
Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy - waitwhat
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204616504577171060611948408-lMyQjAxMTAyMDEwOTExNDkyWj.html
======
AlexMuir
At the risk of megadownvoting here...

Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests - I made several as part of some
research and never received any response. The site charged for access to, and
provided advertising around, pirated content. The site paid people
(users/staff - it's a fine line) to provide popular content.

It went to extraordinary lengths to hide the identity of its operators.

Now if people believe that anyone should be allowed to set up a site, fill it
with full length DVD rips,and then charge $10 a month for access then no wrong
has been committed. But I think most right-minded people would say that is
wrong - otherwise we'd all be doing it.

Kim Schmitz has made a lot of money over a five to seven year period doing
this. But the risk that came with that was that eventually he'd face serious
jailtime.

I cannot believe that Megaupload is being touted as an anti-SOPA posterchild.
It is, pure and simple, a piracy site full of pirated material. I'd be
astounded [see update] if anyone here uses it for anything other than
pirating. But let's not pretend it's Dropbox - it isn't.

I am also astounded that people on HN are calling this a legitimate business.
What was its business? Was it being used to distribute Wikipedia archives? To
host videos of people's kids singing? No - it was hosting pirated content. Not
torrents, not links. AVI files of films. AND THEN CHARGING FOR ACCESS.

[Update: It seems some people below did use it for sending big files. Colour
me astounded. I've never had to do this so it's new to me. I guess the fact
remains that they had to subsidise this activity somehow - and that they made
their money off popular content. They have to hope this is enough to cover
their asses.]

~~~
rickmb
Let's analyze the propaganda speak here:

> Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests

Based on not only the experience of others, but the claims of the DoJ itself,
this is clearly false.

> The site charged for access to, and provided advertising around, pirated
> content.

This is true in the same way YouTube provides advertising around, and your
friendly local ISP provides access to, pirated content.

> The site paid people (users/staff - it's a fine line) to provide popular
> content.

So does YouTube. So do various other business models.

> It went to extraordinary lengths to hide the identity of its operators.

How many legitimate business don't have their owners wrapped in layers of
corporations strewn around the globe? Nothing particularly unique or illegal
here.

> Now if people believe that anyone should be allowed to set up a site, fill
> it with full length DVD rips...

It's an outright lie to claim that they themselves filled it with said rips.
The users did. Just like many other sites, usenet servers etcetera.

> Kim Schmitz has made a lot of money

Yeah, that's a crime...

You've already corrected one claim, that Megaupload wasn't used for legitimate
purposes.

Full disclosure: personally, I believe copyright in it's current form should
die. Partly because of exactly this: it makes virtually impossible to provide
any service around something that is way more important than the profits of
the entertainment industry: the freedom of people to share information.

I also highly doubt this would actually be much of a problem if there was any
economic impulse for the entertainment industry to provide a decent
alternative.

In the current context, with a ridiculous artificially created scarcity, how
the hell is anybody supposed to run a site like Megaupload and not have it
full of "illegal" DVD-rips and shit, whether they like it or not?

The DOJ might have evidence that this was deliberate, but all the rest of us
have is propaganda and deeply biased speculation.

~~~
billpatrianakos
The other side of this SOPA battle is playing us like a fiddle. This WSJ
article took our stance (it's not my stance but the majority here's stance)
and attacked us with it by saying we're pro-piracy. That doesn't go over well
outside this community. If we just got off the copyright/privacy topic for a
minute and focused on the big picture we could fight more effectively.

Point out that SOPA/PIPA are unnecessary because the Feds are shutting down
sites just fine without it. Point out that due process is done away with by
SOPA. Etc.

They want us to be talking about copyright and piracy but this isn't about
those things at all! This is total misdirection by the other side and we all
just played into it. What this is really about is the government and
entertainment industry trying to grab the power to do the things they've
already been doing without having to go do all that annoying stuff like
gathering evidence, building a case, or holding a trial. For being such a big
group of smart people I'm surprised I haven't heard anyone else point this out
before.

~~~
iandanforth
'What this is really about is the government and entertainment industry trying
to grab the power to do the things they've already been doing without having
to go do all that annoying stuff like gathering evidence, building a case, or
holding a trial.'

Parts of SOPA/PIPA will make their lives easier, this is true, however it also
grants new powers. Much recent fervor revolves around these new powers.

You also criticize the rhetoric of the community, but due so in reference to
the Wall Street Journal. I have no doubt that they will be the last
publication to adopt, support, or accept our rhetoric. Now that doesn't make
the general criticism false.

The primary fallacy I see in your argument is instead that the terms like pro-
piracy need be liabilities. There are pirate parties in several countries now,
and historically powerful, emotionally salient terms can be used either as
marks of shame or pride. Language is fickle like that.

Now I can say that there is a dangerous cancer in this country and it is a
malignancy that has been growing for years, and now that we've found a way to
hurt it, slow its growth, to bleed it out, it's releasing toxins. Piracy is
the cure to the cancer on the creativity of America. I can say that the 1% of
middlemen and lawyers that call themselves 'rightsholders' are afraid of
people point out how bloated they are, and how Un-American it is to be bad at
your job, inefficient, and dictatorial. They represent barriers to innovation,
to freedom, and to the growth and prosperity of their nation. Some of us have
decided the situation is so intolerable that we will advocate breaking unjust
laws and causing direct, lasting, and public harm to this institution.

This is protest and the hope of change. It is only history that will determine
who played whom.

~~~
billpatrianakos
I think the terms we're talking about really are liabilities. They're being
used against us. The US is a completely different animal than other nations.
Maybe we can get the public to think differently about piracy one day but
considering the short amount of time we have to stop SOPA I think we need to
prioritize and leave that fight for another day.

Discussions and movements surrounding copyright and piracy are definitely
something we need to have but I think it's more important in the short term to
stop SOPA and then leave these other movements for later. We can't change
American's attitudes within a month or two. So let's prioritize and make it
about the things I said earlier rather than focusing too much on the piracy
and copyright. And yeah, the law does grant new powers too but you can't throw
too much information at people all at once or they shut down on you. We have
to break this up into small, manageable, relatable terms to get others on our
side.

As it stands it just seems like we're preaching to the choir amongst
ourselves. We all have slightly different opinions when it comes to some of
the details but for the most part we all get it and we're against this. It's
the everyday non-techies we need to reach.

