Megaupload Defendants Get Internet Access Back; Kim Dotcom Allowed To Record An Album

Too Much Free Time

from the conditions-of-bail dept

Tue, Apr 3rd 2012 12:02am — Mike Masnick

When Kim Dotcom was granted bail, we noted that it was rather silly that the conditions of bail included a ban on internet access. It appears that pretty much everyone involved in the case has actually agreed, and the terms of bail have been adjusted to allow all of the Megaupload defendants to have internet access. The US didn't even object to this request (which surprises me, actually).

What the US did object to, however, was Dotcom's request to be able to go to a nearby recording studio to complete an album he is supposedly working on. The US seems to question whether this album really exists as well as its likelihood of commercial success. However, the judge notes:

This Court cannot speculate on the success or otherwise of Mr Dotcom’s venture. The numerous varieties of modern musical genres suggest that there are probably unimagined audiences available, and modern legitimate digital distribution systems are changing the face of the music market. I could venture to suggest that notoriety alone could well be a marketing angle for Mr Dotcom’s venture.

In the end, he does allow Dotcom to go to the studio, but with specific requirements, including having to notify officials when he's going there, and only staying for four hours at a time. He has to alert officials when he arrives, at the 2 hour mark, and 5 minutes before he leaves -- and he's supposed to do so with a photo of himself on a smartphone (if he has a smartphone).

The US also objected to allowing the four defendants to meet in person, saying that by allowing them internet access, they could just Skype each other. However, the court agreed with the defendants that Skyping is not the same as actually meeting in person and is allowing that as well (again, in a limited fashion). The court notes that the "flight risk" that the US keeps worrying about appears to be exaggerated, though it's still keeping pretty strict limits on Dotcom and the others, and may revisit the rules in the future.

Of course, I'm still wondering why internet access was banned in the first place. It seems like such an overaggressive ban on something that's so central to the ways in which everyone communicates these days.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bail, internet access, kim dotcom
Companies: megaupload

50 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 12:24am

Of course, I'm still wondering why internet access was banned in the first place
Everyone knows that the Internet is a series of pipes - they may all crawl off down those pipes and escape to Thailand
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 12:37am

Timing is Everything
If I had read the headline that Dotcom was recording an album 2 days ago, I wouldn't have read the article. I would have thought it was another joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 12:40am

"What the US did object to, however, was Dotcom's request to be able to go to a nearby recording studio to complete an album he is supposedly working on. The US seems to question whether this album really exists as well as its likelihood of commercial success."

Erm, I can't help but wonder where this position comes from. Surely, its commercial success should be irrelevant. The government should certainly not be blocking people from working on art, regardless of the profit to be had. Even if it's a non-commercial venture, then so what? They've already seized his day job, is he not supposed to have a hobby as well now? The only thing I can think of to object to is that it's a way of mocking the music industry he supposedly "stole" from and so shouldn't profit from it, but that's a long stretch.

"modern legitimate digital distribution systems are changing the face of the music market"

I wonder if the judge realises the irony of this statement, considering that one of those distribution systems is the very thing the defendant is on trial for in the first place (and yes, it's a "legitimate" system when it was used by artists to distribute their own work)...

"and he's supposed to do so with a photo of himself on a smartphone (if he has a smartphone)."

That would have made for an interesting contradiction if the internet ban had been upheld - he'd have been blocked from accessing the internet but compelled to use a device that can access any wifi network!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 3 Apr 2012 @ 1:27am

Why No Internet Access
From the original bail hearing:

Prosecutor Anne Toohey said that Internet access would increase the risk of a Megaupload resurrection in a jurisdiction where US authorities can�t touch it.

To which my question was: why is that illegal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 1:56am

Re: Why No Internet Access
Better question: Is there actually a jurisdiction the US believes it can't touch?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:10am

Why ban a physical meeting, then turn around and allow Skype, essentially making the ban on a physical meeting useless.........mmmm, a cynical man would think twice before using 'Skype'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:13am

Ill buy a song or maybe an album as long as its cheap, stands for something, and 90% of the proceeds go to the defense of the internet

You'll have my money and respect
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:19am

Re: Re: Why No Internet Access
Is there actually a jurisdiction the US believes it can't touch?

