Kim Dotcom Files Brief In His Trial In The Court Of Public Opinion
from the laying-out-the-arguments dept
A bunch of folks have been pointing us to the new "whitepaper" released by Kim Dotcom, which lays out two key things: why the lawsuit against him is a complete legal sham and also why it was driven by a corrupt connection between the US government and the MPAA. The paper is written by his lawyers, including Ira Rothken and Richard Amsterdam (whose addition to his legal team was discussed a few months ago). Frankly, most of this reads like the lawyers refining the eventual motion-to-dismiss filing that they expect to submit to the federal court (should it ever get there). The majority of it is taken up with the clear legal statements as to why the lawsuit is based on very questionable theories. The main point, as we've discussed before in the context of other cases, is that the DOJ seems to have completely made up a legal theory of contributory copyright inducement. While there is such a thing in civil contexts, it's not there in criminal contexts. Supporters of the DOJ will argue that there is aiding and abetting, but the rules there are quite different and, again, it doesn't look like Dotcom and crew would be guilty of such a charge.The overall point is clearly stated in the whitepaper. Here's a snippet:
The fact of the matter is that the notion of criminal liability for secondary copyright infringement does not exist in U.S. law. The attempt by prosecutors to expand criminal liability for secondary infringement by couching it as “aiding and abetting” or “conspiracy” goes against established precedent in case law and repeated positions taken by the U.S. Congress.One surprising inclusion is that the whitepaper supports this well known point -- that courts can't create new criminal liability -- by extensively quoting legal analysis from Jay Prabhu from years ago. This is a bit of dagger twisting by Dotcom's legal team. Prabhu, well after writing those analysis, took a job in the Justice Department, and eventually was put in charge of the DOJ's "cybercrime" unit -- and has been a key prosecutor against a number of copyright cases, including various domain seizures. In fact, he's the one who signed the indictment against Dotcom. To use his own words against the case is amusing.
The Copyright Act creates civil and criminal liability for various acts of copyright infringement, but it does not expressly give rise to liability for infringement committed by third parties. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has defined specific circumstances under which service providers may be held civilly liable (i.e., not criminally responsible) for direct copyright infringement by third parties, such as distributing “a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright.”
The fundamental legal problem with this aspect of the government’s case is that only Congress can create new criminal liability; judges cannot. Previous instances in which courts have imposed civil liability for secondary copyright infringement – based on application of common law principles – do not apply in criminal proceedings, as federal crimes are “solely creatures of statute.” Whatever authority the courts may have had to recognize a contributory theory of copyright liability in the civil context, the courts simply have no power to impose a basis for criminal liability beyond what is expressly authorized by statute.
The filing also lays out a number of arguments that we've seen before, including a further explanation of how the DOJ was being totally disingenuous in arguing that Megaupload refused to remove works it knew were infringing, by pointing out the files they mentioned were ones that Megaupload has clearly been asked to preserve as part of an investigation into copyright infringement.
There's also an interesting and more detailed than previous discussed defense on the point about Megaupload's rewards program. We had pointed out how silly it was to use this element against Megaupload, since it was a general rewards program to get people to make use of its cloud storage, and there was nothing in the program that induced more infringement (in fact, it seemed like a great tool for a content creator to make money by releasing his or her own works via the rewards program). On this, Dotcom's whitepaper points out not just those points, but also (1) the fact that lots of other sites have similar rewards programs (2) specific features Megaupload included in its rewards program that made it bad for infringement (including file size limits and required identification) and (3) the fact that they had dropped the program long before the indictment.
While I do wonder how wise it is to basically give the DOJ their opening brief way before they would actually see it in court -- and giving them a lot more time to respond to it -- there are a few reasons why this move could make sense. First, they're so damn confident in their argument that it doesn't really matter. That may be risky. Another point may be that it signals to the DOJ that they may want to look for ways to extricate itself from the case quickly, because it's not going to go as easy as the DOJ has assumed from the beginning. The other issue may be that Dotcom and his legal team realized long ago that the court of public opinion probably matters more in the long run than the federal court system in the US.
