Megaupload programmer goes to prison for one year(justice.gov)
justice.gov
Megaupload programmer goes to prison for one year
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/member-megaupload-conspiracy-pleads-guilty-copyright-infringement-charges-and-sentenced-one
26 comments
The United States can request an extradition for crimes committed by an individual(as argued under the US law). However this does not mean that the Netherlands has to comply. If a Dutch person committed a crime in the Netherlands according to the US, but its legal here, he/she will NOT be extradited. The same is true if the punishment is unreasonably severe according to Dutch law (death penalty.). For the latter there is a clause in our Dutch-US extradition agreements however you can still argue against this in court. (trias politica). It also stated in the treaty that the Dutch convicted can serve their jail time in the Netherlands. The punishment is then even converted to Dutch punishment standards.
There have been cases where it was argued that US electronic law (hacking and piracy cases) is not fair to the accused. This however does not always help.
This will however not help if you refuse a hearing on this. The article states: "Nomm agreed to waive his extradition hearing in the Netherlands"
There have been cases where it was argued that US electronic law (hacking and piracy cases) is not fair to the accused. This however does not always help.
This will however not help if you refuse a hearing on this. The article states: "Nomm agreed to waive his extradition hearing in the Netherlands"
The Netherlands doesn't has to comply and she might offer special protection to her citizens. But as soon as the person leaves the Netherlands the protection is gone. E.g., making a shopping trip to Belgium or Germany and suddenly getting arrested there.
However, Belgium and Germany offer similar protection, not just to their own citizens but also to those visiting from Netherlands (and from other EU/EEA countries). As do other EU/EEA countries.
I think this protection may even go too far, as in the case of Roman Polanski who continues to evade a quite reasonable-looking extradition request on a child rape conviction.
I think this protection may even go too far, as in the case of Roman Polanski who continues to evade a quite reasonable-looking extradition request on a child rape conviction.
Not completely. For example, the Dutch government will often bargain for the freedom/extradition of their citizens if they are arrested in a foreign country for breaking their law, and the punishment is considered excessive/immoral. E.g. the Death penalty for drug trafficking.
Of course, they won't send in the fleet to come and free you, so their bargaining power is limited but it has had its successes in the past.
Of course, they won't send in the fleet to come and free you, so their bargaining power is limited but it has had its successes in the past.
why would anyone waive the hearing (presumably, where you would argue that you shouldn't be extradited)?
Plea bargains. A promise of 1 year in low sec prison vs the risk of getting a life sentence in solitary.
It's similar to what was done to witches in medieval times: "Confess, and we will kill you gently, or be sentenced and be burned alive."
It's similar to what was done to witches in medieval times: "Confess, and we will kill you gently, or be sentenced and be burned alive."
Plea bargains is such an odd and dangerous concept. It can be misused heavily. "This petty crime has a max sentence of 10 years, if you confess we will give you 2" may trick even innocent people into confessing.
That's what I don't get. If you threaten someone with 10 or 20 or 50 years in prison, then why the hell would you allow that person to only serve 2 years? If you thought about giving him that much, then clearly he must be a very dangerous person to society. I probably wouldn't want such a person to get out after only 2 years. If the prosecutors are charging such a person with 10x less than what he should be getting then maybe those prosecutors should be investigated for corruption. For instance, like how it happens when the prosecutors are always somehow much more lenient against cops.
But of course it has nothing to do with how dangerous he is in most cases. They're just selectively enforcing vague laws just to pile them up and force him to accept at least some prison time, even if he considers himself innocent.
That should be illegal and considered against human rights, especially since usually I believe the judges have no say in it, as the charges happen before the accused is brought in front of a judge. Without a judge you can't have "justice" either. You just have government bullies using the government's might to put someone - anyone - in prison, even if he's innocent or only guilty of minor offences. This is exactly why such abuses of power should be illegal.
But of course it has nothing to do with how dangerous he is in most cases. They're just selectively enforcing vague laws just to pile them up and force him to accept at least some prison time, even if he considers himself innocent.
That should be illegal and considered against human rights, especially since usually I believe the judges have no say in it, as the charges happen before the accused is brought in front of a judge. Without a judge you can't have "justice" either. You just have government bullies using the government's might to put someone - anyone - in prison, even if he's innocent or only guilty of minor offences. This is exactly why such abuses of power should be illegal.
There is an interesting asymmetry between the two parties.
To the prosecutor it is just a day job, whether the guy spends 1 or 10 years in prison won't really change anything to his holiday plans. To the defendant, he is playing with his own life. He will have to be locked in a room with thugs for many years, away from his family or any prospect of a normal life.
So both parties have a very different risk aversion in that game. So the prosecution plays with that.
Now if you inflicted a significant pain (career progression, financial penalty) on the prosecutor every time he sent someone to court that turned out to be judged innocent, then you would even this "game" and would probably end up with a more fair bargain.
To the prosecutor it is just a day job, whether the guy spends 1 or 10 years in prison won't really change anything to his holiday plans. To the defendant, he is playing with his own life. He will have to be locked in a room with thugs for many years, away from his family or any prospect of a normal life.
So both parties have a very different risk aversion in that game. So the prosecution plays with that.
Now if you inflicted a significant pain (career progression, financial penalty) on the prosecutor every time he sent someone to court that turned out to be judged innocent, then you would even this "game" and would probably end up with a more fair bargain.
I also think that systems that have plea bargains, also have a tendency towards longer sentences for petty crimes. Just so discourage people fighting long, expensive trials.
That's what lawyers are for, I hope he had a good one.
Actually, the fairness of the trial should be a given, and the lawyers should be merely additional parties whose role is to assist the defendant's handicap of lacking the needed professional law knowledge. Lawyers are not something that one must employ in a dog fight against abusive prosecutors.
In the US Prosecutors are given impunity to do just about anything to get a conviction. The only recourse for a defendant is to get their conviction overturned but that does not give them the years of their life back while waiting for an appeal.
As to fairness it’s considered completely reasonable for an innocent person who is a possible flight risk to spend a year in jail awaiting trial.
As to fairness it’s considered completely reasonable for an innocent person who is a possible flight risk to spend a year in jail awaiting trial.
Actually, prosecutors are governed by many rules from constitutional and statutory law as well as canons of ethics that apply to their special position. They have an obligation to promptly disclose any and all evidence they encounter favorable to the defendant. They have an obligation to drop charges at any point that it is apparent that there is no probable cause that the defendant is guilty of a crime, and not to prosecute when it is clear that the state cannot meet its burden of proof (in a criminal matter, beyond a reasonable doubt) by admissible evidence.
That being said, prosecutors are humans, and often-times egotistical, political, cynical, and more than occasionally vindictive humans with all that entails. So, it is hardly uncommon to see rules already stacked in the state's favor bent or broken.
Trials are virtually extinct in the USA. With few exceptions, if you find yourself going to trial, you are not in a good place. While good lawyers should be trial lawyers and unafraid of trying any triable case, the vast majority of the time if you are getting off, you are getting off pretrial with a dismissal or deferred prosecution agreement. If you lose on pretrial motions and the state is intent on prosecuting, then most of the time if your attorney can get you a deal and recommends that you take it, then it's a choice between pride/"truth" and rolling dice loaded against you and paying for it big time.
While in principle as a defendant you are not supposed to be punished for taking your right to go to trial, the plea system punishes you heavily, and if you refuse to "take responsibility" by admitting guilty (the earlier the better) and expressing remorse, then you get punished even more post-conviction, with a heavier sentence, and then certainly being denied parole if that is available in the state system.
That being said, prosecutors are humans, and often-times egotistical, political, cynical, and more than occasionally vindictive humans with all that entails. So, it is hardly uncommon to see rules already stacked in the state's favor bent or broken.
Trials are virtually extinct in the USA. With few exceptions, if you find yourself going to trial, you are not in a good place. While good lawyers should be trial lawyers and unafraid of trying any triable case, the vast majority of the time if you are getting off, you are getting off pretrial with a dismissal or deferred prosecution agreement. If you lose on pretrial motions and the state is intent on prosecuting, then most of the time if your attorney can get you a deal and recommends that you take it, then it's a choice between pride/"truth" and rolling dice loaded against you and paying for it big time.
