authoritarianism and this Dotcom issue is simply them attempting to extend that approach into our system.
March 3rd, 2012 at 11:37 am
Megaupload has to fight the hostile actions of the FBI and Hollywood in closing down his site and attempting to extradite him to face copyright infringement action.
In his interview with Campbell on TV3, Mr Dotcom was absolutely correct in his assertion that he hasn’t done anything wrong and that he is not a criminal. Mr Dotcom is protected by his disclosure statement when online users enter his site, and is not personally liable for actions taken by users on his site.
Frankly the over the top raid by NZ Police was ridiculous, a raid designed to capture world headlines but totally out of synch with the alleged offences. Mr Dotcom should go on the offensive and seek damages from the NZ Police and the FBI.
March 3rd, 2012 at 11:51 am
That is a matter for the [US] courts to determine. We can help him prove his innocence by speeding his return to the US.
March 3rd, 2012 at 12:01 pm
i>Mr Dotcom should go on the offensive and seek damages from the NZ Police and the FBI.
Kev
It would be interesting to see how forthcoming the FBI are when it comes to their sovereignity if an attempt were made to sue them from New Zealand. I would bet a cup of coffee the litigant would get the don’t come Monday smartish.
They are driving on a one way street here.
March 3rd, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Simple – Dotcom was not an American – if so he would be up with Gates, Jobs and tha many other idols of Americana.
March 3rd, 2012 at 1:32 pm
At long last, KB showing somewhat of the real picture….in pictures, for those who are a bit slow….or still hold to the belief in the uprightness, transparency & inherent even-handedness of governing bodies.
@bhudson, surely you jest! It’s shades of Dave Henderson vs the IRD…..the FBI will make it all up if the law/facts/etc don’t square with the charges. I hope Dotcom gets his day in court but under a more equitable arrangement than the current circumstances where he is guilty in real terms, if not in the fantasy land of “presumption of innocence until proven guilty” that we have believed should be the norm.
He’s the scapegoat, come hell or high water the US federal govt will have their show trial & slay the beast called “copyright infringement”. Personal lives, facts & justice be damned.
March 3rd, 2012 at 1:47 pm
While I am not questioning their integrity, it is not the FBI that will decide whether or not he is guilty.
If he has committed offences, then he will be penalised according to US law. If he hasn’t, then he won’t. And surely, if he and others are so convinced of his innocence, then they should be crying out for him to get back there as soon as possible to defend the charges.
March 3rd, 2012 at 3:48 pm
….the courts, DoJ. Take your pick…..quibbles, quibbles.
Oh boy. He’s going to be going back in shackles whether he wants to or not….with our help, having bent over & taken our suppository from the US federal govt inspired by big film & recording industry.
Being an establishment toady might spin your wheels but don’t you ever feel like parking on yellow lines from time to time? If you feel so uninspired by the whole deal, why comment?
March 3rd, 2012 at 3:55 pm
I don’t feel so uninspired by the whole deal at all. Quite the opposite. And I hold with the opposite – that the rule of law should be upheld.
The copyright holders have legal rights and governments have a core role to see that those legal rights are upheld. Coercion through refusing or neglecting to uphold the law is not the way to change commercial business models.
March 3rd, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Dear Dazzy, Henderson is an ideologue fool, who beleives Taxation is theft and he has a moral responsibility to keep the government from collectng it. He is before the courts at the moment charged with helping his company in Queenstown avoid paying tax on employees wages. And also Henderson is a cowboy who swindled his investors in his swag of failed property investment companies due to a complete lack of moral compunction of any sort. So dont get sucked in like the fool Hide.
March 3rd, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Yes, the rule of law should be upheld but don’t be so convinced they’re always right, as you seem to imply. There’s enough out there to suggest that those “representing” copyright holders, in this instance Hollywood & the recording industry, are flexing their own particular brand of muscle with the aid of the US government (who have their own agenda’s to push around this area) no less to maintain the status quo and their positions as the power players in their respective industries.
He, Dotcom, hasn’t refused or neglected to uphold the law. I doubt he would’ve made his millions without seeking some pretty weighty legal opinion especially about the cross border ins-and-outs of his business model. He does not come across as that naive. On the face of it, he would seem to be correct about his position with regards to the copyright issues and his business’ and users liabilities.
March 3rd, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Swampy, I haven’t kept up with his dealings recently but he was royally f’ed over by the IRD & my point in bringing him up was that govt depts can & will stuff you if they have the inclination to do so, by hook or by crook. There are some parallels, though not in detail.
March 3rd, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Dazzaman,
I have no doubt that the copyright holders are using the laws to protect their positions. That said, ignoring property rights is not the answer. (The answer, such as it is, is simple supply and demand: if you don’t like their practises, don’t consume their content (in any format). If enough people feel the same way, the businesses will have to adapt their models to retain revenue and profit.)