To that end, of course, the paper has a second section, which has received most of the attention: all about the supposed corrupt process that brought about the indictment. When Megaupload hired Richard Amsterdam, he specifically noted that the details of the case suggested a typical "contract prosecution," and the paper seeks to lay out that argument clearly, highlighting the close relationship between the Obama Administration (mainly via VP Joe Biden) and MPAA boss Chris Dodd.
Chris Dodd’s jump from the U.S. Senate into the cockpit of the MPAA was an equivalent move. As the new Chairman and CEO of the MPAA, Chris Dodd improperly leveraged his friendship with Joe Biden to achieve the MPAA’s objectives. Former Senator Dodd’s relationship with the Vice President– who comes off manipulated, a cheerfully credulous facilitator – together with the Obama Administration’s ravenous hunger for campaign contributions, has given the MPAA absolute control over how the U.S. Department of Justice plays the game in enforcing copyright law. This capture is nowhere more clearly demonstrated than in the Megaupload/Kim Dotcom prosecution.Frankly, while this section is getting the most attention, I actually find it to be the weakest and most poorly supported part of the paper, which would probably be more compelling without it. I don't doubt that the close connections between the MPAA and various folks in the DOJ and in the VP's office contributed to Megaupload being a target, but trying to make it out as anything more than that seems like a stretch. Yes, the MPAA complained regularly about Megaupload, and that clearly helped put a target on its back. But, it's quite likely that the over-eager folks at the DOJ ran with this one on their own. The MPAA (with the help of the press) had worked over time to paint Kim Dotcom as "Dr. Evil" of the copyright world. Everything about the process of taking down Megaupload screams of a bunch of feds who totally bought into the theatrical version of the MPAA's vision, without much effort to understand what was really happening. The myriad mistakes and sloppiness in the case really suggest that the DOJ assumed that the stories the MPAA told were so accurate that everything about this case would be a layup. The investigation, the indictment, the raid, the handling of evidence -- all of it was done in a sloppy way -- as if they expected no one would challenge any of it.
I'm sure there was influence and pressure that went into this, but painting it as a case where Chris Dodd called up Joe Biden and said, "Destroy Megaupload" is probably a massive exaggeration. Instead, it seems quite likely that MPAA folks just kept playing up the theatrical version of Kim Dotcom as evil (and, Dotcom himself actually helped promote this sort of view of himself at times as well...), and then the DOJ's imagination combined with its general over-aggressive nature towards any copyright issues just sort of took over from there.
Either way, the paper is definitely a worthwhile read. I'm sure a group of folks at the DOJ are taking their time reading through it quite carefully. I imagine that we'll eventually see their response in court.
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: chris dodd, copyright, corruption, criminal contributory infringement, indictment, ira rothken, joe biden, kim dotcom, richard amsterdam, whitepaper
Companies: megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Raids and mercantilism
Mike, I have to wonder... How many stories have you done where the MPAA uses ICE to be their private police force?
In 2011 they raided a fully authorized factory with no consequences.
In 2010, you questioned their raid on the Pirate Bay.
In 2007, you questioned why the FBI and the MPAA were training Swedish Police.
And in March you explained why the best thing with the MPAA was censorship and freaking out.
In 2012, you explained how the MPAA didn't want the public to have fair use.
And yet, the same story over and over is how the MPAA or some industry uses their private police force to destroy competition not for innovation, but because they want to maintain their business model.
The message should be clear: Beware of mercantilists who abuse the rules for their own money seeking purposes.
Just to drive this point home, look at what Adam Smith had to say about such mercantilism:
The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from [capitalists] ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whos interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.
“The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked... sell their commodities much above the natural price... The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got. The natural price, or the price of free competition, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken....”
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters [cartels]; though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour....
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
In general, if any branch of trade, or any division of labor, be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so
To which piracy and infringement challenge the status quo of the MPAA.
It is the industry which is carried on for the benefit of the rich and powerful, that is principally encouraged by our mercantile system. That which is carried on for the benefit of the poor and the indigent, is too often, either neglected, or oppressed.
And finally, let's call out the DoJ:
Commerce and manufactures, in short, can seldom flourish in any state in which there is not a certain degree of confidence in the justice of government.