I actually am in the minority here. I support copyright, I think it's
valuable, and I'm also against piracy because of how I'd feel if someone
pirated software I developed. But I'm still on your side when it comes to
SOPA. I even feel that copyright goes way too far and wouldn't mind seeing the
term shortened by a lot. But I do get this issue. There are a ton of people
who share my opinion on copyright and piracy who think SOPA is actually a good
thing. Their logic is that if piracy is bad then this law to stop it is good.
We don't get the finer points, we don't know that there are laws in place that
stop piracy already and that they're more than sufficient, and we generally
think of pirates as the traditional back-alley, trench coat wearing bootlegger
types. Those are the people you need to relate to. There's not enough time to
change their mind on piracy so you have to frame it in a way they relate to.
Make it personal. When I say we, I mean people who share my (minority here)
opinion on copyright and piracy. I get the SOPA issue but others _like_ me
don't.

Hopefully I wasn't too confusing with all the pronouns I just abused.

------
droithomme
Wow, that article's certainly not biased! </sarcasm>

> "MegaUpload.com is already engaged in a legal fight with Universal Music
> Group over a promotional video featuring some UMG artists."

I suppose there are some reading that that don't know MegaUpload hired all the
artists and had contracts and copyright licenses with them and had complete
rights to the video, which UMG illegally and fraudulently filed a takedown
notice against YouTube. Also, the loaded term "file-sharing site" certainly
confuses the issue that the site is like DropBox and sells on line storage
space. Plenty of legitimate businesses and artists use it to distribute files
which they own all rights to. Just like YouTube, yes, some misuse that. Is
YouTube also fairly called a "file-sharing site" by the Journal now? Would not
know any of the real facts from reading this article. How far has fallen the
formerly great, but now Murdoch owned and controlled Wall Street Journal. I
was a subscriber for years, but gave up a few years ago when the quality
plummeted and objectivity flew out the window.

Update: Oh boy, today two of the programmers that worked for Megaupload have
been arrested and another is wanted for arrest:
<http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-shut-down-120119/> All face 50 years in
prison. (20 years for racketeering, 5 for copyright conspiracy, 20 for money
laundering conspiracy, 5 for copyright violation.) This will certainly send a
chilling message to any talented engineers considering a job interview at a
company that allows third party uploads some of which are DMCA violations,
such as YouTube.

~~~
tomp
> UMG illegally and fraudulently filed a takedown notice against YouTube

I don't necessarily agree with UMG's action (and that's completely beside the
point), but AFAIK (according to the news articles), UMG didn't file a DMCA
takedown notice, but a takedown notice that was completely a contractual issue
between two businesses (UMG and YouTube). There's nothing illegal there.

~~~
_delirium
While I don't think it's good that it could be possible, their violation of a
computer-usage agreement with Google could be criminal under the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act. The CFAA's prohibition on "exceeding authorized access",
where you had legitimate access to a system but used it in ways that exceeded
your agreed-upon authorization, has been read extremely broadly, to basically
criminalize violations of computer-access agreements. So if they deleted
videos that the terms of their contract with Google didn't authorize them to
delete, that could be a criminal matter rather than just civil. (The chances
of anyone being prosecuted in this case are another matter.)

------
e1ven
Wow. This is a really interesting situation; I can't agree with this action at
all.

1) The site complied with DMCA regulations, and removed material when asked.

2) The site did not directly promote piracy, which was Grokster decision.

3) The listed employees are all (or nearly all) not US citizens, so this
required international cooperation, and extradition over copyright?

From my perspective it looks like they were follow the letter of the law on
all, or nearly all counts. The DOJ seems to have decided that if they can't
really charge them with something specific, they'll go upstream, and charge
them with vague broad things.

This makes me rather worried that even if you run a legitimate business, and
comply with the law, if the DOJ decides they don't like you, you're done for.

WTF?

~~~
adestefan
If you read the actual press release and not the little WSJ blurb, then you'll
see that DoJ's indicment said that MegaUpload actually did not comply with the
DMCA safe harbor provisions and they did directly promote piracy. Of course,
it's now up to them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is true.

As for the not US citizens, it's covered via the Berne Convention: The laws of
the country where the copyright is registered applies. They probably spell out
extradition, too.

~~~
gte910h
>Of course, it's now up to them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this
is true.

Federal prosecutors have a 95 conviction rate for trials that go to jury.

Almost everyone plea bargains.

~~~
anamax
> Almost everyone plea bargains.

Yup, because the feds have amazing resources and the "law" is such that
everyone is guilty of enough "crimes" to get 100 years.

In other words, feds win a rigged game.

~~~
mbreese
In other words, they don't bring cases that they can't win. If you are
Federally indicted, it's because they have more than enough evidence to
convict. They don't like to lose cases, so they don't bring cases that are
risky.

~~~
anamax
> In other words, they don't bring cases that they can't win.

That's not what I wrote. I wrote that they can convict anyone because they
have vastly more resources and everyone commits several felonies/day, that is,
is guilty.

Are you claiming that being able to win because of extra resources is good or
is it the "everyone is a criminal" part that you like?

~~~
mbreese
I know that's not what you wrote... because you said that the system was
rigged. However, there is another (more likely) explanation - that the Federal
prosecutors only bring cases to trial that they are likely to win. Out of the
pool of possible cases that they could bring to trial, they only bring a
fraction of those to trial. But the ones that they do bring are the ones that
they feel they are more likely to win.

The reason that they can win or settle so many of their cases isn't their
extra resources (which can be vast). It's that they are selective in the cases
they choose. This ends up being self-reinforcing too - the more cases that
they settle, the more the reputation that they have a strong case, which
increases the likelihood that the next case will settle.

Their extra resources come into play when evaluating a single case, but when
looking at the population of possible cases, it is their selectivity that
skews the percentages in their favor.

------
rbanffy
> According to the indictment, MegaUpload is responsible for at least $500
> million in losses for the owners of the copyrights in question.

I really can no longer stand such outlandish claims. Do they mean they would
have sold 50 million more movies at US$ 10 each if the site didn't exist? Or
do they think they'd have sold 500 million downloads for US$1 each? Or 5
billion for 10¢? In fact, they most probably got a couple extra sales from
people who really loved a movie they downloaded to the point of buying the DVD
(or BD) version.

~~~
jmadsen
+100

Tired of sources supposedly at the top of their profession (WSJ) who simply
repeat these money claims and don't ask to see any sort of study to back them
up.

They printed another claim from the Motion Picture industry claiming "100,000
jobs lost"....ridiculous number, and WSJ doesn't even ask where they get the
number from

------
cyanbane
From DOJ Presser:

 _For example, when notified by a rights holder that a file contained
infringing content, the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable
only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the
infringing content in place to make it seamlessly available to millions of
users to access through any one of the many duplicate links available for that
file._

I assume the DMCA specifies content removal not removal of links/access to the
content? It puts places like Dropbox in an interesting place. If you share a
link with someone and the link is to something from "your own" storage space,
and a rights holder issues a takedown (for the sharing aspect) is the company
also supposed to remove the content from "your storage" assuming it is the
same 1s and 0s? Should they have a right to if it is only you with access?

