Kim Dotcom

[Solly]

Kim Dotcom’s bubble bursts
The playboy lifestyle of one of the world’s biggest Internet pirates has been exposed after a raid by police on his home in New Zealand.

Multimillionaire Kim Dotcom, one of the founders of Megaupload.com, was arrested Friday despite retreating to an electronically locked “safe room” in his sprawling home in Auckland, Dotcom Mansion.

An interesting read about a very unique entrepreneur. Strange he picked Auckland as a place to reside. Thought maybe Townsville would have been a better base to work from.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/20/meet-kim-dotcom-king-of-megauploads-media-empire/

Don't click on this link....
http://megaupload.com

 

[Bill M]

Never heard of him so I clicked on the link under his photo, what's going to happen to me now?

 

[So_Cynical]

http://megaupload.com was a very popular download site...i would imagine his defence will be that he is not responsible for the content his subscribers upload to his site/severs, and in Aust that's a valid defence as proven by the recent iinet decision, should be the case in NZ to i would think.

The US is another matter...copyright holders are all powerful there.

 

[prawn_86]

I dont see how the US can shut down a site that isn't hosted there. Also, what about users who were using it for a legitimate purpose (backup etc)? How are they supposed to get the data they legally own?

 

[Solly]

Here's the presser from the FBI.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...with-widespread-online-copyright-infringement

 

[prawn_86]

Here's the presser from the FBI.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...with-widespread-online-copyright-infringement

Still doesnt explain how the legally managed to take down the website, or how they will go about compenasting users who had non-illegal content on there

 

[Timmy]

what about users who were using it for a legitimate purpose (backup etc)? How are they supposed to get the data they legally own?

Great questions. What implications does this have for the cloud storage model?

 

[McLovin]

Still doesnt explain how the legally managed to take down the website, or how they will go about compenasting users who had non-illegal content on there

The domain name is US and several servers were located in the US (in Virginia to be exact).

 

[prawn_86]

The domain name is US and several servers were located in the US (in Virginia to be exact).

Yes but what about those non-US servers? As i understand it they also had some in Europe and Hong Kong.

FBI still haven't said anything about how they will compenaste or re-instate legitimate users data

 

[McLovin]

Yes but what about those non-US servers? As i understand it they also had some in Europe and Hong Kong.

Those servers can continue running unless US authorities get a court order in the relevant jurisdiction, which I'm sure they are or have already done. The domain is US so the DoJ have seized it. This is a website that allegedly offered prizes to users who uploaded popular shows and whose staff allegedly referred to themselves as "modern day pirates". If those allegations are proven then it is difficult to believe their claims of innocence.

The company also had a dedicated pr0n file sharing service (megaporn), which I'm sure did not check for copyright infringement before allowing users to share movies.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

6'7 and 300 pounds!

 

[prawn_86]

Those servers can continue running unless US authorities get a court order in the relevant jurisdiction, which I'm sure they are or have already done. The domain is US so the DoJ have seized it. This is a website that allegedly offered prizes to users who uploaded popular shows and whose staff allegedly referred to themselves as "modern day pirates". If those allegations are proven then it is difficult to believe their claims of innocence.

The company also had a dedicated pr0n file sharing service (megaporn), which I'm sure did not check for copyright infringement before allowing users to share movies.

I'm not saying if they did or didn't infringe copyright (they probably did).

My questions are:
1. how can the governments shutdown a business without a trail? Can they walk into say, GE, and shut down their entire business without that business having a chance to defend itself in court? It seems to be setting a very slippery precedent to me (if it is found to be lawful). It means they can now effectively shut-down any website they want, and know that site will stay closed until a trial happens. Goodbye Internet freedoms

2. And what do they plan to do about all those members who were using it for legitimate uses (such as back-up of personal files)?

 

[bellenuit]

Great questions. What implications does this have for the cloud storage model?

Megaupload action puts cloud services in spotlight

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ces-in-spotlight/story-fnb64oi6-1226251071259

 

[McLovin]

My questions are:
1. how can the governments shutdown a business without a trail?