While in principle as a defendant you are not supposed to be punished for taking your right to go to trial, the plea system punishes you heavily, and if you refuse to "take responsibility" by admitting guilty (the earlier the better) and expressing remorse, then you get punished even more post-conviction, with a heavier sentence, and then certainly being denied parole if that is available in the state system.
In theory all of what you said is true, in practice a prosecutors 'absolute immunity' is a rather hard hurdle to overcome.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/01/30/7t...
PS: Absolute immunity protects from both criminal prosecution and lawsuits, so in general they can at worst be fired possibly disbarred. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/01/30/7t...
PS: Absolute immunity protects from both criminal prosecution and lawsuits, so in general they can at worst be fired possibly disbarred. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity
Absolute immunity is mostly a protection from civil lawsuits in personal capacity. When there is prosecutorial misconduct in a criminal case, defendants can get sanctions ranging to from dismissal with prejudice, mistrial, exclusion of evidence, to post-conviction relief depending on the severity of the misconduct. The biggest barriers are often either that the misconduct is hidden and difficult or impossible for the defendant (or really, his attorney) to discover, or that judges may decide that the misconduct was "harmless" and the defendant was not prejudiced, even in the face of blatant misconduct, when there is otherwise strong evidence.
As for the prosecutor themselves, defendants or judges can and do refer misconduct to bar associations which can and do disbar prosecutors. Judges can directly hold prosecutors in contempt and fine or jail them in extreme cases, or refer them for criminal prosecution on charges ranging from perjury, obstruction of justice, official misconduct, and criminal contempt and so on. As with any criminal cases involving criminal justice professionals, this is quite rare, but it does happen, and absolute immunity is no barrier to it.
As for the prosecutor themselves, defendants or judges can and do refer misconduct to bar associations which can and do disbar prosecutors. Judges can directly hold prosecutors in contempt and fine or jail them in extreme cases, or refer them for criminal prosecution on charges ranging from perjury, obstruction of justice, official misconduct, and criminal contempt and so on. As with any criminal cases involving criminal justice professionals, this is quite rare, but it does happen, and absolute immunity is no barrier to it.
I would like to go a little off-topic and explain a common misconception about the medieval times: it was usually "confess and you will get a light punishment, or otherwise we will do something really bad to you, and if you're innocent the lord will save you". This is actually a fairly interesting game theory: people that truely believed they were innocent, believed the lord would save them.
As such, it was usually only the innocent people that went through the trial-by-god process, and very often the priest conducting the trial rigged the process, and very few people were actually killed in the process.
As such, it was usually only the innocent people that went through the trial-by-god process, and very often the priest conducting the trial rigged the process, and very few people were actually killed in the process.
This.
I'm having a hard time to understand why he waived that hearing. Pleading guilty (basically renouncing to a fair trial to determine if he's guilty or not) is something he could have done in the Netherlands as well.
Arguably, copyright laws in the Netherlands (and in the EU as a whole) are fairer to the defendant than their US counterparts.
He would not be allowed to plead guilty in The Netherlands, as The Netherlands is not charging him. The extradition hearing is about whether he will be extradited after being sentenced. So it would go like this: US says you are guilty, 25 years in jail for computer hacking and mass copyright infringement. US sends warrant for your extradition to The Netherlands. The Netherlands arrests you but allows you to go to explain why you should not be extradited. You cry and say it's unfair. The Netherlands grants the extradition anyway(why not?). You'll be in an American prison for most of your life.
See how bargaining can make your life a bit easier?
See how bargaining can make your life a bit easier?
No, why wouldn't they at least give it a shot? Is there collusion between NL hearing courts & US prosecution?
They wouldn't give it a shot because they've bargained it for a less risky lower jail time option.
A collusion insinuates secrecy or illegality. There's a plain treaty about extraditions. If you get prosecuted in the US the default mode is that you get extradited.
In practice extraditions are almost never blocked, you would have to be in very special circumstances, like if you'd be at risk of being put to death in the US. Or have some illness that's not treated properly in the US. Maybe a very big public outcry in The Netherlands could work in your favor.
In this case it's very plain. There's no public outcry, he's viewed as a common criminal in The NL. His actions are most likely illegal here as well and it doesn't seem like a very good moment to go discussing the US' extreme penalties for intellectual crime.
A collusion insinuates secrecy or illegality. There's a plain treaty about extraditions. If you get prosecuted in the US the default mode is that you get extradited.
In practice extraditions are almost never blocked, you would have to be in very special circumstances, like if you'd be at risk of being put to death in the US. Or have some illness that's not treated properly in the US. Maybe a very big public outcry in The Netherlands could work in your favor.
In this case it's very plain. There's no public outcry, he's viewed as a common criminal in The NL. His actions are most likely illegal here as well and it doesn't seem like a very good moment to go discussing the US' extreme penalties for intellectual crime.
Basically, in order to make a case against being extradited, you'd have to convince the court that you wouldn't be given a fair trial in the country making the request.
His problem wasn't that he wouldn't receive a fair trial, his problem was that the laws themselves are silly (but not obviously immoral or excessive). If he had faced a corporeal punishment (death penalty or mutilation), he might have had a case.
Of course the ideal path would have been facing the hearing and then pleading guilty when he was extradited, but the plea bargain likely required him not to challenging the extradition and his chances for successfully doing so were likely far too low to take the gamble.
His problem wasn't that he wouldn't receive a fair trial, his problem was that the laws themselves are silly (but not obviously immoral or excessive). If he had faced a corporeal punishment (death penalty or mutilation), he might have had a case.
Of course the ideal path would have been facing the hearing and then pleading guilty when he was extradited, but the plea bargain likely required him not to challenging the extradition and his chances for successfully doing so were likely far too low to take the gamble.
NL is a big US fan...
Imagine if it worked the other way around.....if one day a US court got a request from Saudi Arabia asking to jail one of US citizens because they broke Saudi law on the internet(even though they have never been to Saudi Arabia). US would politely tell them to fuck off. Yet, when US does this to another country,they comply? It's disgusting.
I wish more countries had the balls to tell the US to fuck off. I wish MY country did; then we wouldn't have had the Pirate Bay Gate, where Swedish constitution was stepped all over.
Frankly, I was pretty appalled how the European countries reacted during the Snowden affair. Not just interfering with the travel of a diplomatic plane he was suspected to be on (just imagine someone did that with the Air Force One), but also keeping mum and looking the other way when he was requesting asylum after telling everyone what the US had done to their citizens (and governments).
That was the saddest display of spinelessness I've ever seen, to be honest. I never felt that ashamed of my country and the EU.
The excuses about him having to be on German soil to request asylum were especially infuriating. Considering the government's reaction thus far, it is painfully obvious Germany would receive and grant an extradition request faster than you can see "Volkssouveränität".
That was the saddest display of spinelessness I've ever seen, to be honest. I never felt that ashamed of my country and the EU.
The excuses about him having to be on German soil to request asylum were especially infuriating. Considering the government's reaction thus far, it is painfully obvious Germany would receive and grant an extradition request faster than you can see "Volkssouveränität".
the US spends the most resources on military every year.
"I wish my neighbors would tell the bully to fuck off when he demands their lunch money"
Here's what happens to countries who tell the USA to fuck off (spoilers: they get economically and militarily invaded):
http://www.amazon.com/Game-As-Old-Empire-Corruption/dp/15767... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit...
"I wish my neighbors would tell the bully to fuck off when he demands their lunch money"
Here's what happens to countries who tell the USA to fuck off (spoilers: they get economically and militarily invaded):
http://www.amazon.com/Game-As-Old-Empire-Corruption/dp/15767... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit...
[deleted]
Also imprisoning people who are not a danger to society in any way shape or form is very modern American. And socially destructive.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-imprisoners-dilemma/ has this creepy chart https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/roed...
I think this is because of "war on drugs." Officials decides that drug sellers and drug users are danger to the society, and therefore locked away (i will not argue about dangers, just stating what Nixon and most of officials did)
Three strike laws, zero tolerance, the War on Drugs and prison profiteering have resulted in a generations of poor or black males who will spend the majority of their adult lives in prison.