Thats a very well put questions my friend, no doubt if asked, a typical politicians response would ensue, seing as the answer is likely to be a, yes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PatternGuru714, 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:20am

@PaulT
PaulT, with regard to the US objecting to the recording of an album and the question of why:

In the U.S. there are strict rules disallowing any possible profit from one's alleged or convicted crime(s). Profiting from one's notoriety from a crime is illegal in itself in many situations.

I'm not defending such a distracting side-complaint by the US, just offering a possible reason based on the rules the US usually plays by.

I'd think the Skype argument would be argued more fervently, as obviously Skype could be used to allow collaboration among defendants. Then again, so could numerous other forms of communication.

PG
[ link to this | view in thread ]
blakey, 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:24am

'likelihood of commercial success'
thats surely the problem - only records released by RIAA affiliates are allowed to be commercial successes. Of course he should be stopped! Thats the whole problem with the internet in a nutshell - anyone can just make a record and release it!

To follow up with some simple maths: 1,000,000 unknowns make a record which each sells 10 copies thats over a billions of dollars stolen from Legitimate Record Makers of USA. Hundreds of millions of people will lose their jobs in California alone!

.com must die.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:37am

Re: Re: Why No Internet Access
Even better question. Considering that no expense in human resources, SWAT teams, helicopters, investigations and prosecution was spared...

Why the fuck would Kim Dotcom have resources that the prosecution team has yet to seize, thereby allowing a Megaupload resurrection?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:39am

Re: @PaulT
Yeah, that was my thought, really. It's still rather disturbing that he can be held to this before actually being convicted of any crime, and it's also strange that they apparently used the opposite argument.

"I'd think the Skype argument would be argued more fervently, as obviously Skype could be used to allow collaboration among defendants. Then again, so could numerous other forms of communication."

Without literally locking him up in solitary confinement 24 hours a day before trial, there really isn't anything they can do to stop him communicating in some way. Skype at least allows them to monitor conversations without blocking his life completely. Not ideal, but it's something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:51am

can someone please tell me what difference it makes to the US whether Kim makes an album or not and whether it is successful or not? obviously, he wont be using any of the entertainment industries to record, promote or sell the album, so perhaps that could be the reason? that the entertainment industries wont be able to rip him off like they have done/are doing with their actual own artists, those very same artists that they continue to use as the excuse/reason they are fighting all the 'piracy' in the first place?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 3:00am

According to Stuff.co.nz the album "would feature [...] collaborations with several international artists."

This could have been another reason to object to record the album. It would surely look strange if the artists, whose rights are "defended" with the shut down of Megaupload, side with Kim Dotcom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 3:04am

Music about bullying is always cool because everybody even the bullies themselves can identify with it, the world is scary and everyone has bad moments in life with that said my version of the The Guild: I'm the One That's Cool

To all the asshat IP lawyers who beat me up in court
Now I'm the one that's cool
I'm the one that's cool
To all the justice queen bitches thinking they still rule
Now I'm the one that's cool
I'm the one that's cool
And to my eighth-grade idols who pushed me in the pool
Now I'm the one that's cool
I'm the one that's cool
You may be tan and fit and rich but you're a tool
And I'm the one that's cool
I'm the one that's cool
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 3:15am

Re:
@ #6

i doubt, but wouldn't put it past them, if the US has managed to 'bug' the property, but Skpe would be fairly easy for them to listen in on. they dont want any sort of defense allowed at all. the only reason the files are still on the Mega servers is so they can look through them to gain 'evidence' and let the politicians and service personnel that used the service can get their files back. once they have all they think they need, those servers, which Kim and co are not allowed near, will magically be wiped, preventing help in their defense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 3:20am

Re:
PR is the real problem.
If Kim DotCom(I always get a laugh out of that name) is seen as an artist and if he manages to become somehow cool, that would be a problem, no prosecutor wants a jury sympathizing with the people who they are accusing.

