
Megaupload Demands Return of Millions of Dollars From U.S. Govt. - Garbage
http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-demands-return-of-millions-of-dollars-from-u-s-govt-120531/
======
josteink
If this is the US's response to people relocating outside US borders for their
business because of asinine US privacy and copyright-laws, I don't think it
will play out to their advantage in the end.

The one lesson learned here from everyone involved is: Whatever you do, do
_not_ involve US companies in your business.

~~~
fpp
Almost all Non-US banks have already learnt this lesson during the last years.

Try to get an account with a non-US bank or use a non-US financial service
company if you're an US citizen / green card holder (or have been that until
recently) - they will tell you "no thanks".

I've some time ago even seen Terms of Services on financial web sites that
asked US citizens to leave because of the overstretched liabilities the US is
one-sidedly trying to enforce outside their jurisdiction.

~~~
adventureful
It depends on the size of your account, as to whether they say "no thanks" or
not.

~~~
muyuu
The bigger, the worse. More liability.

~~~
adventureful
Not true. There isn't a major international bank that will turn away American
billionaires. Large accounts are extremely lucrative, and far easier to manage
because you can keep active watch on the account activities.

Far better to have one billion dollar account, than 1,000 million dollar
accounts.

~~~
fpp
they will most certainly turn them away - they nevertheless might not turn
away their offshore vehicles but this soon might be changing as well.

~~~
adventureful
Apparently not. Our billionaires continue to offshore their cash to countries
like Switzerland.

And the fact that our companies continue to do exactly the same thing, also
proves this out. There's no major international bank that won't take on
lucrative accounts with our mega corporations.

What you're talking about is wishful thinking at this point.

~~~
amirmc
Effectively 'hiding' money offshore though opaque company ownership structures
is possible when you have jurisdictions where even _asking_ who owns the
company could result in jail-time (see 5.1b of the Caymans confidential
relationship law [1]). When you don't know who owns what, it becomes difficult
to selectively 'turn people away'.

[1]
[http://www.cayman.gov.ky/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/SITE83/GAZ...](http://www.cayman.gov.ky/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/SITE83/GAZETTES/GS2009/GS332009.PDF)

------
gouranga
This is what happens when the US government does something blatantly immoral
and illegal to the wrong guy.

Most of us bend and take it or get the fuck bombed out of us or end up in a
bag.

Regardless of what Kim has supposedly done, it's nice to see someone standing
up to them.

~~~
acron0
Even for the US government this seems like a real stretch though. I mean, what
did they think was going to happen? There is ostensibly no case here. I would
just love to know what their plan was and how they thought it'd lead to the
end of Megaupload.

Anyway, as long as the US political system keeps pandering to the whim of
Hollywood, the Internet will keep on knocking it out the park.

~~~
rdtsc
> I would just love to know what their plan was and how they thought it'd lead
> to the end of Megaupload.

They arrest they guy, confiscate his property => Megaupload is down. Their job
is done.

I am sure they probably sugar-coated it using some superficial motives about
starving Hollywood actors and set designers. But in reality it is just
pandering to the lobbyist pressure from Hollywood.

US Govt acting immorally and often illegally on behalf of giant corporations
shouldn't be a surprise (see United Fruit company
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company>).

------
DigitalSea
The US government knew they never had a solid case from the start. This whole
situation was never going anywhere, it was created to disrupt traffic to
Megaupload (and it did), only the exact opposite is now going to happen.
Megaupload are going to get a heap of cash back, Dotcom is obviously angry and
will no doubt force Megaupload back to the top of the file sharing food chain
before too long.

The bottom line here is: the US turned what is a civil matter into a criminal
one by dressing everything up in money laundering and conspiracy charges and
it backfired. I'm no lawyer though.

------
Peroni
Can someone with any modicum of legal experience weigh in here?

I appreciate that all of these articles are undoubtedly bias in favour of
Megaupload however a lot of the facts lead me to believe that it will be near
impossible for them to lose. If megaupload do in fact win, surely that will
have an immense impact globally? Is it possible to actually quantify the knock
on effects of either outcome from a global perspective?