That's absolutely shocking.
It started to go up right after the dollar being unpegged from gold. Crime going up could be related, in this case, to jobs being lost as the currency goes haywire everywhere. See this very convincing chart for instance, where it is clear job reallocation was going on full-force: http://www.edmundconway.com/2015/02/the-worst-goods-trade-ba...
I could argue (though don't really agree) that Andrus Nomm was a threat in the same way as Bernie Madoff. Neither was running around shooting people or starting fires. The same could be said for elderly war criminals.
There are situations in which it is right to send people to prison without them posing an active and dangerous threat. Whether this in one of those situations is more arguable.
There are situations in which it is right to send people to prison without them posing an active and dangerous threat. Whether this in one of those situations is more arguable.
It would be really hard to argue that. Bernie Madoff was more like someone who robs banks, or e.g. ATMs (i.e. no danger to human lives, but money stolen). Megaupload didn't steal anyone's money, and while people did get content without paying for it, it's not very clear that they would pay for it if it wasn't available for free.
One undermined the public's confidence in the strength, fairness and security of financial institutions, the other made some rich people not any richer.
One undermined the public's confidence in the strength, fairness and security of financial institutions, the other made some rich people not any richer.
[deleted]
That's revenge, not socially progressive justice. I'm sure there is something better that could have been done with BM to help society other than put him in prison. For instance serving elderly people tea and biscuits or such
Well, the type of punishment is also a question of policy - I guess jail is the most common one. Btw, would you trust him around your (grand-)parents after all the fraud he's committed?
Megaupload was not your plausible deniability-sort of file upload service.
There is loads of evidence of the Megaupload team getting a bunch of copyrighted content and putting it up there. The team themselves. Can't really hide behind safe harbor with that.
If I were handing out burned DVDs of movies to people, I'd probably get arrested too (even if selling DVD burning equipment would be fine).
There is loads of evidence of the Megaupload team getting a bunch of copyrighted content and putting it up there. The team themselves. Can't really hide behind safe harbor with that.
If I were handing out burned DVDs of movies to people, I'd probably get arrested too (even if selling DVD burning equipment would be fine).
I agree. There really is no question that the folks working on MegaUpload knew that it would be used predominantly for illegally sharing copyrighted material. The questions are whether that should be illegal, what it means to do something in one country that's accessible but illegal in another, and how it should be punishable.
As I see it, employees of Megaupload must have known the risks they were running, so we can't say it's unfair to punish them. We should be actively pushing for legal framework regarding the sharing of copyrighted material, instead of just whining about the punishment meted out to those who took advantage of the current chaos.
As I see it, employees of Megaupload must have known the risks they were running, so we can't say it's unfair to punish them. We should be actively pushing for legal framework regarding the sharing of copyrighted material, instead of just whining about the punishment meted out to those who took advantage of the current chaos.
> There are situations in which it is right to send people to prison without them posing an active and dangerous threat
Do these situations exist only when we consider punishment a valid reason for imprisonment? Don't get me wrong; Bernie Madoff being free and enjoying life wouldn't sit right with me, but you have to wonder if locking people away as retribution really benefits tax-paying, law-abiding citizens.
Do these situations exist only when we consider punishment a valid reason for imprisonment? Don't get me wrong; Bernie Madoff being free and enjoying life wouldn't sit right with me, but you have to wonder if locking people away as retribution really benefits tax-paying, law-abiding citizens.
>but you have to wonder if locking people away as retribution really benefits tax-paying, law-abiding citizens
Well, we should also consider if it's benefiting or humane to the people we lock away.
It's not like "tax-paying, law-abiding citizens" are more human than those that end up in jail.
Well, we should also consider if it's benefiting or humane to the people we lock away.
It's not like "tax-paying, law-abiding citizens" are more human than those that end up in jail.
As I understood it from my very limited studies, there are five reasons for incarcerating somebody: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and restorative justice.
If somebody is judged by their peers to have broken the laws approved by their peers, then they receive the punishment deemed suitable by their peers.
As I say, my knowledge of this comes from a brief college-level history about 20 years ago, so may be outdated, naive or just completely wrong.
But I think in the case of Bernie Madoff, incarcerating him was justified to deter similar financial frauds in the future. I suspect (and judging by some of the comments on this page, it might have worked) locking up Andrus Nomm is an attempt to discourage programmers from working for firms like MegaUpload.
If somebody is judged by their peers to have broken the laws approved by their peers, then they receive the punishment deemed suitable by their peers.
As I say, my knowledge of this comes from a brief college-level history about 20 years ago, so may be outdated, naive or just completely wrong.
But I think in the case of Bernie Madoff, incarcerating him was justified to deter similar financial frauds in the future. I suspect (and judging by some of the comments on this page, it might have worked) locking up Andrus Nomm is an attempt to discourage programmers from working for firms like MegaUpload.
Without a doubt, unless we're making the argument that punishment benefits the punished somehow. I should probably have made mention of rehabilitation to contrast.
You also have to consider the cost to society locking someone away incurs. You not only remove an able-bodied worker and offload his costs of living to society, you also have to factor in the overhead of maintaining and staffing the necessary facilities.
But sadly putting people behind bars is considered a solution in itself in the US, rather than a means to an end.
But sadly putting people behind bars is considered a solution in itself in the US, rather than a means to an end.
<conspiracy>
i wonder if the war on drugs is really orchestrated (either with intention, or manipulated by vested individuals) to make drugs more scarce, and more difficult to obtain, to justify their high price. By making it highly illegal, trafficking drugs has never been more profitable (for the drub lords - not for the peddlers nor the mules obviously).
You hardly see the real boss go to prison...
</conspiracy>
i wonder if the war on drugs is really orchestrated (either with intention, or manipulated by vested individuals) to make drugs more scarce, and more difficult to obtain, to justify their high price. By making it highly illegal, trafficking drugs has never been more profitable (for the drub lords - not for the peddlers nor the mules obviously).
You hardly see the real boss go to prison...
</conspiracy>
Have you followed what's going on with the Mexican border? I wonder how so many pounds of cocaine & marijuana makes its way through the border every year..
If the USG is sending guns to the gangs in Mexico to aid in their survival, why not help them profit by letting their merchandise into the USA?
Then it gives the USG a reason to wage a "war on drugs" and harden the military-industrial complex industry to fight ever growing "threats" of criminal power "at our borders".
If the USG is sending guns to the gangs in Mexico to aid in their survival, why not help them profit by letting their merchandise into the USA?
Then it gives the USG a reason to wage a "war on drugs" and harden the military-industrial complex industry to fight ever growing "threats" of criminal power "at our borders".
The Netherlands has a criminal copyright infringement statute, and it appears to include --- in the criminal law part --- vicarious infringement.
> So downloading something from Megaupload was hardly a crime there...
The programmer in question wasn't arrested for downloading something from Megaupload, were they?
The programmer in question wasn't arrested for downloading something from Megaupload, were they?
Selling and using weed is also illegal in the Netherlands, but if someone from the Netherlands does that activity in the US (either by going there or by for example sending it via the mail), that person is still breaking the law in the US. The US and the Netherlands have an extradition policy for those cases.
The other way around though, the US has already indicated that if ever an American citizen (like IDK, Bush or Cheney or whoever) is going to be tried for war crimes in The Hague, they'd send in their military to extract them. WW3 material right there.
As for the copyright laws, it depends. It was never allowed to upload music and the like - i.e. seeding if you talk about torrent clients. IIRC some leaked Megaupload emails / internal communications indicated that some of the staff was uploading material themselves (but I could mis-remember that)
The other way around though, the US has already indicated that if ever an American citizen (like IDK, Bush or Cheney or whoever) is going to be tried for war crimes in The Hague, they'd send in their military to extract them. WW3 material right there.
As for the copyright laws, it depends. It was never allowed to upload music and the like - i.e. seeding if you talk about torrent clients. IIRC some leaked Megaupload emails / internal communications indicated that some of the staff was uploading material themselves (but I could mis-remember that)
This just seems ridiculous to me. I may well get downvoted, but it needs saying. Why do 99% of the world's governments seem completely retarded when it comes to copyright laws?