My reference to refusing or neglecting to uphold the law wasn’t aimed at Dotcom, but at governments – It is not appropriate to seek to have business change their models by having our government ignore the rights of the copyright holders.
Having said that, I cannot agree that Dotcom appearing on Campbell Live claiming that he is innocent constitutes clear evidence that he is. It will be up to the courts to determine that and they will investigate all of the allegations and evidence – like, for instance, allegedly only removing specific links when copyright holders complained, not removing the content, thus leaving it available through other links that the copyright holders were not aware of. (Whether that has implications for a Safe Harbour defence, or the disclaimers presented to the users, will be for the courts to determine.)
It really comes back to it being over to the courts to determine. And that requires his return to the US.
March 3rd, 2012 at 5:24 pm
@bhudson
He’s going back, he’s going back….we all know that will likely occur.
To keep falling back to a default position of it “…being over to the courts to determine.” is both obvious and wearisome. Shed the white coat man!
It’s not a question of not liking their practices, rather a question of them maintaining their positions through what can only be construed to be underhanded tactics via govt lock-down with the consent of our own govt fish heads. Potentially blocking or disallowing alternative business models with the aid of government agencies is appropriate then? That’s what the upshot of it will seem to be.
Time to wait & see.
March 3rd, 2012 at 6:32 pm
bhudson,
Having said that, I cannot agree that Dotcom appearing on Campbell Live claiming that he is innocent constitutes clear
evidence that he is. It will be up to the courts to determine that and they will investigate all of the allegations and evidence
I don’t think you get it. His business is shut down, right now… no trial, no hearing just shut down. His business is toast by the stroke of an official’s pen. THAT is what they wanted and they got it. The criminal charges are a sham. It doesn’t take much to get a bunch of idiots on a grand jury to indict someone, especially when the authorities are cherry picking the evidence to present them. You think the grand jury was told that media companies had direct access to Megaupload servers to delete infringing content?
Imagine if Microsoft could shut down Apple, or if Mcdonalds could shut down Burger King. It’s corrupt as hell and it’s a direct consequence of the influence these media giants wield in American politics.
When acquitted (if he is ever extradited) Dotcom will not be able to take any retribution against the authorities without absolute proof of bad faith, nor does our system provide any compensation to people in Dotcom’s position.
We rely on our authorities to act in good faith and this is a situation where I don’t believe they are and that is the problem. Not being found guilty is small comfort when your business has been destroyed and your life turned upside down.
The only conspiracy going on here is between the MPAA and the FBI.
March 3rd, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Weihana,
How very disingenuous. “Media companies” did not have direct access to delete content. Dotcom’s own reference was that they had access to delete “links”. The links are just that, they are not the content. The copyright holders did not have access to remove the content.
The allegations against Megaupload are very clear that, despite ‘take-down notices’ the content was not deleted from the servers – that allegation is that only the specific links in each notice were. It would seem that the prosecutors do not believe that is sufficient and it will be tested as to whether or not that has implications on the Safe Harbour defence (the DMCA protection Dotcom claims.)
Just because you have decided the outcome Weihana, doesn’t mean it is actually going to be the result. If he is convicted, will you be back here to congratulate the authorities for taking action to uphold the law? For my part, I do not know if he is guilty or not. I do, however, have faith in the US justice system to determine that. Unlike some, I do not believe it to be in the pocket of big business.
As Dazzaman pointed out above: Time to wait & see
March 3rd, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Dazza, there is a lot more to the Henderson vs IRD saga – like he recently lost a court case where he had been obstructing the tax department for 14 years. Once that kind of detail becomes obvious its clear he has pathalogical loathing of taxation then it becomes obvious the spin in his favour looks like Joe Karam with David Bain. All makes that movie and all the rest of it look lightweight.
Reality – Henderson the cowboy is getting done now for a whole lot of stuff – not just tax – that shows him up for what he really is.
March 3rd, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Correction – this particular case did not involved 14 years – only 5.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10774455
But as it pointed out he has been fighting the tax department for nearly 20 years. Why would anyone do that unless they are a fool.
March 3rd, 2012 at 10:30 pm
If you say so Swampy, I made my point clear enough….you go on chasing ghosts.
March 4th, 2012 at 6:02 pm
bhudson (1,496) Says:
March 3rd, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Weihana,
You think the grand jury was told that media companies had direct access to Megaupload servers to delete infringing content?
How very disingenuous. “Media companies” did not have direct access to delete content. Dotcom’s own reference was that they had access to delete “links”. The links are just that, they are not the content. The copyright holders did not have access to remove the content.
Neither do they have access to delete the content from Youtube as such. If they delete it and then it’s found out subsequently that the deletion was improper… whoopsie?
