Live data from Hacker News

Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

online.wsj.com

31–40 of 357 posts

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#31
25Can you lead Leviathan* about with a hook,

or tie down his tongue with a rope?

26Can you put a ring into his nose,

or pierce through his cheek with a gaff?

27Will he then plead with you, time after time,

or address you with tender words?

28Will he make a covenant with you

that you may have him as a slave forever?

29Can you play with him, as with a bird?

Can you tie him up for your little girls?

30Will the traders bargain for him?

Will the merchants* divide him up?

31Can you fill his hide with barbs,

or his head with fish spears?

32Once you but lay a hand upon him,

no need to recall any other conflict!

---

God says... seasoneth although evenly ourself charges foolishly merely infirmity pertain relationship backward no prescripts funeral Simple containest vileness allaying gifts lingered glory sellers deceiving tending Into slavery Mars confiding

---

It's end of the world, times if I go to court. All else is page 2.

---

I read the FBI story. meh.

Usually, they paint me into the story. I've been tried, executed, and generally been subject to all kinds of terrors.

God says... C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\PLATO.TXT

the best only?

From the best.

And do you take the oldest or the youngest, or only those of ripe age?

I choose only those of ripe age.

And if care was not taken in the breeding, your dogs and birds would greatly deteriorate?

Certainly.

And the same of horses and animals in general?

Undoubtedly.

Good heavens! my dear friend, I said, what consummate skill will our rulers need if the same principle holds of the human species!

Certainly, the same principle holds; but why does this i

---

God says, "created ships yields ecclesiastical happened curest Thyself drew indexes sharper raise inaccurate recurring avenues holily wonted notorious At transgressions satiated gathered quiet forepassed utterance vouchsafed heed periodic savour "

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#32
post #12
post #5

Why did they charge the graphic designer and the developers?

Throw charges at everyone and see what sticks? Plus, they can try to leverage them to plea against their main targets / give evidence against them.

The Feds don't really do that. They want every indictment to be a conviction.

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#33
post #9
post #3

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?

Perhaps more interestingly, can Amazon S3 be shutdown? My understanding is that Dropbox is effectively an S3 client, so how is that line drawn?

Using this case as a guide, Dropbox would be "laundering" money to Amazon and everyone at Dropbox would be arrested and charged with felony money laundering and face 20 years in prison.

"The indictment charges the defendants with conspiring to launder money by paying users through the sites’ uploader reward program and paying companies to host the infringing content."

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#34
Wow, that article's certainly not biased!

> "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.

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#35
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'.

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#36
post #23
post #11

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...

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

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.

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#37
post #28

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…

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.

Re: Megaupload down, FBI Charges Seven With Online Piracy

#39
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.]

Post reply on HN