How many tens of millions in legal resources were expended in bringing 'justice' here? And what does the outcome even matter? Good job, tens of millions down the drain for one year of an Estonian's time? The system would surely be better served if they just handed those millions to the actual copyright holders?
The only real victory (if that's what they'd like to call it) is having taken the site down in the first place, not that that did a single thing to kerb 'illegal' filesharing...
The industry has moved on and adapted just fine.
How many tens of millions in legal resources were expended in bringing 'justice' here? And what does the outcome even matter? Good job, tens of millions down the drain for one year of an Estonian's time? The system would surely be better served if they just handed those millions to the actual copyright holders?
The only real victory (if that's what they'd like to call it) is having taken the site down in the first place, not that that did a single thing to kerb 'illegal' filesharing...
The industry has moved on and adapted just fine.
I work in Law Enforcement, so feel to disregard my opinion as biased , however, 75% of my work relates to child exploitation material, and an enormous amount of child abuse material disappeared from easy access when mega-upload went down. I used to find computers with lists and lists of megaupload urls. When that method died out a little beacon of happy shone for me.
Now I understand that free movies trumps removing abusive material, and as rapidshare and others took a more reasoned approach the child abuse material slipped into TOR and then i2p (after we brought the house down repeatedly on lolitacity and similar places in TOR). So it was more of a temporary reprieve. But those still at it have to work a bit harder and I'm happy about that.
It's all about the free movies right? Well if that's your world, you're lucky.
Your gross simplification of the issue to "free movies vs raping children" is a straw-man. That kind of patronizing condescension may work on morons, but there are those who have given careful consideration to the issue and decided that despite the negative aspects of free speech and the rule of law, that free speech is in fact more important than catching file-sharers of any kind, and that your ends-justifies-the-means philosophy is absolutely the wrong way for police to operate in a "free country". I'm glad you realize that you're playing wack-a-mole, while perverts film themselves raping children and then sell that. Hopefully one day you'll graduate to actually stopping child abuse at the source, but hey, feeling good about yourself in this moment is more important than actually doing good, right?
The depressing reality is that I'm confronting the reality of the hands on abuse on a day to day basis. That's my world. If your's doesn't have that, lucky you. I don't feel good about it in the slightest. But thanks for letting me vent that :)
I'm not sure why free speech IS file sharing in your argument. Maybe freedom of intellectual property?
You're also making assumptions about the law I operate under. I'm not in the US or NZ. So I couldn't have any impact on the mega situation.
I too am amazed by the extra-territorial nature of the proceedings. I think it's bad law. I mean, WETA is in NZ, some of their movies would have been on mega, it could have been done by New Zealand police and courts. Why not?
I am occasionally regaled by tales from investigators I have assisted with descriptions of jail sentences handed down to abusers- you would think that would be satisfying. It's not. It's just confirmation by jury and society that they were in fact evil human beings and in a couple of years they'll be back. And that's grim.
I am occasionally regaled by tales from investigators I have assisted with descriptions of jail sentences handed down to abusers- you would think that would be satisfying. It's not. It's just confirmation by jury and society that they were in fact evil human beings and in a couple of years they'll be back. And that's grim.
>The depressing reality is that I'm confronting the reality of the hands on abuse on a day to day basis. That's my world. If your's doesn't have that, lucky you.
Yeah, I get it, you're a dedicated do-gooder and people don't stroke your ego often enough. You're a legend in your own mind.
>I'm not sure why free speech IS file sharing in your argument.
"file sharing" or 'freeloaders watching movies without paying' is a minor consequence of free speech on the internet.
>You're also making assumptions about the law I operate under.
Your rhetoric falls within what I would classify as typical American scaremongering. TBH, if you're going to make these kinds of posts in a thread about the US DOJ's crowing about their success defending private industry's profit goals; I don't think it matters much.
Yeah, I get it, you're a dedicated do-gooder and people don't stroke your ego often enough. You're a legend in your own mind.
>I'm not sure why free speech IS file sharing in your argument.
"file sharing" or 'freeloaders watching movies without paying' is a minor consequence of free speech on the internet.
>You're also making assumptions about the law I operate under.
Your rhetoric falls within what I would classify as typical American scaremongering. TBH, if you're going to make these kinds of posts in a thread about the US DOJ's crowing about their success defending private industry's profit goals; I don't think it matters much.
Maybe if the USA hunted child-abusers like they hunt "terrorists" then the abuse material would stop being produced.
> I'm not sure why free speech IS file sharing in your argument. Maybe freedom of intellectual property?
The reason you're not sure file sharing is free speech is because your thinking is still clouded by the notion that there is such a thing as "intellectual property".
Property, that pesky word with a relentlessly concrete meaning, is something in the material world that can be bought, sold, stolen, given, auctioned, and after any or all of those actions, it still exists in the same quantity it existed before. Examples: land, cars, computers.
When a person P steals property from another person Q, then it must be true P now is in possession of the property, and Q is not in possession of the property anymore.
When you say a sentence out loud, I can remember it and say it again to someone else. That does not mean I stole that sentence from you (it may mean I'm unoriginal), because you still have the ability to say it.
Now say you say a sentence so long I want to write it down so I can say it again. I write it down and save it on a file on my computer. I give this file to my friends - that is, I give copies of this file to my friends. Now we all have a file that represents that long sentence you uttered, and yet not my friends nor I have taken that sentence away from you.
A file is a long sentence written down. It is speech. It is not property like cars, land and computers. I hope this helps.
The reason you're not sure file sharing is free speech is because your thinking is still clouded by the notion that there is such a thing as "intellectual property".
Property, that pesky word with a relentlessly concrete meaning, is something in the material world that can be bought, sold, stolen, given, auctioned, and after any or all of those actions, it still exists in the same quantity it existed before. Examples: land, cars, computers.
When a person P steals property from another person Q, then it must be true P now is in possession of the property, and Q is not in possession of the property anymore.
When you say a sentence out loud, I can remember it and say it again to someone else. That does not mean I stole that sentence from you (it may mean I'm unoriginal), because you still have the ability to say it.
Now say you say a sentence so long I want to write it down so I can say it again. I write it down and save it on a file on my computer. I give this file to my friends - that is, I give copies of this file to my friends. Now we all have a file that represents that long sentence you uttered, and yet not my friends nor I have taken that sentence away from you.
A file is a long sentence written down. It is speech. It is not property like cars, land and computers. I hope this helps.
Equating "piracy", which is nothing more than enjoying the fruits of somebody else's labor without paying them, with "free speech"? Yeah, that sounds closer to the "moron" category than the "careful consideration" category.
We all enjoy the fruits of other's labor without paying them; life would be impossible otherwise.
If people are involved in the transmission of child abuse, I'm happy for them to be prosecuted for that.
I'm not happy with the approach of prosecuting people for copyright infringement and then claiming they deserve it because of the child abuse material. That's a bait-and-switch.
I'm not happy with the approach of prosecuting people for copyright infringement and then claiming they deserve it because of the child abuse material. That's a bait-and-switch.
> 75% of my work relates to child exploitation material, and an enormous amount of child abuse material disappeared from easy access when mega-upload went down.
However, this apparently did not serve as the grounds for punishment, and is not mentioned in statements quoted in the article—the whole deal seems to hinge on copyright infringement allegations.
However, this apparently did not serve as the grounds for punishment, and is not mentioned in statements quoted in the article—the whole deal seems to hinge on copyright infringement allegations.
As the host of free web hosting services, I can't begin to describe how terrifying it is to read this.
I reached out to the ncmec people and spent SIX. MONTHS. trying to get access to PhotoDNA, and have got the runaround for six months. They sent me a garbage URL block list (amazingly dumb idea, by the way.. that thing is so fucking dangerous I won't even touch it) and gave me access to their fancy report tool, but no PhotoDNA. I finally just gave up because I don't have time to fight with them, I need access to photodna and if they won't give it to me, fine.
Until you finally provide the technology to detect child pornography in a reasonably accessible way, it is not the host's fault, it's yours. You are fucking up, and you are fucking up bad.