~~~
rbanffy
More interestingly, if I host a lot of files on a file-deduped storage system,
where there is only a single copy to any given file with many different
directory entries pointing to it, if user A has a movie he hold rights to and
user B hosts the same file (ending up on the same physical file connected to a
different directory entry) without having the right to do it and user A sends
me a takedown notice, will I really be forced to remove the file A had because
I have to actually remove the file, not only the means of accessing it?

------
bri3d
Hosting files is a dangerous business - the line between being shut down for
infringement and not being shut down seems to be drawn by who you know and
what users you end up with, not any real actions, design, or technical
differences in your site.

The indictment of Megaupload actually uses their lack of search function and
censorship of copyrighted material from their "top content" list as marks
_against_ them. This means most other file sharing services which focus on
one-to-one or one-to-many sharing and hence omit search and a "trending" list
(looking at Dropbox, here) are vulnerable.

~~~
skymt
Censorship of the top-content list is actually a valid point against them. It
means Megaupload had some system to identify infringing files, but rather than
flagging them for investigation or deletion, they simply removed them from the
public list.

~~~
stsanders
I disagree. Distributing copyrighted material to unauthorized parties is an
issue. Storing it doesn't seem like an issue to me. 100% of cloud storage
companies are grossly violating all sorts of copyrights if this is the case.
Storing it but removing the ability for the internet at large to leech it
seems legit to me. If someone distributes the private URL to such files, I
think that counts as _them_ distributing it, not megaupload.

It's not a straightforward issue though.

------
benologist
Not sure why anyone's drawing comparisons to Dropbox. MegaUpload was
fundamentally a paywall in front of everything you can possibly imagine
pirating. Basically a direct-download TPB with heavy handed incentives to
convince people to pay to do it.

As a legitimate file sharing service, which to a very small extent Dropbox is,
it was absolutely terrible - wait xx seconds or minutes to download a file at
a reduced speed.

------
Vivtek
I thought the burning need for SOPA/PIPA was that there was no way for
American legal processes to deal with international criminals? _Have the MPAA
and RIAA misled me about their sponsored legislation?!?_

~~~
possibilistic
I think this could turn out to be a huge mistake by the entertainment
industry. We absolutely have to take advantage of this as an example of how
this legislation is unnecessary.

~~~
thebigshane
Maybe, but now I might be more concerned about the _current_ laws. I don't
want to go out and taut that the current laws are already sufficient; I don't
to give the impression that we approve of them.

As others have pointed out: German citizen arrested in New Zealand over... US
copyrights... _copyrights_... from the _US_.

------
FaceKicker
DoJ press release with a little more info:
<http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-crm-074.html>

~~~
waitwhat
Of course, someone
[<https://twitter.com/AnonOpsSweden/status/160107848121061376>] has now taken
down the justice.gov website.

Google cache of the press release:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cac...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3Awww.justice.gov%2Fopa%2Fpr%2F2012%2FJanuary%2F12-crm-074.html)

------
mkr-hn
You shouldn't be able to shut a person's business down just by charging them
with something. Any business but an enormous corporation would collapse while
waiting for the charges to be dropped. A false accusation would end your
business.

------
lhnz
Is this the Megaupload run by the producer Swizz Beatz posted on here only a
little earlier? <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3484419>

So the RIAA are going after their own artists for allegedly stealing money
from their own artists? What a weird industry this is...

~~~
ethank
It is naive to think it was only the RIAA or associated lobbying groups going
after them.

~~~
lhnz
1\. I never said that. I just insinuated they were one of the parties that
would go after the site.

2\. Please don't walk around calling people naive. It's offensive and
unnecessary.

~~~
ethank
Not trying to be offensive, but seeing the RIAA thrown around as this big
boogeyman is annoying, and also seeing it stand in for labels, artists even
more so.

One of the biggest foes for MegaUpload was porn, who have much more money but
less lobbying clout than the RIAA.

~~~
nknight
The RIAA and major labels are one and the same. It is disingenuous at best to
try and distinguish one from the other, when the board of directors consists
entirely of label representatives.

Meanwhile, precious few artists whine about piracy like the RIAA does, you
hear a lot more whining about the labels, because they're the ones screwing
artists.

~~~
ethank
The RIAA represents WMG, UMG and Sony Music. Each of those has a bunch labels.
They themselves are not labels. For instance, WMG corporate has no A&R staff.

The business of music is different than the practice of it, and lumping it all
into the "label" itself is disingenuous. The politics within those companies
usually means the labels at the very edge (where marketing and A&R are) are
often at odds with corporate/RIAA.

When I'm on better a better connection I'll post some examples.

I don't mean to be pedantic about it, but the ecosystem around music is much
more complex than "sue them all"

~~~
nknight
Division, brand, subsidiary, however you want to spin it. Common ownership,
common responsibility. An entity _cannot_ be "at odds" with a parent entity,
such an assertion would be laughed out of court. Internal politics don't
matter to the outside world.

~~~
ethank
I get that, but being inside, I can tell you that what labels would do often
was at odds with their parent company, even in press and in public.

It's not spin, its fact. I participated.

------
ortusdux
The last sentence bugs me. It is ambiguous at best, but in this context it
implies a criminal past. The truth is that UMG used a DMCA takedown notice to
remove media that Megaupload alone owned the rights to. Megaupload felt that
UMG overstepped their bounds and preceded to start said legal battle. It seems
to me that the final sentence, presented without context, is editorializing;
basically saying 'hey the FBI says these guys are criminals, oh and they are
also in court for this other thing'.

------
delackner
At a glance this seemed like an obvious move, but the deeper you look
everything stops making sense.

The emails between company officers suggest that they themselves used their
own service to upload copyrighted content and share it with others, knowingly
breaking the law. Case closed!

But what gives US law enforcement the right to obtain those private emails
between officers of a foreign company? Reasonable suspicion of infringement?
What suspicion? Suspicion of failure to comply with DMCA takedown notices?

What is the basis for that suspicion? Their failure to delete ALL links to any
file for which a single link is reported. But as many others have pointed out,
each of those links represents a specific user who has uploaded the same file.
Without a public searchable index, each of those keys is effectively a
distinct privately uploaded file.