What Kim is actually doing is calling out the bad behavior of the US government that has acted in bad faith to politicians getting money. This weakens the respect for the DoJ to carry out the powers of the state. Rather than look at the corruption right under its nose with the MPAA, it opts for a third party that was thought to be weak. He's called out the copyright monopoly.
And I think that by showing the revolving door of justice, Kim's lawyers indeed have a strong case with the public on this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Raids and mercantilism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Raids and mercantilism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Raids and mercantilism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Raids and mercantilism
I mean the DOJ does seem to be acting rather stupidly and like they are trying to flex their muscles...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Raids and mercantilism
I tend to assume in this case that Biden is just the clueless puppet in the process. Dodd used their 'friendship' to benefit the MAFIAA, his paymasters. But I will not be surprised if I find out Biden also benefited from all this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really don't understand the argument. Aiding and abetting is a crime under 18 USC 2. Conspiracy is a crime under 18 USC 371. How is the government making anything up? If Dotcom aided and abetted others to infringe, he's liable as if he himself infringed. If Dotcom conspired with others who infringed, he's liable as if he himself infringed. While the Copyright Act may not provide for indirect liability in civil suits, and judges found such liability to exist as a matter of common law, Title 18 explicitly provides for such liability. Mike, can you explain how the DOJ is making this up when it's right there in Title 18? This isn't judges making it up. It's literally right there in Title 18. This argument is so silly, it hurts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The fact of the matter is that the notion of criminal liability for secondary copyright infringement does not exist in U.S. law."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IMO, the answer is a resounding "NO".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The question is...does Saudia Arabia have the right to go after such persons? To demand that local governments use SWAT style raids to go after the speaker? To use false warrants and withhold key evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Title 18 doesn't cover actions done without your knowledge or approval.
If I don't know my adult son is storing illegal drugs in my house, am I responsible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Technically no, but under today's drug laws and the asset seizure regulations, I wouldn't rule out a prosecutor trying to take your house anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will however repeat that aiding and abetting requires active knowledge and participation. Or are you promoting legal definitions of 'active knowledge' to mean 'vague proclamations made outside the fully functional reporting system'?
If so, any system that allows user generated content, from youtube down to this commenting system, becomes an impossible to manage liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
To try and work this any other way is to try to both ignore and violate DMCA law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Direct copyright infringement is not a crime. It must be "willful," and it must be either for profit; worth over $1000; or a pre-release ("leaked" or "camcorded") copy.
If the primary infringement does not meet this criteria, it is not criminal. Furthermore, "evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright." It's all in 17 USC 506.
18 USC 2 makes it a crime to willfully "aid, abet, counsel, command, induce or procure" criminal infringement, but doing the same for civil infringement is not in any way a criminal act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If a criminal steals your car to make a getaway are you "aiding and abbeting" him. boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conspiracy
The 18 USC 2, Aiding and abetting, has the same mens rea issue to get over. How can there be criminal intent on Megauploads part when DMCA says as a service provide they are not accountable for the actions of users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WOW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess you missed this part of the article?
There are more details in the white paper. Here are the relevant sections, with the footnotes included in the text:
The tl:dr; version:
Secondary civil liability based on common law (a la Napster or Grokster) is not criminal liability. There is no secondary criminal liability, and Congress rejected all attempts to create it.
To show "aiding and abetting," and "conspiracy," you need to show Megaupload willfully aided and abetted a willful primary infringer, and that there was a a specific agreement to commit that specific infringement. The government has not even alleged these things, much less shown them.
Hope you understand now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No but they have shown proof of money laundering when MU paid its bills to Carpathia...wait what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, Mike asserted this point before - that there's no criminal liability for "inducing" criminal copyright infringement. And still, it doesn't make sense to me. As the AC above points out, 18 USC Section 2 says those who aid, abet, or "induce" others to violate any of the criminal statutes in title 18 (which would include criminal infringement) is guilty as a principle. In other words, that the person can be held criminally liable as though he himself committed the violation. This is a much older and established part of US than the Grokster opinion. Mike says above that "supporters of the DOJ will argue that there is aiding and abetting, but the rules there are quite different." But one doesn't have to "support" the DOJ to read Section 2 and see that it criminalizes "inducing" someone else to commit a crime (as well as the more familiar "aiding" or "abetting" them). I have no idea what "different rules" Mike is talking about - he's never made that clear in the past. Certainly there are some differences between civil and criminal liability, such as the standards of proof, the requirements to show intent in criminal cases, etc. But those differences are illustrated in any criminal copyright case, of which there have been many over the years.