If you actually give a shit about dealing with this problem, go into NCMEC and start throwing bricks, seriously. Until then, expect pretty much every host ever to have child porn on it, because we can't stop it because we're prevented from using the tech by nonprofits that don't function and industry partnerships we can't afford. [email protected] if anyone wants to be a hero and actually cares, I'm not expecting an email.
I reached out to the ncmec people and spent SIX. MONTHS. trying to get access to PhotoDNA, and have got the runaround for six months. They sent me a garbage URL block list (amazingly dumb idea, by the way.. that thing is so fucking dangerous I won't even touch it) and gave me access to their fancy report tool, but no PhotoDNA. I finally just gave up because I don't have time to fight with them, I need access to photodna and if they won't give it to me, fine.
Until you finally provide the technology to detect child pornography in a reasonably accessible way, it is not the host's fault, it's yours. You are fucking up, and you are fucking up bad.
If you actually give a shit about dealing with this problem, go into NCMEC and start throwing bricks, seriously. Until then, expect pretty much every host ever to have child porn on it, because we can't stop it because we're prevented from using the tech by nonprofits that don't function and industry partnerships we can't afford. [email protected] if anyone wants to be a hero and actually cares, I'm not expecting an email.
I ran a file sharing site for a while (it started out as a way to get around email file attachment limits). Sure enough the child pornographers found out about it and started using it but close collaboration between the dutch child porn taskforce and myself meant that using the service for child pornography was a huge risk to the uploaders and downloaders alike.
The police never cared about any potential copyright infringement (which I'm fairly certain must have occurred as well simply because we could not possibly monitor all the uploads manually).
Eventually I clued in to a way to really close the door on the childporn if we could collaborate even more tightly but before this could get off the ground my main contact at the dutch police force died and his replacement did not show much interest (there was a huge flap with child porn made in daycare centers here at the time so I can see why he would have been too busy).
Absent the collaboration I shut the service down, but in principle I think file sharing services have many good aspects, they are just tools and can be used for good and bad alike.
The police never cared about any potential copyright infringement (which I'm fairly certain must have occurred as well simply because we could not possibly monitor all the uploads manually).
Eventually I clued in to a way to really close the door on the childporn if we could collaborate even more tightly but before this could get off the ground my main contact at the dutch police force died and his replacement did not show much interest (there was a huge flap with child porn made in daycare centers here at the time so I can see why he would have been too busy).
Absent the collaboration I shut the service down, but in principle I think file sharing services have many good aspects, they are just tools and can be used for good and bad alike.
I wish people were more considered, less cavalier, when providing services. You obviously thought about it. That's important and some people appreciate it. I don't buy the "I just do X, what happens next is not my fault". It doesn't wash in commerce, it's equally invalid in ethics.
When you buy lunch, whatever that seller does with your money is not your fault. Even if that is commit a violent crime.
I can understand your joy. However, the valid question is not "How much of the available CP material is on X" but rather "How much of the total available material on X is CP" because I can tell you with certainty, that all of the available CP material on the internet will go away if we just turn off the internet.
"For the children" is a readily abused argument for about any collateral damage that incurs with about any attempt to filter, block or control aspects of the internet and by extension our free society. But even "for the children" must be balanced against the damage we're doing while rallying under that banner.
"For the children" is a readily abused argument for about any collateral damage that incurs with about any attempt to filter, block or control aspects of the internet and by extension our free society. But even "for the children" must be balanced against the damage we're doing while rallying under that banner.
This. Statistics can be used to show things in totally different light.
Whilst CP is a horrible thing, and we all thank you for the amazing work you are doing (genuinely, no sarcasm intended), your view does seem extremely biased. If the intention was to go after CP then if that was stated as the reason for closing MU then no one would have batted an eyed and everyone would have got a pat on the back.
Of course, Hollywood really doesn't give a sh*t about CP, and the CP is just a side effect of what they deem to be a massive threat to their antiquated business model.
But keep up the good work, I'm sure it's getting tougher and tougher as this stuff goes more underground. Question: Would you rather the CP stayed a bit more "mainstream" so it was easier to catch people, or overall is "less" damage done if it goes more underground?
Of course, Hollywood really doesn't give a sh*t about CP, and the CP is just a side effect of what they deem to be a massive threat to their antiquated business model.
But keep up the good work, I'm sure it's getting tougher and tougher as this stuff goes more underground. Question: Would you rather the CP stayed a bit more "mainstream" so it was easier to catch people, or overall is "less" damage done if it goes more underground?
I know the intention was not to go for CEM. If it was they wouldn't have told anyone, they would have just snaffled the servers and brought the hammer down on the admin and slurped IP/user details for a couple of days. For examples see darknet sites that have been put in the hands of law enforcement recently.
Yeh, they should sort the business model. I'm not in favor of actions that perpetuate ignoring the rule of law. If a rule is bad, change it, don't just ignore it being broken. It breeds corruption on both sides. See prostitution and most forms of prohibition
Think about it this way- would you prefer street racers did their thing and broke laws (yes I have a bit of OCD like a lot of folks in tech- mine includes the Criminal Code) in public where the law is..flouted.. or had to go out of their way, to somewhere only those who want to engage in that activity go.
The biggest issue I see is that legitimate tools for protest are being subverted, perhaps by a majority, based on traffic analysis of TOR by Standford.
Yeh, they should sort the business model. I'm not in favor of actions that perpetuate ignoring the rule of law. If a rule is bad, change it, don't just ignore it being broken. It breeds corruption on both sides. See prostitution and most forms of prohibition
Think about it this way- would you prefer street racers did their thing and broke laws (yes I have a bit of OCD like a lot of folks in tech- mine includes the Criminal Code) in public where the law is..flouted.. or had to go out of their way, to somewhere only those who want to engage in that activity go.
The biggest issue I see is that legitimate tools for protest are being subverted, perhaps by a majority, based on traffic analysis of TOR by Standford.
Yep, lets arrest everyone.. FOR THE CHILDREN! Everytime a case comes up you law enforcement bring up the same big scarry bad men.. Drugs, Pedophiles, and Terrorists.. GET LOST
That's a petty strawman. I think most people around here care more about the Android ecosystem of builds centered around those file sharing sites. Or the vast amounts of technical documentation. If there were abuse material there too, not a single soul wouldn't want that removed, but that's an unrelated problem. You don't need to remove the former material just to remove the latter.
I think you kind of solidified the point though. You removed one source, it simply came back somewhere else. While I don't think we should by any means allow hosting providers to host abusive material without recourse, completely removing a hosting provider from the web simply causes the predators to move somewhere else. You WILL NOT stop it from occurring, and hurting millions of innocent people in the process is stupid.
The "think of the children" argument is tired.
The "think of the children" argument is tired.
[deleted]
I wish LE spent more resources on hunting the producers of child abuse material, instead of just attacking those who hosts. It seems like you play whack-a-mole and cite a victory because "megaupload went down" but guess what, the uploaders are still at large.
This is not a victory!
This is not a victory!
I don't understand. They were using a service were everyone's IPs and other data were logged and could be subpoenaed, now they're using services that add many more barriers to discovering their identity, and you consider that an improvement? What am I missing?
The aim isn't just prosecution, deterrence and reducing ease of use is an aim.
And self selecting by choosing a service that only hosts CP makes it like shooting fish in a barrel when you do roll the admin/server. Ask "freedom hosting" and some Tormail folks about that.
I was actually really surprised at the time to see the site that hosted my favorite OCR tech pdfs- yes, mega, was pretty obviously allowing forums to flourish under it's nose. Maybe there was too much content for them to check or maybe they didn't care.
Yes, the investigator's job get's harder but not having this material turn up in effectively mainstream environments is a good thing.
I'm technical rather than investigative but good investigation + sloppy OpSec breaks the veil of anonymity, technical brilliance rarely does. Those barriers you are thinking of- they have always existed in meatspace. Digital space is a cornucopia of evidence in comparison.
Of course you can make a much stronger case against MU for hosting child abuse material, this isn't a copyright issue.
My guess is that their strategy is to create a chilling effect by making an example of this guy.
From their perspective, if smart people become more frightened to take on projects like this, their money was well spent.
$10M is lunch money here.
From their perspective, if smart people become more frightened to take on projects like this, their money was well spent.
$10M is lunch money here.