So we come down to whether a copyright holder has the authority to say "anyone
anywhere who has uploaded a copy of this file, does not have the right to
share it".

What next? If a service like Dropbox borrows a hint from git and stores not
just single file hashes, but distinct unique data chunks, and a takedown
request calls for the deletion of say, a feature film, will they claim Dropbox
knowingly infringed for failing to remove a 10 second chunk of that film that
some student put in their dissertation?

------
brador
So in terms of precedent, if dropbox can be used to store copyright files,
could they also be shut down on a whim like this?

~~~
adestefan
No. MegaUpload lost their safe harbor status by doing the following as spelled
out in the DoJ press release:

 _As alleged in the indictment, the conspirators failed to terminate accounts
of users with known copyright infringement, selectively complied with their
obligations to remove copyrighted materials from their servers and
deliberately misrepresented to copyright holders that they had removed
infringing content. For example, when notified by a rights holder that a file
contained infringing content, the indictment alleges that the conspirators
would disable only a single link to the file, deliberately and deceptively
leaving the infringing content in place to make it seamlessly available to
millions of users to access through any one of the many duplicate links
available for that file._

Of course this is only a grand jury indictment and they have not been found
guilty in a court. But the Feds don't bring a case if they aren't damn well
sure they can win.

~~~
julian37
_the indictment alleges that the conspirators would disable only a single link
to the file, deliberately and deceptively leaving the infringing content in
place_

I might be reading too much into this, but to me this sounds like ten people
uploaded the same movie (maybe with different filenames, maybe different
encodings/file formats), the DMCA request only named one of these files, and
MegaUpload removed only that one file.

(I know the quote says "link" not "copy" but it wouldn't be the first time
people get confused over the distinction.)

If so, this sets a dangerous precedent for other (maybe more legitimate) file
sharing sites: firstly, if you host millions of files, detecting which files
are copies of another file, or deciding which filenames are similar to other
filenames, is not a trivial task. Secondly, as far as I understand the DMCA,
it doesn't even require you to go to these lengths.

Of course, I might be totally off base and they might really have kept the
very same file in place and just removed a link to it on some pages while
keeping the link on others.

Does anyone know more details about this?

~~~
davorak
Even if it is the same file if the provided links are private I think they
should be safe under how DMCA is worded. Each link can be considered a key to
locker and it would not be Megaupload's job to know who should have a key and
who should not. DMCA would require them to reject keys but not necessarily the
locker under many situations. My previous post:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3486903>

------
meric
I think the SOPA/PIPA blackout thing was really getting to a couple of
congressmen / senators who knew about this FBI operation; They then told FBI
to hurry it up so they can have something to respond. Let's watch which
senator/congressman speak up to say this is an example of why laws like
SOPA/PIPA are needed; $X million was required to bring these "foreign
criminals impinging on American rights" to justice. With new laws they can be
shutdown much more cost effectively.

When I'm looking for a job next time, it'll not be one whose primary business
is hosting user content.

------
andrewfelix
A graphic designer was one of those arrested...

I have a lump in my throat, I thought down in the pacific we were safe from
your batshit crazy FBI.

~~~
rmoriz
It's probably Finn, Kims favourite designer who works for K. since forever.

~~~
kvgr
The press in Czech republic says his name is Julius Bencko, Slovak guy.

------
gry
SOPA and PIPA would help how? This appears successful without them.

~~~
endersshadow
Edit: Leaving the original text so as not to confuse the conversation.
Megaupload is a foreign (to the US) site with a US TLD, not a US-domestic
site. The arrests were made around the globe, but mostly in New Zealand. The
FBI may have initiated the indictment, but extradition applies, as does the
Berne Convention.

SOPA and PIPA are intended to address issues with foreign-hosted sites being
used by Americans to pirate American copyrighted works. MegaUpload is a
domestic outfit, so they fall under existing copyright law, including DMCA.

The issue with fighting foreign-based sites is that they don't fall under US
jurisdiction. Up till now, the RIAA and MPAA have taken to suing Americans
using those services. However, that's not really putting a dent in piracy. So,
they came up with SOPA and PIPA. Of course, how do you stop Americans from
visiting foreign sites which you have no jurisdiction over? Using DNS
filtering is the answer they came up with. Of course, they left the language
fairly broad, and now they've stricken that part from the bill.

The real issue with SOPA and PIPA is the removal of due process. Since the
laws deal with foreign entities, though, the waters get muddied.

~~~
jonknee
How is Megaupload a domestic entity? All the parties were foreign nationals
and were arrested outside of the US. The corporation was out of Hong Kong:

Megaupload Limited P.O. Box No. 28410 Gloucester Road Post Office Hong Kong

~~~
endersshadow
You're quite right. Sorry, missed that part. PIPA, I believe, defined foreign
sites as foreign TLDs, but for the FBI to arrest people in New Zealand would
require extradition or cooperation from New Zealand authorities. Otherwise, I
fully expect the US to be invaded by the Kiwis shortly.

------
sagarun
FBI doesn't have any 'job' other than chasing down bunch of movie "pirates"?

~~~
earbitscom
Why is pirates in quotes? The article says these guys made over $150M in half
a dozen years breaking international treaties and operating illegally.
Stopping them is exactly what the FBI's job is. It's not like they're going
after jay walkers.

~~~
sophacles
Probably because:

    
    
       pi·ra·cy/ˈpīrəsē/
       Noun:	
       1. The practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea.
       2. A similar practice in other contexts, esp. hijacking.
    

Is not the same as "making a copy of something in violation of copyright
rules".

~~~
Karunamon
Get modern dictionary.

pi·ra·cy

noun /ˈpīrəsē/

piracies, plural

1\. The practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea

2\. Similar practice in other contexts, esp. hijacking \- air piracy

3\. The unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work \- software piracy

~~~
sophacles
A. My definition was a c+p from a Google search for "define piracy"

B. The equation of copyright infringement with other types of piracy (and
theft for that matter) is misleading and pure propaganda (granted, its 300
year old propaganda, but still wrong).

~~~
Karunamon
>My definition was a c+p from a Google search for "define piracy"

So was mine! On further examination, it seems the third definition doesn't
come up unless you click details. My apologies for the acerbic tone!

------
aviv
It was reported today that MegaUpload's CEO is none other than Swizz Beatz.
How is it that the FBI charges the company's graphic designer but not the CEO?

------
fatalerrorx3
I guess megavideo.com is also part of the "mega" network? I just was curious
so I typed in megavideo.com and it looks like they're also down..my browser
just sitting there spinning then timing out. Will be interesting to see how
this whole thing plays out -- especially with that rapper just being appointed
CEO...that must be the shortest time span a person has been CEO the world
over..what was it a few hours?

------
nphrk
Why did they charge the graphic designer and the developers?