Mike, is there some distinction you have in mind? Because it just isn't making any sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As Karl explained above, and as we've discussed in detail in the past: you have to show aiding and abetting *CRIMINAL* infringement. They may be able to show support for civil infringement, but that's different and doesn't qualify here.
Nowhere do the charges even attempt to show any specific *criminal* infringement.
As in the Rojadirecta case, they're mixing and matching the different elements of criminal copyright infringement. They need to show that someone *willfully* engaged in significant infringement for profit (or worth a significant amount or a pre-release copy). The government doesn't even make this argument.
It, at best, is arguing that there is some civil infringement, and then that Dotcom and crew induced *civil* infringement for profit. But that's not how the law works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Dotcom was arguing that there's no such thing as contributory criminal infringement. You agreed in your article: "The main point, as we've discussed before in the context of other cases, is that the DOJ seems to have completely made up a legal theory of contributory copyright inducement."
Are you now saying that there can be indirect liability for criminal infringement under 18 USC 2? Which is it? Does it exist, or does it not exist? Don't conflate the issue of whether such a crime exists with whether such a crime was committed here. I understand that you think it can't be proved here, but I want to know if you agree that it exists. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can one be criminally liable for inducing another infringe or not?
Nowhere do the charges even attempt to show any specific *criminal* infringement.
That's not true. The indictment has all sorts of information about how they induced criminal infringement and even stuff about the principals engaging in it themselves (like the part I quoted above about "Taken"). How is "Taken" not an example of "specific *criminal* infringement"? Please explain why you think this is not an example of such criminal infringement.
As in the Rojadirecta case, they're mixing and matching the different elements of criminal copyright infringement. They need to show that someone *willfully* engaged in significant infringement for profit (or worth a significant amount or a pre-release copy). The government doesn't even make this argument.
The government alleges that Megaupload itself provided the profit. The indictment alleges violations of 506(a)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Subpart (A) only requires that it be "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain," not "significant infringement for profit" as you contend. Just any old profit will do. And Subpart (C) requires "distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution." The government alleged that with "Taken." How is the government "mixing and matching the different elements"? Seems like they are getting it exactly right. Please explain what the government has mixed up. For reference: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/506
It, at best, is arguing that there is some civil infringement, and then that Dotcom and crew induced *civil* infringement for profit. But that's not how the law works.
"Taken" alone is criminal infringement. How is it "at best . . . some civil infringement"? That's a crime under Subpart (C). Please explain why in your opinion it's not. Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If a 3rd party within the USA uploaded to Megaupload Virginia servers and Van Der Kolk only upload to a European server which was MD5 hash matched to a previously existing USA copy then it is outside the jurisdiction of the DOJ in any case.
The fact that "some" of Megaupload's servers where in the USA does not create a nexus for every action of every user globally to come within USA jurisdiction. A user in Spain uploading and downloading to a server in Germany is outside the bounds of DOJ mandate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It should also be pointed out that Kim's own subsidiary companies were some of the biggest beneficiaries of sending people to download copyright material and getting paid a commission. It's hard for Kim to deny knowledge as he was on both sides of the transaction.
I think it is more important that Kim (and his lawyers) have gone public with this and other pieces, including a poor post on torrentfreak from one of the lawyers. They are so desperate to get the public on their side, which is an indication that they know they are toasted, and the only place they might be able to win is a site like Techdirt.
Legally, Kim is toast. It's not a question of if, it's the question of when.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here's the text from Grokster:
As you can see, it's not developed from any copyright statute, but derived from the common law doctrines of patent laws. It also invokes liability for any distributor of a device who is "promoting its use to infringe copyright."