It seems to infuriate me and make me more likely to ask to be payed in cash when doing business with companies that seem to be in the gray area of the law.
But in no way will I cave to this mafia style behavior.
Do I now risk going to jail if any of the people o worked with use my software for something illegal?
But in no way will I cave to this mafia style behavior.
Do I now risk going to jail if any of the people o worked with use my software for something illegal?
>It seems to [...] make me more likely to ask to be payed in cash when doing business with companies that seem to be in the gray area of the law.
Money paid in cash still needs to show up in the books of the company and your tax statement. If it doesn't, you just handed them another opportunity to make you hang - tax fraud is nothing to trifle with.
Money paid in cash still needs to show up in the books of the company and your tax statement. If it doesn't, you just handed them another opportunity to make you hang - tax fraud is nothing to trifle with.
It will be on the books but maybe as something else.
I don't mind paying tax but I'd rather not get arrested for something a person I do business with did.
This is the chilling effect this kind of behavior by the state has.
It make people less willing to share real information with the government since it could potentially get them arrested just to make an example of them.
It's all about trust and this kind of behavior makes me not trust the government or the law.
I don't mind paying tax but I'd rather not get arrested for something a person I do business with did.
This is the chilling effect this kind of behavior by the state has.
It make people less willing to share real information with the government since it could potentially get them arrested just to make an example of them.
It's all about trust and this kind of behavior makes me not trust the government or the law.
If it's on the books then it's on the books as "y did work for x" which is about as much as they need.
[deleted]
This is the most logical explanation that I know of, also considering what happened to PopcornTime.
Reference please, I missed the PopcornTime drama.
[Repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown.]
https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-app
it's like arresting the knife maker for a crime committed by a murderer.
Well, the idea of criminal justice, besides "fairness"/"retribution" (which I think is barbaric), is that it discourages future criminal action by others, who have more reason to believe they would be similarly punished if caught.
They are not retarded. They are just money driven IMHO.
And I bet the story behind this is no worse than the plot of House of Cards.
And I bet the story behind this is no worse than the plot of House of Cards.
Some people buy a car to do whatever the hell they want with it. Others buy chunk of a nuclear superpower's government to do whatever the hell they want with it.
Uh, oh. Lets hope that programmers at Google and Dropbox don't find themselves in prison for knowingly developing web applications that people are using for infringing content. This is ridiculous. Lets jail the developers of uTorrent while we are at it, thanks to them, I am able to easily queue up a torrent of Game of Thrones.
We are living in a world where people are being jailed or acts that cause no actual harm to anyone all the while people committing actual crimes go unnoticed or repeatedly go in and out of the system. People slinging drugs in the streets probably get lesser sentences than Andrus got for helping develop Megaupload.
"In court papers, Nomm agreed that the harm caused to copyright holders by the Mega Conspiracy’s criminal conduct exceeded $400 million. He further acknowledged that the group obtained at least $175 million in proceeds through their conduct."
Classic entertainment industry mathematics. How can a figure as large as $400 million be accurately proven? Seems like they just spun a massive wheel down at the law firm and chose whatever number sounded large, but not over the top. More specifically, how can a computer programmer who doesn't sound like had any involvement in the business side of things know how much Megaupload supposedly cost the industry?
There are so many things about this story that don't sit right with me. They went after the low hanging fruit. They couldn't touch Kim Dotcom, so they're going for the vulnerable and lesser high profile people involved in hopes of building up a case for bringing down Dotcom. This is what it is all about: sending a message to Dotcom and trying to slowly try anyone even remotely involved in the Megaupload site. They know Kim won't go down without a fight, they'll basically say: Well one of the sites developers admitted there was copyrighted material on the site and he knew about it, he was sent to jail.
As a developer this worries me. If my employer is committing illegal acts I don't know about like copyright infringement or fraud, does that mean I'll be sent to jail even if I legitimately didn't know? We should all be concerned with this judgement.
We are living in a world where people are being jailed or acts that cause no actual harm to anyone all the while people committing actual crimes go unnoticed or repeatedly go in and out of the system. People slinging drugs in the streets probably get lesser sentences than Andrus got for helping develop Megaupload.
"In court papers, Nomm agreed that the harm caused to copyright holders by the Mega Conspiracy’s criminal conduct exceeded $400 million. He further acknowledged that the group obtained at least $175 million in proceeds through their conduct."
Classic entertainment industry mathematics. How can a figure as large as $400 million be accurately proven? Seems like they just spun a massive wheel down at the law firm and chose whatever number sounded large, but not over the top. More specifically, how can a computer programmer who doesn't sound like had any involvement in the business side of things know how much Megaupload supposedly cost the industry?
There are so many things about this story that don't sit right with me. They went after the low hanging fruit. They couldn't touch Kim Dotcom, so they're going for the vulnerable and lesser high profile people involved in hopes of building up a case for bringing down Dotcom. This is what it is all about: sending a message to Dotcom and trying to slowly try anyone even remotely involved in the Megaupload site. They know Kim won't go down without a fight, they'll basically say: Well one of the sites developers admitted there was copyrighted material on the site and he knew about it, he was sent to jail.
As a developer this worries me. If my employer is committing illegal acts I don't know about like copyright infringement or fraud, does that mean I'll be sent to jail even if I legitimately didn't know? We should all be concerned with this judgement.
> Uh, oh. Lets hope that programmers at Google and Dropbox don't find themselves in prison for knowingly developing web applications that people are using for infringing content. This is ridiculous.
Neither Google nor Dropbox was set up with the intent of aiding copyright infringement. Neither Google nor Dropbox based their business model on aiding copyright infringement. The comparison is invalid.
> As a developer this worries me. If my employer is committing illegal acts I don't know about like copyright infringement or fraud, does that mean I'll be sent to jail even if I legitimately didn't know? We should all be concerned with this judgement.
He was the head of software development for Megaupload. It is hard to imagine that he did not have full knowledge of what they were doing and was not involved in planning it.
Neither Google nor Dropbox was set up with the intent of aiding copyright infringement. Neither Google nor Dropbox based their business model on aiding copyright infringement. The comparison is invalid.
> As a developer this worries me. If my employer is committing illegal acts I don't know about like copyright infringement or fraud, does that mean I'll be sent to jail even if I legitimately didn't know? We should all be concerned with this judgement.
He was the head of software development for Megaupload. It is hard to imagine that he did not have full knowledge of what they were doing and was not involved in planning it.
To be fair, Megaupload didn't explicitly condone copyright infringement, and if I recall correctly infringing files were removed.
Are my memories flawed and Megaupload ignored the copyright infringement notices, or is Megaupload the fall guy to scare everyone else?
Are my memories flawed and Megaupload ignored the copyright infringement notices, or is Megaupload the fall guy to scare everyone else?
When Megaupload received notification of an illegal file, their action depended on the type of file. If it was child porn or terrorism propaganda, they deleted the file. If it was copyright infringement, they made the specific URL that was reported stop working, but retained the file, and all other links that referred to that file continued to work.
Even making the specific URLs stop working was a sore spot with Dotcom. He sent emails to employees telling them to not even do that when they got a mass report of infringement from an "insignificant source". An "insignificant source" meant anyone other than a major organization in the US (e.g., major Hollywood studios).
As far as explicitly condoning copyright infringement goes, sometimes users would see movie trailers, and ask Mega where they can see the full movie online, and Mega employees would answer by pointing them to third party sites that linked to the full movies on Mega. One Mega email to such a user included the explanation that you cannot find the links by directly searching Mega because "that would cause us a lot of trouble".
Even making the specific URLs stop working was a sore spot with Dotcom. He sent emails to employees telling them to not even do that when they got a mass report of infringement from an "insignificant source". An "insignificant source" meant anyone other than a major organization in the US (e.g., major Hollywood studios).
As far as explicitly condoning copyright infringement goes, sometimes users would see movie trailers, and ask Mega where they can see the full movie online, and Mega employees would answer by pointing them to third party sites that linked to the full movies on Mega. One Mega email to such a user included the explanation that you cannot find the links by directly searching Mega because "that would cause us a lot of trouble".