~~~
larrik
I assume because they needed to grab everyone they could in one shot, since
they are outside of the U.S., and it can turn out that one or more of them are
in fact guilty. Otherwise, they can just disappear and you'll never get the
chance again.

This actually makes sense if you consider that these laws are aimed at the
mafia, and that there is no penalty to the U.S. government for being wrong.

EDIT: I find it interesting how everyone always jumps to the "OMG EVIL"
conclusion with these things. From what I've seen, American law enforcement
can be overzealous, heavy-handed, and cause a lot of collateral damage, but
they are rarely "evil."

"wrong" =/= "evil"

~~~
nona
Being overzealous, heavy-handed and causing a lot of collateral damage goes
right against the presumption of innocence. Evil in my book.

------
thebigredjay
I can't really stand up for Megaupload, but I'm frightened by the power
wielded by labels. Perhaps it's time to start a movement of only consuming
local and independent art.

------
EGreg
As I said, the government could already do this, which is why they are doing
it in nations that work with the US:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3388171>

I also wrote my congressman about SOPA:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3483539>

Man I sometimes wish that things that go against groupthink in HN were
addressed too :)

~~~
adestefan
It has nothing to do with "nations that work with the US." Instead, under the
Berne Convention the laws where the copyright is registered apply to the work
no matter where the infringement takes place. All of these countries are
members of the treaty.

------
rquantz
I'm interested in the relationship between this argument and the one going on
elsewhere on HN today concerning 37signals' looking up the name of their 100
millionth file in their logs. For MegaUpload, the implication seems to be
(from the government if not from commenters here) that, on top of complying
with DMCA requests (obviously there are also questions about whether they did
even that), MegaUpload should be monitoring files that its users upload,
looking for copyrighted content. On the other hand, some people reacting to
the 37signals incident seem to think that they should not even have access to
the _names_ of files, let alone the actual content.