The allegations against Megaupload are very clear that, despite ‘take-down notices’ the content was not deleted from the servers – that allegation is that only the specific links in each notice were. It would seem that the prosecutors do not believe that is sufficient and it will be tested as to whether or not that has implications on the Safe Harbour defence (the DMCA protection Dotcom claims.)
Not complying with safe harbor is not in itself a crime. The question is did they believe they were? Clearly they had hired expensive legal advice. Did they contact Dotcom to discuss the matter? Apparently not. Not once. Just one day it’s helicopters and swarms of police.
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6795
DMCA SAFE HARBOR: BELIEVE IT AND IT WILL BECOME REAL: As a matter of criminal law, the discussion of whether Megaupload did what it needed to do to qualify for the DMCA Safe Harbor misses the point. Did they register an agent? Did they have a repeat infringer policy? These are all interesting CIVIL questions. But from a criminal law perspective, the important question is did Defendants BELIEVE they were covered by the Safe Harbor? This is because criminal infringement requires a showing of willfulness. The view of the majority of Federal Courts is that “willfulness” means a desire to violate a known legal duty, not merely the will to make copies.
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6795
Just because you have decided the outcome Weihana, doesn’t mean it is actually going to be the result. If he is convicted, will you be back here to congratulate the authorities for taking action to uphold the law? For my part, I do not know if he is guilty or not. I do, however, have faith in the US justice system to determine that. Unlike some, I do not believe it to be in the pocket of big business.
Again you miss the point. His business is already fucked without a trial. I too think the US justice system is pretty good. Not perfect but pretty damn good. But that is irrelevant if the authorities can fuck you over without a trial or a hearing and they have done that.
The bottom line is that if they thought he wasn’t complying with civil law requirements properly then they should have discussed the matter with him to try and remedy it. Instead they conspired to distort the truth in front of an ignorant jury to get an indictment so they could shut his company down.
March 4th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
I see no demand from the copyright holders that they have direct access to delete the material. But a ‘take-down’ notice means just that – the material is to be removed. They and the US authorities clearly contend that Megaupload failed to do so (deleting links only and only making links available to the copyright holders to delete themselves – not the content.)
A mistake? Surely the company would be able to restore from backup. Or the end user could restore from their own? Of course the end users wouldn’t be entrusting precious material which they had no backup for to a provider that wasn’t storing a backup of their data, now would they?
It would seem, by the nature of the allegation (I don’t claim to have insight into their line of argument), that the authorities will be arguing that by only removing links and not content, by leaving the content accessible through other links, that Megaupload was showing a willfulness to allow that material to be accessed inappropriately – to be willfully in violation.
If the finding is against the copyright holders/authorities, I am sure action will be taken to seek redress. I am equally sure that action would be taken, and lobbying felt at the highest levels, to amend the provisions. On the other hand, if he is found guilty then it really does reinforce the validity of the provisions that allow the authorities to act quickly to prevent further loss.
We both seem to have confidence that the justice system in the US is sufficiently independent to reach the lawful conclusion
March 5th, 2012 at 11:37 am
bhudson (1,502) Says:
March 4th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
It would seem, by the nature of the allegation (I don’t claim to have insight into their line of argument), that the authorities will be arguing that by only removing links and not content, by leaving the content accessible through other links, that Megaupload was showing a willfulness to allow that material to be accessed inappropriately – to be willfully in violation.
But as pointed out the argument over whether removing links is enough misses the point. It may or may not show that they failed to comply with safe harbor provisions, but that in itself is not enough to show intent. Otherwise your argument is that the fact they did the act shows they intended to do it.
But the bigger problem is that they are trying to create a crime out of secondary liability through inducement (i.e. the “Mega Conspiracy”). Conspiracy in the US is defined as a conspiracy to commit an offense against, or defraud, the United States. That is, it’s a conspiracy to commit a federal crime. Inducement to copyright is not a crime it merely creates civil liability to a copyright holder.
If the finding is against the copyright holders/authorities, I am sure action will be taken to seek redress.
Such as and from whom? Proof would be needed of bad faith. How can this be proved? A weak case is not necessarily bad faith. But using a bit of common sense, noting that this appears a very weak case, noting the influence the entertainment industry holds in American politics, it’s not unreasonable to be suspicious of their true motives and in my view those motives are to shut down a company on the basis of a bogus prosecution.
I am equally sure that action would be taken, and lobbying felt at the highest levels, to amend the provisions.
Pfft. Tui ad.
On the other hand, if he is found guilty then it really does reinforce the validity of the provisions that allow the authorities to act quickly to prevent further loss.
For a company that has operated for years? In principle one can easily understand the need for the government to be able to stop crime without having to first prove the crime in a court of law. But this situation appears to me an abuse of that power.