Megaupload also ran a monetary incentive scheme that ranked rewards for users based on the value of the content; discovery during the prosecution turned up emails from Megaupload employees overtly acknowledging copyrighted content and rewarding it with enhanced payouts.
To be fair, Megaupload used deduplication pretty extensively. So to remove the file would be to remove it from every single user whether they shared the URL or not. Any number of those users could have the right to a copy of the file in question or live in a country where copyright law just plain doesn't apply to sharing files (e.g. somewhere it's OK as long as it's down without commercial gain).
Removing just the link to the file seems reasonable to me. How do you choose which country to break the law? Removing just the link seems like the safest bet.
Removing just the link to the file seems reasonable to me. How do you choose which country to break the law? Removing just the link seems like the safest bet.
I've never done a copyright case in my life and intend to keep it that way but Mega had a rewards program where you got money for uploading content that people downloaded. A bounty program for fresh, new, just-released-at-the-box-office movies. Let's not rose tint the past. They had internal emails discussing how to get more movies closer to the release dates. It was pretty blatant. The compliance with take-down didn't even remove things from the server, just the link the copyright owner noticed..
Maybe I should call the copyright owner something else that fits HN, induces more sympathy... Intellectual Property Doyen? Post Marketing Profit Retrieval Specialist? VP of Marketshare and Ongoing Growth? Capital Return Scout? Nah can't keep a straight face, "Dude with the Creatives on a leash"
Maybe I should call the copyright owner something else that fits HN, induces more sympathy... Intellectual Property Doyen? Post Marketing Profit Retrieval Specialist? VP of Marketshare and Ongoing Growth? Capital Return Scout? Nah can't keep a straight face, "Dude with the Creatives on a leash"
People at Megaupload were uploading copyrighted things onto their servers at one point to gain traction. Like, company policy to go around and get stuff to put onto their servers.
If you follow takedown notices, there's no issue, DMCA's safe harbor provisions protect you totally. The issue was that Megaupload was participating in the uploading and stuff
(for the record: not condoning the federal gov't's usage of time/money trying to get Dotcom arrested/extradited or whatever)
If you follow takedown notices, there's no issue, DMCA's safe harbor provisions protect you totally. The issue was that Megaupload was participating in the uploading and stuff
(for the record: not condoning the federal gov't's usage of time/money trying to get Dotcom arrested/extradited or whatever)
>How can a figure as large as $400 million be accurately proven?
Does that even matter, given the $175 million number that comes right after? Pretty sure that number can be easily proven from their ledgers.
Does that even matter, given the $175 million number that comes right after? Pretty sure that number can be easily proven from their ledgers.
By that logic, authors of filesystems, ssh, TCP/IP should go to jail. Quick, let's sue the Oxford dictionary! Military style raid on DARPA for inventing the internet! Oh, wait ... that's the military. Can't we have our cake and eat it too? Talk about political sham oldboy network rent-a-justice. Legal systems need to be decentralized, their interpretation and processes transparent. Perhaps a forward thinking country like Ecuador might be up for the challenge? I exclude Estonia as they are embroiled too much in EU legalese to have much of a chance of a running escape.
Yet every single one of the bankers who brought the world economy to the brink of collapse walks free, enjoying the fruits of his labour. The system works.
Please, give it a rest on this "banker" polemic nonsense.
why ?
Because it makes the issue seem like it's only a concern of angry and ignorant teenagers. While I for one would love for the current corporate capitalist model of society to be fundamentally restructured, it's not going to happen by making snide remarks on Hacker News.
Sidenote: it's so weird the English language uses the same word "justice" for the legal system and the moral concept. In German for example the two are different, making it easy to explain to people how the legal system is about equal application of the law, not personal closure. The domain "justice.gov" just sounds like propaganda (imagine "freedom.gov") to me as a non-native speaker who mostly hears the term used in that second (moral) meaning.
I'm an American, when I think "justice system" I think of justice not on a personal level, but on a punishment level. Justice is having a punishment that fits the crime. If someone wanted personal justice, I think they usually qualify it with "personal" before "justice".
Interesting. I don't think of the justice system as concerning punishment at all. The primary functions to me are rehabilitation and prevention (via incapacitation).
Even though my view certainly isn't representative, it seems to me that American culture is far more concerned with punishment or retribution than rehabilitation than we are in Germany. Sure, we have tabloids calling for "severe punishments" as well, but in general the system seems to be far more concerned with protecting the public (and maybe converting the criminal to a law-abiding citizen in the process).
Even though my view certainly isn't representative, it seems to me that American culture is far more concerned with punishment or retribution than rehabilitation than we are in Germany. Sure, we have tabloids calling for "severe punishments" as well, but in general the system seems to be far more concerned with protecting the public (and maybe converting the criminal to a law-abiding citizen in the process).
The prison system in the US is designed to create repeat offenders. This is because we have a lot of for-profit prisons that benefit from repeat offenders. There is no rehabilitation going on, I assure you. Quite the opposite is true.
Unsurprising, especially with how prison rape seems to be considered par for the course in the public conscience. The only thing that confuses me is how the public doesn't seem to mind, especially when it comes to young black men (who seem to be considered criminals a priori these days).
I'm not sure which German words you are referring to, but as a Dutch person "justice.gov" sounds like propaganda to me too.
Die Gerechtigkeit und das Recht? Not sure but could be.
Gerechtigkeit (moral justice) and Justiz (the justice system). Recht is actually in a similar spot as justice: Recht can mean "law" (as in Rechtsstaat, "state of laws") or "right" (as in Menschenrechte, "human rights").
Or perhaps die Gerechtigkeit und die Justiz.
But I must say that in my ear, "Department of Corrections" sounds perhaps even more like propaganda, or doublespeak...
But I must say that in my ear, "Department of Corrections" sounds perhaps even more like propaganda, or doublespeak...
If the EU is willing to do this to a programmer, it makes it easy to understand why Julian Assange is refusing to leave the Embassy of Ecuador.
> Nomm agreed that the harm caused ... exceeded $400 million... group obtained at least $175 million ... Megaupload.com ... it accounted for four percent of total Internet traffic, having more than one billion total visits, 150 million registered users and 50 million daily visitors.
> Nomm admitted that he was a computer programmer ... from 2007 until his arrest in January 2012. ... he was aware that copyright-infringing content was stored on the websites ... which contained the “FBI Anti-Piracy” warning.
> Nomm also admitted that he personally downloaded copyright-infringing files from the Mega websites.
Replace megaupload with any website or service provider (Youtube, Dropbox, Gmail, Facebook) and it gets scary very quickly.
> Nomm admitted that he was a computer programmer ... from 2007 until his arrest in January 2012. ... he was aware that copyright-infringing content was stored on the websites ... which contained the “FBI Anti-Piracy” warning.
> Nomm also admitted that he personally downloaded copyright-infringing files from the Mega websites.
Replace megaupload with any website or service provider (Youtube, Dropbox, Gmail, Facebook) and it gets scary very quickly.
The programmers of the largest copyright infringing company on the planet (Google) are hopefully exempt from idiocy like this. Youtube contains massive amounts of copyright infringing videos, Google books brought it to a whole new level and the Google cache infringes on a very significant portion of the web.
Youtube honors the DMCA (the spirit as well as the word of the law - something Mega was shown not to do). Google books did get sued, but were found exempt under fair use (and having used Google Books, I'd tend to agree with that decision, though IANAL.) And last I checked, caches are explicitly exempt from copyright considerations.
Article quote: In court papers, Nomm agreed that the harm caused to copyright holders by the Mega Conspiracy’s criminal conduct exceeded $400 million.
Poppycock. How is a computer programmer qualified to estimate the pecuniary value of “harm caused” by the shop they're working at? What about the harm caused to Justice by farces and show trials like this?
Poppycock. How is a computer programmer qualified to estimate the pecuniary value of “harm caused” by the shop they're working at? What about the harm caused to Justice by farces and show trials like this?
"Agreed" is also such a weasely claim.
And of course the "harm caused to copyright holders" is a farcical concept to begin with. You can't just take, say, the total number of downloads and multiply that with some fictitious amount of lost revenue and then claim that as damage, yet that's exactly what the rights utilization industry has been doing for decades.