~~~
Natsu
I don't claim to be a lawyer, but I have read up on this case, including the
indictment. As always, if your interest in legal matters is anything but
academic curiosity, consult a lawyer.

One thing that stands out to me is that most of this argument is against the
idea that criminal infringement applies to secondary liability (i.e. faulting
these guys for the infringement of others). One problem for them is that the
indictment accuses some of them of direct infringement based on some of MU's
emails. This can lead to trouble with the NET Act [1], which has the explicit
criminal liability they need to extradite here. There are limits, though: they
would need to be able to prove that enough infringement had happened to rise
to a criminal level.

They also have criminal conspiracy charges in there, though I believe those to
be predicated on proving some sort of criminal infringement. Note, however,
that on the acts of direct infringement, it's possible for not everyone in the
group to be involved. For example, one of the emails I remember about locating
a pirate copy of some show was between a couple of employees. That wouldn't
necessarily implicate Kim himself unless they could connect him to the act.

There was a lot of nonsense in the indictment, though, trying to make
everything sound like it had a criminal motive. Some of the same allegations
made in it could be repeated against sites like YouTube, for example. The
indictment did, however, contain quite a few emails that made the Mega group
look pretty bad. I believe their lawyers already addressed those, saying that
their words were being twisted around.

Ultimately, I think this is going to be a fairly unpredictable case.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act>

~~~
Symmetry
The problem with the actual charges, from what I read, is that the emails show
that MegaUpload was trying to do the absolute minimum necceesary to comply
with the DMCA. They were, in fact, not actually living up to everything that
they had to do to under the DMCA and are thus guilty of copyright infringement
under civil law, but the government decided to press criminal charges instead,
and making a good faith effort to abide by the DMCA is enough to get out of
those charges.

EDIT: A better explanation: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/is-
megaupload-a-l...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/is-megaupload-a-
lot-less-guilty-than-you-think/)

~~~
tzs
> The problem with the actual charges, from what I read, is that the emails
> show that MegaUpload was trying to do the absolute minimum necceesary to
> comply with the DMCA

I'd change that to "trying to do the absolute minimum necessary to APPEAR to
comply with the DMCA, if the request was from a party that had enough legal
resources to make trouble".

If they had one copy of your file stored without authorization on their
servers, but it was accessible through, say, 5 different URLs, their response
to a DMCA takedown request was to make the specific URL you knew about
invalid, but to leave the file up and leave the rest of the URLs working.
That's why I say "appear" to comply.

When they were first shutdown, there were first person reports here on HN from
small developers who had their takedown requests ignored, which is why I
suspect that you had to be someone reasonably big for them to even bother to
try to appear to comply.

~~~
cbr
This was arguably the right thing to do. Each url represented a different time
someone had uploaded a binary identical copy of that file to the site. Each
one might or might not be allowed by copyright.

Imagine we both rip a track from a fresh cd using the default encoding
settings on some standard software. We get two bit-for-bit identical files. We
both upload them to MegaUpload, you because you want to do something fair-use
compliant while I want to share it with the world. You take your link and use
it legally, I take mine and put it one some shady site. The RIAA finds mine,
judges it to be in violation, asks MegaUpload to take it down. MegaUpload
would be wrong to also take yours down because yours is there legally.

It's not that a certain set of bytes, all that a MegaUpload url represented,
is illegal or illegal. It's whether the person who posted it had the right to
do so. Copyright is tricky because it's metadata.

------
minikomi
Torrent Freak always strikes me as very well written.. Is there a similarly
well written source which supports the "other side" of the copyright story?

~~~
Zirro
See <http://mpaa.org/blog> if you want "extreme" bias in the other direction.

~~~
lindenr
They appear to be sticking with the "2.2 million American jobs" line even
though the figures were shown to be inaccurate iirc. For me it really weakens
their credibility the way they keep pretending like that.

------
Im_Mr_Manager
Am I in the tiny minority here who thinks that what Megaupload was doing was
illegal and should be prosecuted? Ok I get it, the US is trying to apply their
laws onto the world and that is a big issue but this seems like the wrong case
to get outraged over. Megaupload was built for the purpose of hosting/sharing
copyrighted files. You know it and I know it.