By obtaining a court order. If a business is knowingly engaging in illegal activity (which appears to be the argument the DoJ is making) then absolutley the company can be shut down. The difference between this and iinet is that there is no positive obligation, in most jurisdictions, to protect someone else's copyright (ie I don't have to do anything to protect the copyright, I just can't encourage copyright infringment). if the allegation that Megaupload provided prizes for uploading popular movies/shows etc is true then clearly they have.

Governments shut down businesses frequently and often without the need to obtain a court order. How often are restaurants closed because of health reasons or CASA grounding Tiger Airways due to safety reasons.

2. And what do they plan to do about all those members who were using it for legitimate uses (such as back-up of personal files)?

No idea.

 

[So_Cynical]

The company also had a dedicated pr0n file sharing service (megaporn), which I'm sure did not check for copyright infringement before allowing users to share movies.

They have to check for copyright infringement?...i think not, Youtube don't so why would any file sharing site.

They have an obligation to remove content if the copyright owner asks for it to be removed...as i have seen done by megaupload.

 

[prawn_86]

They have to check for copyright infringement?...i think not, Youtube don't so why would any file sharing site.

They have an obligation to remove content if the copyright owner asks for it to be removed...as i have seen done by megaupload.

Yes, that is how the DMCA act works. In amongst all the other hyperbole this is one of the things the US is accusing, that they have ignored DMCA removal requests.

I think that they are just trying to trump up as many charges as possible and see what sticks and sets a precedent. It seems like a poorly assembled prosecution to me.

 

[So_Cynical]

Yes, that is how the DMCA act works. In amongst all the other hyperbole this is one of the things the US is accusing, that they have ignored DMCA removal requests.

I think that they are just trying to trump up as many charges as possible and see what sticks and sets a precedent. It seems like a poorly assembled prosecution to me.

Exactly how i see it...they aimed at the biggest and easiest target, hoping to get a quick and easy win, thus setting a precedent.

 

[McLovin]

They have to check for copyright infringement?...i think not, Youtube don't so why would any file sharing site.

Youtube have invested millions of dollars in a system that supposedly can catch copyrighted material as it is being uploaded (the Content ID). That being said Youtube is not a file sharing platform in the way megaporn was. That point of distinction was made when Viacom sued Youtube.

Realistically, an anonymous file sharing platform exists almost solely to share copyrighted work (I am talking about megaporn not megaupload here). Unless you believe that some dude sitting in his Mum's basement uploading "Innocent First Timers XIII" is actually the copyright owner.

It almost looks like Megaupload allowed legitimate use of its website in order to give it a veil of legitimacy. I think that's an attempted application of the "Sony safe harbour" principle from about 25 years ago.

 

[prawn_86]

Youtube have invested millions of dollars in a system that supposedly can catch copyrighted material as it is being uploaded (the Content ID). That being said Youtube is not a file sharing platform in the way megaporn was. That point of distinction was made when Viacom sued Youtube.

Realistically, an anonymous file sharing platform exists almost solely to share copyrighted work (I am talking about megaporn not megaupload here). Unless you believe that some dude sitting in his Mum's basement uploading "Innocent First Timers XIII" is actually the copyright owner.

It almost looks like Megaupload allowed legitimate use of its website in order to give it a veil of legitimacy. I think that's an attempted application of the "Sony safe harbour" principle from about 25 years ago.

So why not just take down the megaporn website instead of the whole suite? I stilld ont see how legally the FBI/US Gov is allowed to deny legal users access to thier own personal data that they own.

 

[McLovin]

So why not just take down the megaporn website instead of the whole suite? I stilld ont see how legally the FBI/US Gov is allowed to deny legal users access to thier own personal data that they own.

As I stated before, the allegations made by the FBI/DoJ include that they offered prizes to upload popular TV shows to megaupload and that they referred to themselves as "modern day pirates". The Megaporn issue is seperate.

On the legality, I don't see how this is any different than if you shared a warehouse with someone who was storing stolen goods, in that instance you would not have access to your goods. I'd be surprised if users are not given a method of retrieving their data once the dust settles.