That would not be enough for criminal aiding and abetting (or "inducing"). For example, see the California Criminal Jury Instructions on aiding and abetting:
For aiding and abetting, merely "promoting its use" is not enough. You have to have actual knowledge of the specific crime, actively aid in it, and share the principal's mens rea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Without being told, Kim Dotcom would not have known about the file or whether to delete it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Had he said "look there is an infringing file here" then someone else would soon ask "Where is your proof that this file is infringing? Maybe the rights holder themselves personally uploaded it where it would cause criminal damage and customer interference to delete it falsely".
Since there is no evidence here, where the law does not require a confirmation check, then the file would remain until the rights holder confirm it is an infringing file through a DMCA take-down request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This isn't just to try and defend Kolk, but these are serious questions that must be asked when one is doing a criminal investigation. In a criminal investigation, you have to prove to a certain degree that the man being charged is guilty. Did someone download the named .mp4 file and was it confirmed, under oath by the movie's studio, that it is indeed their copyrighted work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You seem to think that one file being shared is more important than the fact that the full might of the US government was used in a civil case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taken 2008
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What if he and the person who he emailed the link already legally owned the movie? Is that makes it an infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FYI, from merely reading the paragraph that you supplied, that is not enough to allege criminal infringement. Direct infringement it may be, but there's no allegation of willfulness and private financial gain. (That file certainly wasn't worth $1000, and since it's called a "DVDRip," it's likely not a pre-release.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Corruption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
My 1000th post (with this email address, actually well over 2000 if prior one weren't mysteriously deleted).
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike sez: uploader + file host + links site + downloader = perfectly "legal" symbiotic piracy.
02:20:53[c-401-8]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
Let me fix the flawed analogy for you. Someone burns infringing DVDs and stores in a company with a theoretical infinite warehouse. That company provides robots that automatically carry the contents to said storage and provides means for the owner to share access to his "locker" and even copy the contents to others but in no part of the process they know what's being stored or copied (3D printing!!!). They only take action when warned that something is wrong. Now multiply that by millions of unidentified objects being stored and retrieved every second.
Now you have proper analogy. Physical storing companies don't meddle in what is inside their lockers unless law enforcement asks for info. And the MAFIAA has it soft on them, the DMCA doesn't require warrants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Insane ramblings
He’d have to deal with laws concerning counterfeiting and theft and such in that instance. Copyright doesn't generally cover the media. It covers the content, and content doesn’t ‘exist’ in the same way as a piece of paper or a plastic disc.
Dotcom also deserves the same protections and rights afforded to anyone else under both New Zealand and United States law. His ‘crime’ and the zeal with which the major media corporations and their United States government lapdogs want to prosecute him should not somehow make him an ‘exception’ to the rule of law. If he broke the law (which seems likely), the government should have no problem acting within the boundaries of its own laws to prove that he broke the law. The government should not twist its own laws in an attempt to ‘send a message’ about copyright infringement. (Oh, and that goes just as much for New Zealand as it does for the United States.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
Pathetic. I must've made hundreds of thousands by now.
Don't believe me? Just go through the archives and count the posts made by "Anonymous Coward".
You can't compete man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
2000 instances of rhetoric, ramblings, and lies is nothing to brag about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
You...you actually counted? You kept a notebook and jotted down the amount of times that your email address + username combination were used?
Tell me...have you gone to a doctor about this? You've just admitted to OCD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
You know, performance evaluations, paychecks, work-hour accounting etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
Because labels are always truthful, aren't they? There's never been a case of a file being other than what it's called.
I uploaded "Batman_Begins_1080p.mkv" to a cyberlocker once. It was in reality a jpeg with a smiley face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
And it'd clearly be illegal. (where, under the DMCA, as long as he gets rid of the illegal stuff, he should be fine...even though he's not a US citizen, has never set foot in the US, and has no duty to follow US laws).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
each such video.” Congress put the burden on the copyright owner to notify the service provider of infringements – in writing and with specified contents – and the court concluded that the burden could not be shifted back to YouTube to disprove its knowledge. YouTube was entitled the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions because Viacom was not able to prove that YouTube had actual knowledge of specific acts
of infringement.