~~~
jeffool
I don't know how to convey the opposite opinion in a way you've likely not
heard before. I'll go to extremes.

And a handgun is made to kill people. But we generally agree there's a limited
context in which that is acceptable, so we allow it. If I want to store my
files online, copywritten or not, there's nothing illegal about it.

~~~
dhimes
How about: If I illegally photocopy a textbook at a printing shop, is the
printing shop criminally culpable?

~~~
adventureful
Legally, yes, sometimes the source of the copying is in fact criminally
culpable (the print shop), but usually only if they understood what was going
on.

If a print shop in Los Angeles were to serve a high volume of student
customers, and the print shop knew they were breaking the law by making copies
of textbooks and selling them, the print shop would have a massive liability
over its head. It would require proving that the print shop knew what the
students were doing.

~~~
yashchandra
"It would require proving that the print shop knew what the students were
doing"

Exactly. It would require proving. The article is arguing that it did not
happen

~~~
jeffool
Yes, that's what's at trial here. But in the post I replied to, I was taking
issue with the insinuation that "OF COURSE that's what was happening here!" As
if to imply online storage with easy download is inherently about piracy.

------
Fizzadar
If the money is returned, I hope Dotcom gets megaupload back in it's top file-
sharing spot, and shoves it in the face of the US Govt. who have clearly
fucked up big time.

It does seem as if the Govt. was desperate and, without any correct process or
concrete evidence, scrambled to shutter the site and Dotcom as fast as they
could. And now it will hopefully backfire, and the internet will rejoice.

------
adventureful
As an American citizen, I hope the rest of the world realizes that there are
plenty of those of us here that are thankful when other countries' justice
systems push back. We need a lot more of that, we need help to restrain our
government and get it back to operating within a moral boundary. International
push-back and isolation would help do that. I think the US Government's reach
and power has mostly gone beyond the ability of Americans to restrict, and
most Americans are willfully asleep at the wheel (thus our skyrocketing
prescription drug abuse, Americans are numbing themselves). It might take a
global concerted effort to lock the monster down (keeping in mind the monster
has a $4 trillion budget, larger than the size of Germany's entire economy).

They might continue to still go all crazy police state on us anyway, but
standing up to bullies is important.

~~~
sneak
You contradict yourself - you claim that the government is operating outside
of a moral boundary and is beyond the ability of the citizenry to restrict,
but you also claim that international push-back and isolation would help.

You're right that it's totally out of control - the rule of law is gone.
You're wrong about the potential solutions.

The only nonviolent solution is to leave the country and avoid the
jurisdictional reach. Take your ball and go somewhere that has the rule of
law.

They _will_ continue to "go all crazy police state on us", and that is
precisely why it's time to leave. It's impossible to make things better while
being persecuted or beaten or censored or imprisoned without trial.

~~~
adventureful
I don't think I contradicted myself at all.

I said _mostly_ operating outside the ability of Americans to restrict (some
aspects do, some aspects don't). And I said I think it will help, if the globe
pitched in to restrict the US Federal Govt. There's no contradiction there at
all. The push-back by international powers would accomplish international
restriction of the Feds that US citizens cannot short term (US citizens mostly
have no influence over New Zealand justice, nor trade relations with
Singapore, nor military relations with Japan, and so on and so forth).

It would take a very large cultural shift to get the US military out of Japan
from our side (it would take more than just a new President). Japan, however,
can and should kick the US military out tomorrow morning. Ditto Germany.

It's better if you stop thinking of America as a 'normal' nation, and start
thinking of it as an international superpower that has 180 military bases
around the globe, with its fingers in every pie.

Americans for example have zero influence or control over the Federal Reserve.
You'd have to turn congress inside out to then get laws passed that reach to
the Fed. Other nations can however change their relationship with the Fed and
its banking arms.

American voters would have to reform the entire government top to bottom
before they got to restricting CIA activities in Italy (for example). Italy
however, can get started on that tomorrow morning.