I'm not sure where I stand on this, and forgive me if I've mischaracterized
anyone's arguments, but I do think these two discussion have bearing on each
other, and I want to hear what others think about it.

~~~
unreal37
I guess the difference is private versus public.

If people were uploading pirated movies to their 37 signals account, who cares
because that link can't be used for sharing with the world. But with
megaupload, the link is designed for sharing.

------
espeed
So what's their strategy now? -- A bunch of high-profile busts to raise the
profile of the issue among the general public in an attempt to build support
for SOPA and friends?

------
a_a_r_o_n
"I cannot believe that Megaupload is being touted as an anti-SOPA
posterchild."

The US government just proved that the US government does not need SOPA to
shutdown a foreign site and physically arrest its operators in foreign
countries.

I can't think of any better demonstration against the _need_ for SOPA.

------
treefrog
What's happening to the Megaupload databases? Are they being confiscated?

I never used the service much myself, but can you imagine the amount of people
that could potentially be indicted by their download history?

------
wmf
The "pay to download, get paid to upload" business model does seem fishy to
me; I guess I'm not the only one.

------
squarecat
I guess I missed the press release that the announced the FBI's change in
sponsorship. Are they adding the the UMG logo to their uniforms and vehicles?

------
icegreentea
Heh, feel kind of late joining the party. Just wanted to add some more
perspective to a lot of the stuff going around. Strolling by my favourite
'warez' forum, it's pretty clear that MU is one of the favoured hosting
solutions for distributing 'pirated' material. That along with rapidshare,
filesonic, and a few others.

So actually, it's not really a case of playing wack-a-mole. If the top 3/4
were taken down at once, literally years of work would be undone. Sure, it
could be reposted, but at a massive inconvenience to both the uploaders, and
downloaders. With sites like MU, traffic will always converge onto a relative
handful of sites, because of their business models. They give incentives to
users who upload stuff that get downloaded a lot (at least 90% of that stuff
got to be 'pirated'). They cap the download rate for anyone who doesn't pay
for their service. Since people rather not pay for a bunch of sites, uploaders
and downloaders will converge onto a select few sites to minimize friction.

------
spdy
Police Statement: [http://www.3news.co.nz/Megauploads-Kim-Schmitz-arrested-
in-A...](http://www.3news.co.nz/Megauploads-Kim-Schmitz-arrested-in-Auckland-
site-shutdown/tabid/311/articleID/240007/Default.aspx)

Kim does not look so happy

from <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3488213>

------
dazbradbury
I have posted the full Indictment as a news story here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3487808>

It's an interesting and sometimes amusing read. However, in case people are
curious, but don't want to read the ENTIRE document here are my extended
highlights:

\----

KIM DOTCOM, MEGAUPLOAD LIMITED, VESTOR LIMITED, FINN BATATO, JULIUS BENCKO,
SVEN ECHTERNACH, MATHIAS ORTMANN, ANDRUS NOMM, and BRAM VAN DER KOLK, the
defendants, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, were members of
the “Mega Conspiracy,” a worldwide criminal organization whose members engaged
in criminal copyright infringement and money laundering on a massive scale
with estimated harm to copyright holders well in excess of $500,000,000 and
reported income in excess of $175,000,000.

\-----

Megaupload.com was at one point in its history estimated to be the 13th most
frequently visited website on the entire Internet. The site claims to have had
more than one billion visitors in its history, more than 180,000,000
registered users to date, an average of 3 50 million daily visits, and to
account for approximately four percent of the total traffic on the Internet.

\-----

Subscription fees collected during the existence of the Mega Conspiracy from
premium users are estimated to be more than $150 million. Online advertising
on Megaupload.com and its associated websites, which is heavily dependent on
the popularity of copyright infringing content to attract website visits, has
further obtained more than $25 million for the Mega Conspiracy.

\----

KIM DOTCOM, who has also been known as KIM SCHMITZ and KIM TIM JIM VESTOR, is
a resident of both Hong Kong and New Zealand, and a dual citizen of Finland
and Germany. DOTCOM is the founder of MEGAUPLOAD LIMITED (“MUL”) and Megamedia
Limited (“MMG”). ... In calendar year 2010 alone, DOTCOM received more than
$42 million from the Mega Conspiracy.

\---

VAN DER KOLK had stated, “we have a funny business . . . modern days pirates
:)” ORTMANN responded, “we’re not pirates, we’re just providing shipping
services to pirates :)”.

\---

On or about April 8, 2011, VESTOR LIMITED transferred approximately $616,000
to NBS for yacht rental;

b. On or about April 18, 2011, VESTOR LIMITED transferred approximately
$3,606,000 to ECL for yacht rental;

c. On or about May 27, 2011, MEGAUPLOAD LIMITED transferred approximately
$212,000 to ECL for yacht rental;

d. On or about June 22, 2011, VESTOR LIMITED transferred approximately
$1,127,000 to NBS for yacht rental; and

e. On or about June 24, 2011, VESTOR LIMITED transferred approximately
$2,394,000 to SYM for yacht rental.

\----

The United States of America gives notice to all defendants, that upon
conviction of any defendant, a money judgment may be imposed on that defendant
equal to the total value of the property subject to forfeiture, which is at
least $175,000,000.

\-----

The United States of America gives notice to all defendants, that the property
to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1\.
$175,000,000 in United States dollars;

2\. Bank of New Zealand, Account No. XX-XXXX-XXXX200-04, in the name of
Cleaver Richards Trust Account for Megastuff Limited; 3\. Kiwibank, Account
No. XX-XXXX-XXXX922-00, in the name of Megastuff Limited Nominee Account No.
1; 4\. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited in Auckland, New
Zealand, Account No. XXXXXXXXXXXX2088, in the name of BRAM VAN DER KOLK; 5\.
Citibank, Account No. XXXXXX3053, in the name of Megacard, Inc.; 6\. Citibank,
Account No. XXXXXX3066, in the name of Megasite, Inc.; 7\. Stadtsparkasse
München, Account No. XXXX4734, in the name of FINN BATATO; 8\. Commerzbank,
Account No. XXXXXXXX4800, in the name of SVEN ECHTERNACH; 9\. Deutsche Bank
AG, Account No. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX6600, in the name of MATHIAS ORTMANN;

....

Rabobank Nederland, Account No. NLXXXXXXXXXXXX7300, in the name of Bramos BV;
58\. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Australia, Account No.
XXXXXXXX0087, in the name of MATHIAS ORTMANN; 59\. Ceskoslovenska Obchodna
Banka Slovakia, Account No. XXXXXXXX9833, in the name of JULIUS BENCKO; 60\.
Paypal Inc., account paypal@megaupload.com; 61\. Paypal Inc., account
belonging to KIM DOTCOM (xxxxxx@ultimaterally.com); 62\. Paypal Inc., accounts
belonging to SVEN ECHTERNACH (xxxxxx@sectravel.com, xxxxxx@sectravel.com, and
xxxxxx@sven.com); 63\. Paypal Inc., account belonging to BRAM VAN DER KOLK
(xxxxxx@bramos.nl); 64\. Moneybookers Limited, account belonging to
ccmerchant@megaupload.com;

....

66\. 2010 Maserati GranCabrio, VIN ZAMKM45B000051328, License Plate No. “M-FB
212” or “DH-GC 470”, registered to FINN BATATO;

67\. 2009 Mercedes-Benz E500 Coupe, VIN WDD20737225019582, License Plate No.
“FEG690”;

68\. 2005 Mercedes-Benz CLK DTM, VIN WDB2093422F165517, License Plate No.
“GOOD”;

69\. 2004 Mercedes-Benz CLK DTM AMG 5.5L Kompressor, VIN WDB2093422F166073,
License Plate No. “EVIL”;

70\. 2010 Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG L, VIN WDD2211792A324354, License Plate No.
“CEO”; 70

71\. 2008 Rolls-Royce Phantom Drop Head Coupe, VIN SCA2D68096UH07049; License
Plate No. “GOD”;

72\. 2010 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG, VIN WDD2120772A103834, License Plate No.
“STONED”;

73\. 2010 Mini Cooper S Coupe, VIN WMWZG32000TZ03651, License Plate No. “V”;

74\. 2010 Mercedes-Benz ML63 AMG, VIN WDC1641772A608055, License Plate No.
“GUILTY”;

75\. 2007 Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG, VIN WDD2163792A025130, License Plate No.
“KIMCOM”;

76\. 2009 Mercedes-Benz ML63 AMG, VIN WDC1641772A542449, License Plate No.
“MAFIA”;

77\. 2010 Toyota Vellfire, VIN 7AT0H65MX11041670, License Plate Nos. “WOW” or
“7”;

78\. 2011 Mercedes-Benz G55 AMG, VIN WDB4632702X193395, License Plate Nos.
“POLICE” or “GDS672”;

79\. 2011 Toyota Hilux, VIN MR0FZ29G001599926, License Plate No. “FSN455”;

80\. Harley Davidson Motorcycle, VIN 1HD1HPH3XBC803936, License Plate No.
“36YED”;

81\. 2010 Mercedes-Benz CL63 AMG, VIN WDD2163742A026653, License Plate No.
“HACKER”;

82\. 2005 Mercedes-Benz A170, VIN WDD1690322J184595, License Plate No.
“FUR252”;

83\. 2005 Mercedes-Benz ML500, VIN WDC1641752A026107, License Plate No.
DFF816;

84\. Fiberglass sculpture, imported from the United Kingdom with Entry No.
83023712;

85\. 1957 Cadillac El Dorado, VIN 5770137596; 86\. 2010 Sea-Doo GTX Jet Ski,
VIN YDV03103E010; 87\. 1959 Cadillac Series 62 Convertible, VIN 59F115669;
88\. Von Dutch Kustom Motor Bike, VIN 1H9S14955BB451257; 89\. 2006 Mercedes-
Benz CLK DTM, VIN WDB2094421T067269; 90\. 2010 Mini Cooper S Coupe, VIN
WMWZG32000TZ03648 License Plate No. “T”; 71 91\. 1989 Lamborghini LM002, VIN
ZA9LU45AXKLA12158, License Plate No. “FRP358”; 92\. 2011 Mercedes-Benz ML63,
VIN 4JGBB7HB0BA666219; 93\. Samsung 820DXN 82” LCD TV; 94\. Samsung 820DXN 82”
LCD TV; 95\. Samsung 820DXN 82” LCD TV;

...

110\. The following domain names: Megastuff.co; Megaworld.com; Megaclicks.co;
Megastuff.info; Megaclicks.org; Megaworld.mobi; Megastuff.org; Megaclick.us;
Mageclick.com; HDmegaporn.com; Megavkdeo.com; Megaupload.com; Megaupload.org;
Megarotic.com; Megaclick.com; Megavideo.com; Megavideoclips.com; Megaporn.com.

\----

Signed by: United States Attorney, Chief of Cybercrime Unit, and Assistant
Attorney General.