The problem with people siding with him and not the MAFIAA is that when it goes to court half truths and ambiguities can be used by a jury to let him go and make no mistake the government doesn't have a strong case and they know it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 3:26am

Re: Re: Why No Internet Access
Switzerland.
Trying to tamper with that jurisdiction never worked well for anyone, especially the USA, and the USA rarely tries to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 3:31am

Re:
The explanation is simple: Tyranny.

Any tyranny hates being ridiculed, and there's a good chance this album will do just that as far as I know.
And yes, the USA are a tyranny (but I believe anyone reading techdirt realized that already... aside from the usual corporate shills maybe).

So there you go. The fact that they would try to censor him on grounds that he would ridicule them is extra evidence that the USA is indeed a tyranny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spaceboy (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 3:59am

Re: @PaulT
This could backfire against the US. His fame and notoriety have increased as a result of the actions against him. What if his album is about kittens and puppies, but because of all this exposure, his sales went through the roof?

Yes this is a serious question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 4:06am

Re:
not really, the "artist' can side with whoever they choose, what matters is who owns the rights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 4:14am

Re:
What? And eating a mushroom will make them grow?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 4:15am

It isn't an "overaggressive ban" its a condition of bail, such as stay away from schools for the pedophile, or do not enter any banks for bank robbers etc...

Its only an "overaggressive ban" because you like piracy it seems, and don't really care about the rights others have, because you don't agree with them

Stay away from the others who helped you commit your crime etc.. except it seems they don't about that in that country
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 4:17am

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 2:13am
I wonder if the plan is to release it on another cyberlocker network to demonstrate the viability of the legitimate model.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 4:30am

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 4:15am
The whole action by the DOJ is overly aggressive in the first place. Did they have to bust his door down to arrest him? No. They could have quietly picked him up when he left went to the store for groceries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 4:51am

Re: Re:
Eating mushrooms may cause fits of violence, explosions and being able to fit through internal plumbing. Also, larcenous, kidnapping trespassers who have no respect for content creators' plans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 4:53am

Re: Re: @PaulT
SoundExchange would steal all the profits and give them to U2.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 4:56am

Re:
Aggression is making a dawn raid in a jurisdiction THAT ISN'T YOURS using resources that aren't yours for something that wasn't even a criminal offense in the place that the raid took place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 5:22am

" internet access was banned "

And so we have the beginings of a governmental ability to turn YOU into a non-person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 5:25am

Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 4:15am
But then they wouldn't have got the word out that they are now a "shill for hire" would they?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin, 3 Apr 2012 @ 5:52am

What the US did object to, however, was Dotcom's request to be able to go to a nearby recording studio to complete an album he is supposedly working on. The US seems to question whether this album really exists as well as its likelihood of commercial success.

And yet they let Disney make "John Carter".

ZING!

Thank you, thank you...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 6:46am

Re: @PaulT
In the U.S. there are strict rules disallowing any possible profit from one's alleged or convicted crime(s). Profiting from one's notoriety from a crime is illegal in itself in many situations.

He should still be able to create an album or write a book...he just can't put it up for sale. Plus, the industry would claim he had billions in lost sales anyhow...a net loss.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 6:48am

Re: @PaulT
"In the U.S. there are strict rules disallowing any possible profit from one's alleged or convicted crime(s). Profiting from one's notoriety from a crime is illegal in itself in many situations."