The US Government is extremely large and powerful, and it has a superpower's
reach globally. It makes perfect sense that it would help if the rest of the
world pushed back against its international abuses.

Let me provide you an example: I can vote for a congressman, that single
congressman cannot realistically stop the NSA at this point, the NSA has a
budget equal to the budget of Greece. It would take a complete government
overhaul to restructure the NSA, and that will take a long time. Other
countries however, at their choosing, can immediately alter what they allow
departments like the CIA or NSA to do in their jurisdiction (and or at least
make the effort to push back).

The US Government is not one thing, it's a massive entity with many powerful
heads that operate independent of each other.

~~~
mih
> Japan, however, can and should kick the US military out tomorrow morning.
> Ditto Germany

Citizens of other countries are similarly held hostage by their governments
too (although some to a much lesser extent than the US). The US however has
too much clout over other governments to allow what you state to happen.

~~~
grecy
Wow, once again I see people comparing America to second and third world
countries. Yes, people in those countries have it worse than people in
America.

People in first world countries are not "held hostage" by their governments.

Why, why, why would you compare America to Second and Third world countries
instead of looking to the top of first world countries and striving to be
better?

~~~
jfoutz
Mostly because the US is very very diverse. If I move two counties over, my
life expectancy goes up 5 years. It's probably fair to say 1% of the US is
third world. At the very least, Alabama's immigrant ghettos are concretely
third world. [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/456/r...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/456/reap-what-you-sow?act=1)

~~~
grecy
That doesn't mean you should compare the country to second and third world
countries when analyzing if something needs improvement or not

That's like comparing America's murder rate to El Salvador and saying it's
perfectly fine. Instead, it should be compared to first world countries, and
it's soon very clear that it's not OK and is a serious problem for such a
prosperous country.[1]

This kind of comparison leads to apathy.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#2010s)
(sort the list by "most recent", and have a look where the United States sits
compared to the next first world country.

~~~
anamax
> That doesn't mean you should compare the country to second and third world
> countries when analyzing if something needs improvement or not

He didn't say that the US didn't need improvement.

The US' diversity means that the comparison is complicated. In fact, when you
compare the US apples and oranges to apples and oranges in other countries,
you find that the US is doing reasonably well. You're seeing consequences of
the fact that the apple countries don't have oranges.

We'd be happy to give some oranges to apple countries so they can show us how
to do it correctly....

~~~
grecy
I understand it's a big, diverse place, but at what point is this thing
"United" and at what point is it "divided"?

I mean, either it's United or it's not.

~~~
anamax
> I mean, either it's United or it's not.

Why do you think that that's true? I ask because it isn't in other
circumstances (particle vs wave).

The world doesn't care whether it's convenient.

There are various connections, but geography is the only common one.

~~~
grecy
Because the whole founding principle of the country is " _One nation_ , under
god, _indivisible_...".

It's supposed to be a singular entity where everyone is working towards the
benefit of everyone, but that got lost somewhere along the way.

~~~
anamax
> Because the whole founding principle of the country is "One nation, under
> god, indivisible...".

That's from the pledge of allegiance, which was written in 1892, long after
the nation was founded. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance>

More important, you're confusing a goal with reality.

------
ktizo
I think part of the judgement involved in going after Kim was in trying to
find someone who didn't fit a nice cuddly image that was easy to defend. What
they didn't apparently factor in was that perhaps he might be bright and
better than them at playing games.

------
freshnote
Looking back at some of the earlier HN conversations, when Megaupload was
first shut down by the US, you can see those who made damning accusations and
blind assumptions that Megaupload were guilty.

These people should be ashamed. They are part of the problem.

It's baffling they would be so opinionated and cocksure although they plainly
didn't know the facts.

I'm curious why these HN readers told bald faced lies. What's in it for them?
How many other discussions have they polluted with misinformation?

~~~
pyre
I'm pretty sure those people believed that Megaupload was guilty _prior_ to
the indictments. E.g. if the US served copyright-infringement indictments
against ThePirateBay and a bunch of HNers claimed that ThePirateBay was
guilty, it would be a stretch to say that their opinions were solely based on
the indictments...