This concept is based on the idea of physical theft. If I steal a truckload of soap and then sell it myself, the damage I'm doing to the legitimate owner is equivalent to the volume I stole multiplied by the original selling price minus regular shrinkage (e.g. lost sales because of faulty products, damage during regular handling or natural expiry).
Digital goods don't work that way. The "theft" of digital goods does not result in you having less products to sell. Instead it's more similar to the damage done via the "theft" of trade secrets. If I steal the Coca Cola recipe and begin giving away knock-off cola for free, I arguably cause damages due to lost sales, but it'd be ridiculous to assume that every "sale" of my product is equivalent to one lost sale of the Coca Cola company.
In fact, MegaUpload didn't even "steal" anything. If we want to use physical crimes as metaphors, it's simply dealing with stolen goods -- or more precisely: giving stolen goods away for free. And if one million users downloaded the same illegal content, they didn't give one million stolen goods away, they merely gave the same stolen goods away a million times.
It's not that copyright violations can't cause damages, but the current system for valuation of those damages -- especially in the US -- is entirely ridiculous and only continues to exist because the courts are either too apathetic or too ignorant (or sometimes both) to dismiss it.
And of course the "harm caused to copyright holders" is a farcical concept to begin with. You can't just take, say, the total number of downloads and multiply that with some fictitious amount of lost revenue and then claim that as damage, yet that's exactly what the rights utilization industry has been doing for decades.
This concept is based on the idea of physical theft. If I steal a truckload of soap and then sell it myself, the damage I'm doing to the legitimate owner is equivalent to the volume I stole multiplied by the original selling price minus regular shrinkage (e.g. lost sales because of faulty products, damage during regular handling or natural expiry).
Digital goods don't work that way. The "theft" of digital goods does not result in you having less products to sell. Instead it's more similar to the damage done via the "theft" of trade secrets. If I steal the Coca Cola recipe and begin giving away knock-off cola for free, I arguably cause damages due to lost sales, but it'd be ridiculous to assume that every "sale" of my product is equivalent to one lost sale of the Coca Cola company.
In fact, MegaUpload didn't even "steal" anything. If we want to use physical crimes as metaphors, it's simply dealing with stolen goods -- or more precisely: giving stolen goods away for free. And if one million users downloaded the same illegal content, they didn't give one million stolen goods away, they merely gave the same stolen goods away a million times.
It's not that copyright violations can't cause damages, but the current system for valuation of those damages -- especially in the US -- is entirely ridiculous and only continues to exist because the courts are either too apathetic or too ignorant (or sometimes both) to dismiss it.
There's a lot of lip service but I still don't get why a programmer need to go to jail for this crap.
Are they prosecuting everyone that ever worked for or did business with megaupload now?
Because that seems a bit shady.
Are they prosecuting everyone that ever worked for or did business with megaupload now?
Because that seems a bit shady.
That's Iran-grade justice.
"Let's persecute a random programmer that touched thing we really dislike".
"Let's persecute a random programmer that touched thing we really dislike".
He was Megaupload's head of software development, which is a bit more than just "a random programmer that touched thing".
This is another way of saying "he was a naughty boy". Yes he was, and no, you can't imprison someone for that.
He downloaded some illegal files, he was a head of development and not just a developer, he saw some scare banners on content - all that facts help you sell a story to newspaper reader but for court it's all tangential.
He downloaded some illegal files, he was a head of development and not just a developer, he saw some scare banners on content - all that facts help you sell a story to newspaper reader but for court it's all tangential.
Have you read the full charges against Mega? They actively uploaded, and encouraged others to upload, copyright infringing material to jack up their traffic. They very knowingly violated the law. That's quite a bit different from the garden variety "download a few files" piracy.
Wells Fargo smuggled half a Trillion(with a T) dollars worth of drug cartel money.
Zero Punishment.
Zero Punishment.
None at all huh? Please discuss, HN (see my other comments in this thread). This seems relevant to the idea of "Justice".
Tbh he kinda fucked up. He waived his right to an extradition hearing in the Netherlands.
I am fairly certain the Dutch court would not have let him be extradited over this bullshit. Case and point, he is the only one to be extradited successfully and only because he went of his own free will.
I am fairly certain the Dutch court would not have let him be extradited over this bullshit. Case and point, he is the only one to be extradited successfully and only because he went of his own free will.
I'm fairly certain he talked to a lawyer before waiving his right. I know that that's what I would have done in his situation -- it's not a decision you take lightly.
I'm also fairly certain his lawyer told him that his hearing would be unlikely to result in a rejection and that complying with the US prosecution would be his best chance for the least bad outcome.
I'm also fairly certain his lawyer told him that his hearing would be unlikely to result in a rejection and that complying with the US prosecution would be his best chance for the least bad outcome.
... what the hell?
And they're trying to extradite Kim Dotcom to the US as well!
At the time of launch, I thought how cool it'd have been to work on the project, ouch.
And they're trying to extradite Kim Dotcom to the US as well!
At the time of launch, I thought how cool it'd have been to work on the project, ouch.
It's a real shame that millions of our tax dollars go to putting a single guy in prison for a year, when they could be much more effectively put towards prevention and prosecution of violent criminal activity.
Nice job DoJ. Now to raise the bar and serve the people some real justice, go get Jamie Dimon ( http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witn... ).
What if you are a programmer working for any major corporation that happens do be doing some illegal stuff (Banks, Oil, gambling, etc). Should you be afraid to go to jail?
Of course not, Banks, Oil, and basically all big corps are immune from law.
The sad thing is, that is hardly an exaggeration.
The sad thing is, that is hardly an exaggeration.
Yes. At least if the illegal activity is well-known.
Supporting a criminal activity makes you an accomplice. If you do so knowingly, you face similar consequences to the direct perpetrators.
Three examples:
Let's say you work for a bank. Your superior is involved in criminal activity using the bank's resources. The bank may profit from that activity. You do not make any attempts to bring attention to the criminal activity (neither internally nor to the police). You're an accomplice and will face legal consequences.
Let's say you work for a bank. Unknown to you, the bank is a money laundry front for a local organized crime group. A federal investigation busts the operation and defines the bank as a criminal organization. You're an accomplice, but having had no reason to suspect the bank is involved in illegal activities, you'll likely not face any consequences.
Let's say you work for a bank. Unknown to you, some members of senior management are engaging in illegal activities. They are caught and put on trial. You are not an accomplice and don't face any consequences.
(IANAL, but that seems to be how it works in most jurisdictions I'm aware of)
Supporting a criminal activity makes you an accomplice. If you do so knowingly, you face similar consequences to the direct perpetrators.
Three examples:
Let's say you work for a bank. Your superior is involved in criminal activity using the bank's resources. The bank may profit from that activity. You do not make any attempts to bring attention to the criminal activity (neither internally nor to the police). You're an accomplice and will face legal consequences.
Let's say you work for a bank. Unknown to you, the bank is a money laundry front for a local organized crime group. A federal investigation busts the operation and defines the bank as a criminal organization. You're an accomplice, but having had no reason to suspect the bank is involved in illegal activities, you'll likely not face any consequences.
Let's say you work for a bank. Unknown to you, some members of senior management are engaging in illegal activities. They are caught and put on trial. You are not an accomplice and don't face any consequences.
(IANAL, but that seems to be how it works in most jurisdictions I'm aware of)
Wait, I can't tell if this is about the old Megaupload site or the new Megaupload site.
Can someone with more details on his involvement provide more information? I'm confused as to what exactly this guy did for Mega.
Why than the owners of Google are still free?
Well, programmer is not a banker...
This is such bullshit.
[deleted]
From what I understand the Netherlands copyright law is more lenient than the US law. For instance downloading copyrighted material was legal until very recently. So downloading something from Megaupload was hardly a crime there... http://www.zdnet.com/article/downloading-pirate-material-fin...
So you could do something which is legal, or illegal but not criminal offense (civil) in the country where you live, but if it displeases the US, then suddenly they can throw you in jail in a foreign country (the US) where you have no ties.
I break Chinese laws on a daily basis (Tank Man!). Why should I care about US law, since I do not live there, nor am I a citizen? It's not like I can vote for these laws...