But he's not doing this in the US so that doesn't apply. Secondly, we don't know what the content of the album yet will be so to say that it will include content directly related to the case is a bit premature. Third, to say that because of his notoriety gained in this case would help with sale of an album that may be completely unrelated to the case is a broad over-reaching interpretation of the law such that ANYONE with any notoriety could be prevented from having commercial success in ANY commercial venture regardless of how unrelated that venture may be since the notoriety would affect it that is not in the intended spirit of the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 6:48am

Re: Re: Re: @PaulT
Where's that 'sad/disgusting but true' button when you need it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 6:55am

Re: 'likelihood of commercial success'
This could also be a motive. To demonstrate conspiracy on the part of the DOJ and the content industry in anti-competitive activity As they try to censor him they strengthen his case in this claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BentFranklin (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 7:13am

Maybe they let him have internet because they want him to report in using a smartphone? Taking it away from him takes away their ability to communicate with him on it. They don't want to be receiving faxes of Polaroids of him leaving the studio.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 7:15am

Re: Re: Re: Why No Internet Access
I think you mean 'no actually, there isn't a jurisdiction the US government doesn't think they could at least control to some degree'.

How accurate that is in reality would be up for debate, but that wouldn't stop them from trying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 7:29am

What's wrong with going to a studio?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 7:35am

Re: @PaulT
"In the U.S. there are strict rules disallowing any possible profit from one's alleged or convicted crime(s). Profiting from one's notoriety from a crime is illegal in itself in many situations."

Since he has yet to be tried, much less convicted, there's no "crime" to profit from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 7:38am

Re:
"Stay away from the others who helped you commit your crime etc.. except it seems they don't about that in that country"

And he was tried (and convicted) when, exactly?

You HAVE heard of "innocent until PROVEN guilty, boy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 7:54am

Digital Distribution
The numerous varieties of modern musical genres suggest that there are probably unimagined audiences available, and modern legitimate digital distribution systems are changing the face of the music market.

Anyone else find that part unintentionally hilarious?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 8:46am

Re:
He might steal some more music to put on the internetz - he can't obviously be making his own, since it's all owned by the artists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 9:26am

Re:
...and don't really care about the rights others have, because you don't agree with them

Kind of like the USG not giving a shit about the innocent users who have been harmed in this whole fiasco.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 10:51am

You must be so happy for your pirate friend, Mike. I hope you two enjoy your special internet time together.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 3 Apr 2012 @ 12:12pm

Of course, I'm still wondering why internet access was banned in the first place. It seems like such an overaggressive...

That word describes the whole Megaupload case. You should be wondering why he was arrested and MU shutdown in the first place. But I know you are wondering, we are all wondering (and many of us know the answer).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2012 @ 4:47pm

Megaupload Is A Library
Megaupload was a library. It was not a library of books, but a library of files. Kim Dotcom is the injured former chief librarian. He should read up about the destruction of the library of Alexandria and try to put himself in the shoes of the chief librarian of that institution. Should Megaupload be restored, he should buy some books as well, hire some conventional librarians and open his doors to readers, thereby making it clear to all that he has library status.

Many libraries have been destroyed throughout history, by vandals, always for disgraceful reasons. The US entertainment industry has revealed itself as the latest in a long line of vandals. Libraries have high social status and fierce defenders. Getting that status for Megaupload would be advantageous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bergman (profile), 4 Apr 2012 @ 1:07am

Re: Re: @PaulT
I wonder if the monetary losses that arise from fighting off a malicious, baseless prosecution can be claimed as a deduction on one's taxes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 8 Apr 2012 @ 4:58am

Re: Re: @PaulT
i'm going to be honest: while aware of megaupload, i'd never even Heard of the guy before all this started...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 8 Apr 2012 @ 7:03am

Re: Re:
good thing they're still only trying to convince a judge here and not a Jury.

odds of the US winning over a Jury in NZ on something like this without blatantly rigging the whole thing is somewhere between 'zero' and 'i didn't know negative numbers got that big'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dubstep maker, 29 Aug 2012 @ 5:46am

dubstep maker
I am not sure from where you�re getting your information, but really good topic chosen by you. I need to spend some time for learning or understanding more. Thanks for magnificent information that I was looking for for my mission.
[ link to this | view in thread ]