The Viacom court also emphasized that the benefits of DMCA safe harbor protection did not require
affirmative monitoring by YouTube based on some general awareness that infringement may be occurring. Nothing in the DMCA required YouTube to affirmatively seek out facts indicating infringing activity. Even though YouTube could potentially locate infringements using its own dentification
tools, it had no duty under the DMCA to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
tools, it had no duty under the DMCA to do so."
Correction - While Youtube can potentially find copyrighted works on its site without being told by a copyright holder...it cannot tell whether any such found files are there with or without the holder's permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But there'd be NO question if Dotcom dealt with material media!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Biden & Chris Dodd
I would more term that somewhere between 100% valid and a little exaggeration.
Let us remember that Joe Biden is a huge sucker for the anti-piracy propaganda where very early in the Presidency he had a big meeting with the MPAA (no doubt about lobbying funds) where right after that Joe Biden stated to the press...
"But piracy is theft. Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."
As I am a supporter of the so called "piracy" culture then it is damned depressing to hear the back-up leader of the United States make a total logics failure and to not even understand the law at hand.
The US Administration by obvious political mandate then joined in to the Copyright War with the DHS's ICE programme which we know as "Operation in our Sites".
So at last we come to the MegaUpload case when obviously the MPAA had a big problem here for two reasons. First is that MegaUpload was very popular with the pirates where we really need no other reason for the MPAA to go nuclear. Second is that on this service the pirates were winning. Sure Mega complied with DMCA take-down requests into tens if not hundreds of thousands but the pirates could upload a new copy and distribute the link in mere seconds.
Clearly a major thorn to the MPAA but then we add on SOPA and PIPA which was aimed to target such foreign services. I can say until the Internet freaked out that the MPAA who lobbied SOPA hard was expecting an easy pass and why they put it on the quick route.
One thing I damned well know about a new law coming into affect is that the Copyright Cartels will always use this time to bully and harass the market. Do you not think they would not single out a key example to scare everyone... like... MegaUpload?
Naturally SOPA was a big deal and Chris Dodd could easily contract VP Joe Biden to say "lets hammer down this theft of millions of our media starting with criminal MegaUpload?" Joe Biden has no reason not to say "ok, lets do that". Out there somewhere is that truth but the odds of us getting Dodd or Biden on the stand under oath is remote.
We do at least know one other fact about VP Biden when he did indeed authorise an attack on the file sharing market to cut of site's advertising and payment services. It is sad to say that we have seen the affects of that one often.
This is the War on Infringement. The US Administration headed by VP Joe Biden got involved. Mega was destroyed by political mandate. All this ignores the actual law, but law is not their point, only bullying through law abuse.
Mega's lawyers now highlight those facts for all to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Joe Biden & Chris Dodd
Someone try and file a FOIA request on dodd and biden :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Joe Biden & Chris Dodd
Come back in 3 years with 65 fully redacted pages and let us know how that worked out for you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Joe Biden & Chris Dodd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Joe Biden & Chris Dodd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright and crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
12/18/12 - SOPA blackouts manage to stop SOPA. MPAA CEO Chris Dodd throws a temper tantrum and threatens to cut campaign contributions.
12/19/12 - The DOJ shuts down Megaupload.
It seems clear to me that the White House proceeded with the Megaupload takedown ahead of schedule to appease Chris Dodd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And a previous article about whether the DMCA safe harbors apply in a criminal case: http://www.copyhype.com/2012/01/megaupload-and-the-dmca/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...and the fleas upon them, and the fleas upon *those* fleas, etc, etc, etc ad infinitum, until we end up with bill gates being the origin of all infringement evil...
hee hee hee
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The sum up...
I think that pretty much sums up the general idea quite perfectly...Though in Kim Dotcom's case, I think he was lashing out of the frustration when he was sort "not helping" his case. In my opinion he did exactly as any innocent human being would have done and should do in this case when innocence is as clear as a bell...fight the accusers and of course lash out angrily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes it is, in a cheap, dime store novel kind of way...
When "briefs" are filed in the court of public opinion, almost always it means that a positive reception before a court of law is not a likely outcome.
Lawyers can be a crafty lot, but here it seems the lawyers have taken the craft of fiction to an new level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]