~~~
feralchimp
Party at the impound lot!

------
loopdoend
Is there any doubt that sites like these* are simply exploiting a legal
loophole? They recruit people to upload third-party content to their sites and
then pay based on how many downloads/paid service signups the uploader
gets.[1]

So, guess what they're uploading? They say they're compliant with a wink and
nudge, but affiliates still get paid if they receive a DMCA notice against
them. So yes, it is a conspiracy in that sense.

My personal views about copyright/'intellectual property'/'property'
notwithstanding, these types of companies are the very cause of laws like
SOPA/PIPA, which threaten the rest of us.

[1] <http://www.wjunction.com/95-file-hosts-official-support>

* Megaupload doesn't currently have an affiliate program, but it used to. (until mid-2011)

------
aviv
What about MegaUpload's legitimate users? Surely some people used it to store
backups and other important (legal) data and are now denied access to it. It
is unlikely they will ever be able to get their files back.

------
elliottkember
I was outside the mansion today and took a few photos of his cars being
seized. <http://up.riothq.com/DUQz> \- more in a bit if anybody wants a look.

------
jmvoodoo
Regardless of how this turns out, doesn't the fact that the DoJ already has
the tools to take out sites like megaupload mean that we don't need things
like SOPA/PIPA?

------
downandout
My reading of this indictment leads me to believe the you could replace "Mega
Conspiracy" with "Youtube Conspiracy". Youtube profits from, and is well
aware, that there are copyrighted videos on the system. A "reasonable person"
would be aware that YouTube hosts infringing content, and is therefore not
subject to the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.

Larry, Sergey, and Eric better not drop the soap if they forget to pay off
their local crime fighters.

------
kristofferR
The indictment: <http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment>

------
ricksta
It looks like Anonymous took down a bunch of websites just very recently.

<https://twitter.com/#!/AnonDaily>

<http://www.bmi.com/> <http://USDOJ.GOV/> <http://www.fbi.gov/>

and more...

------
kayoone
Kimble goes to jail once again it seems.. I remember people downvoting me in
an earlier bit about megaupload where i said that this guy has his hands dirty
and should be avoided. People claimed i shouldnt judge him by his past
crimes...well there you go ;)

~~~
st3fan
Yeah I did not realize that this was about Kimble. It all makes sense now :-)

------
namidark
Who needs SOPA when we have ICE?

~~~
nekomata
ICE-SOAP

~~~
wbkang
This? <http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/jinex/shower_to_go/>

------
rmoriz
Hah, and I was downvoted a couple of weeks ago for pointing to the HK company
registry and money laundry

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3344512>

------
te_chris
That the NZ police arrested them makes me embarrassed to be New Zealander.

------
nextparadigms
So is Youtube next? Otherwise this really is just selective justice.

~~~
wladimir
I'm afraid they won't stop until they control all horizontal digital
communication between people. This includes sites like YouTube, forums, social
network sites, everything that makes the internet "alive".

The control mechanisms needed to enforce copyright are the same as those
needed to prevent freedom of communication between people. If they get their
way, they will be invasive in every aspect of human communication. That is not
compatible with a democracy.

Fundamental values are at stake here.

------
ChrisNorstrom
Well FUCK, all of our Resident Evil 5 mods where hosted with them.

------
bproper
Does anyone else find it suspicious that Swizz Beatz was announced as CEO and
24 hours later there is an FBI crackdown? It seems like he is a patsy in this
situation...

------
Rabidgremlin
Kinda proves that SOPA, PIPA etc aren't really needed...

------
paul9290
Wow how ironic - one of the heads of MegaLoad was a musician backed by the
RIAA. His wife being an immensely popular pop/soul singer, Alicia Keyes.

~~~
vhost
Good point... I wonder how this got missed.

------
st3fan
OMG This is about Kim Schmitz aka Kimble and his Kimpire. He was a lot in the
news in 2005 or so. Insider trading, shady business etc. Wow!

~~~
petercooper
Even further back than that too :-) He's been around a long time.. always
hilarious to follow his exploits. Lots of videos of his "driving" on YouTube
also. He won the Gumball 3000 twice.

------
th0ma5
So this happened on the 5th, I take it in secret? I wonder what the need for
secrecy was, to try and obtain the offenders or something?

------
cientifico
Did someone know the email address of the fbi to sue the people I don't like?
How much it cost? Are they going to use fire weapons?

~~~
Karunamon
If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

------
tlogan
I'm actually here on side of FBI / DOJ.

As far as I understand they collected a lot of evidence that the site was
actually promoting piracy, and refusing to comply to DMCA requests - and
handsomely profiting from it (about ~170M).

Hey - on every torrent site when you search for a movie to download you have
ad for megaupload (or some of these sites).

And megaupload is not only one: there is <http://www.downloadweb.org> and many
others.

------
cafard
Would these be the complainants who hijacked a lot of other people's
legitimate content?

------
gfrison
There are 1000s Megaupload around. Politicians will never stop piracy.

------
linuxlizard
Good thing we had SOPA/PIPA to enable this legal action. Whew.

------
GigabyteCoin
justice.gov is intermittent at best, not entirely "down".

Just timed out on the first try, and loaded on the second.

------
zotz
Megaupload files countersuit against Universal, FBI moves in.

Good thing I'm not the paranoid kind.

~~~
libraryatnight
My thoughts exactly. And, the day after SOPA/PIPA blackouts feds take down a
site some were using as a SOPA/PIPA poster child, that generates headlines on
FOX like this: Feds say 7 from Megaupload.com ran massive worldwide piracy
website [http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/19/feds-shut-down-
fil...](http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/19/feds-shut-down-file-sharing-
website/)

~~~
unreal37
Yeah, its the "day after the blackout" which I think is a favor to the
MPAA/RIAA folks. "Let's erase these 'sopa is bad' stories from the nightly
news and replace them with a good evil pirates tale."

~~~
Florin_Andrei
I "like" how the news is plastered all over the Internet that the "government"
has taken down Megaupload. Like small children, fascinated by the sock puppet,
forgetting the hand that actually moves it.

It's very clear now, we live in a plutocracy. Big corporations are above the
law in every single way that matters.

~~~
zotz
> we live in a plutocracy

I prefer the word "synarchism", as used by Fairbank and King:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synarchy#China>

------
gitarr
What a sad day for free speech and the internet.

The USA is no longer a democracy. Shady companies and the richest couple of
assholes owning everything are making the decisions now and instruct their
politicians and their law agencies on who to attack.

This will not bode well with "the internet", which is just another term for
millions of intelligent people around the world who are not happy with this
system anymore. We are waking up and it is going to get ugly.

Copying is not theft. When people download something they probably wouldn't
have bought it anyway, or they did afterwards. Intellectual copyright is a
fallacy.

------
ThaddeusQuay2
Does anyone know how MU collected money? With all of the restrictive ToS used
by payment processors these days, I am very interested to know how they were
able to maintain an income stream, for so many years, while their payment
processor must have been aware of the potential illegality happening at MU.
I'm not making a statement for or against MU, just wanting to know how they
were able to keep going when an entity such as WikiLeaks, or a small guy on
PayPal who has one chargeback, are so easily financially cut off.

------
hackermom
What's next? Shutting down Gmail because a portion of its users send
copyrighted MP3s to eachother?

~~~
rbanffy
Blocking cute PowerPoint presentations with copyrighted music and images could
be a step in the right direction.

------
_investigator
AlexMuir has missed the most important point: Megaupload served infringing
content from machines based in Virginia, overseen by the hosting provider
Carpathia. The fact that the persons involved were not US citizens or that the
company was based in Hong Kong are irrelevant. The servers (some of them) were
in the US, not far from a court where a warrant could be obtained for anyone
with cause (e.g. the FBI, DOJ) to look at all ingress and egress from those
servers.

Game over.

------
shareme
Beware opponents of sharing will 'USE' DOJ and FBI to bring about their goals
rather than the frotndoor of US Congress.

Remember folks, DOJ is supposedly chasing down child porn..with what funds?
Who do think was on the bill to fund this? Guess..

Just like the TSA..if you want kill it you remove support for the funding bill
in US Congress..PIPA/SOPA are red herrings and smoke screens

------
wavephorm
Like the War on Drugs, it's almost quaint how the US government either isn't
aware, or doesn't care that they're playing a game of whack-a-mole. As long as
the the bureaucracy is strengthened, and the lobbyist checks keep rolling in,
and everyone keeps their jobs, then everything is good.

~~~
tux1968
Not sure that you should be so confident that this will always be a game of
whack-a-mole. We're in the wild-west days of the Internet but the government
could end up controlling it very tightly in the long run. Look at the latest
news out of Iran to see just how monitored and controlled the Internet can
become. There's no reason it can't happen here too.

------
ThaddeusQuay2
The scams have already begun.

<http://megavideo.bz>

jav her channg / avenue 2211 / tucuman, sant 9000 AR

creation date: 19 Jan 2012 18:02:00

EDIT: And now, a few minutes later, it's been labeled a phishing site by
Google.

------
bbit
LOL if there is a perfect case for SOPA to be passed this is one one site that
should be taken down. Are you guys kidding me ? This should be in our favor.
You take down this one but this one is totally different then say "google".
Show them the difference and SOPA will stay away from the real websites that
matter.

------
billpatrianakos
There's a lot to untangle here. The most important question raised by this is
"So why is SOPA/PIPA necessary again?".

It's pretty clear that the main use for MegaUpload is for distributing pirated
works. The site is essentially the equivalent of Box.net except instead of
storing your company business plan in word format everyone puts up the newest
movies, music, etc.

But they're based in Homg Kong so where does the US get off shutting it down?
Maybe it was a coordinated effort between governments in which case you don't
have to agree with it but you can't say it wasn't legal. But then we have to
ask if the US is abusing their "power" by pressuring other nations to bend to
their will in cases like this.

Whether you're pro-piracy, anti-piracy, pro-copyright or anti-copyright the
fact is that it's still the law and it's really hard to believe that
MegaUpload is really on the up and up. The only thing they have is a
disclaimer that gives them plausible deniability. Other than that they're
basically a version of the pirate bay except they actually host the infringing
files.

Defending MegaUpload is like a bunch of pot-heads who read a story about how a
weed dealer gets arrested for selling pot. Their stance on the legality of
marijuana is irrelevant because it's currently illegal and the authorities
were within their rights. Even if you throw a wrinkle into the story wherein
the hypothetical dealer is arrested at a border crossing in a foreign nation,
the point still stands as the odds are that selling pot is illegal in most
other countries too save for some exceptions but let's not be pedantic about
it.

It's the same here in this case. Whatever your position on copyright and
piracy is, it's irrelevant because it's been the law for a long time now.

But everything I just said is completely beside the point we should be really
focusing on which is, if the authorities are able to shut down infringing
sites already then why do we need more laws like SOPA? They already have the
power to go after the major pains in their collective sides so more laws are
totally unnecessary. SOPA-like laws may make it more convenient for them to do
this sort of thing but we can't let that happen. They just want a system where
they don't have to go through the "inconvenience" of actually gathering
evidence and building a case. That's the long and short of it.

I'd also like to note how extremely biased this article was. They took a shot
at Google and implied that our side of the debate is in favor of piracy. I
think a lot of us are but we need to get off that because it's hurting our
argument. I personally and against piracy and for copyright to a certain
extent (I think copyright extends too far as it is but support the idea of it
if it were implemented better) but I'm also absolutely against SOPA and PIPA.
A person _can_ hold those two views.

So let's put aside our piracy/copyright stances for now because we're totally
playng into their game and they're using it against us. Instead we should be
asking why we need SOPA if the Feds can already adequately shut down "pirate
sites" and talking more about how these laws do away with due process and
articulate it in a way that relates to non-techies.

------
maeon3
Maybe we can score a jury nullification, where they are found to be rightly
accused, nonetheless no crime has been committed and are free to go.

------
nickmolnar2
Can we just take a moment and note that Kim Dotcom had two Mercedes ML63 AMGs
seized in the raid. One had the license plate 'Guilty' and the other 'Mafia'.
He knew what business he was in: working around the law to facilitate massive
scale copyright infringement.

If we want this anti-SOPA sentiment to stick, we need to draw a line in the
sand somewhere. Even on a free and open web there are going to be some people
who are just plain-old criminals. I'd prefer the line to be somewhere between
me & Kim.

<http://torrentfreak.com/images/megacars.jpg>

~~~
zalew
These are inside jokes referring to his past activities with computer fraud
and insider trading. He was a black hat hacker sentenced for 2yrs, when he got
out he started a security company, due to his fame quickly got huge clients
like Lufthansa (AFAIR) and so, and became a millionaire, this time legally.

