Hollywood Piles On: MPAA Sues Megupload, Even Though They Already Got The Feds To Kill It
from the because-money dept
In news that will come as little surprise to just about anyone, the MPAA has announced that it is piling on and suing Megaupload and Kim Dotcom for copyright infringement, in an action separate from the criminal charges he currently faces. Two years ago, the MPAA had indicated it was likely to do this when it asked for some data to be retained for such a purpose. Also, a few months ago, the DOJ (secretly) got an order from the court (without letting Megaupload know) that allowed it to share information with the MPAA so that the MPAA could file its own civil suit against Megaupload.So you had to know that a lawsuit was coming -- and it had to come soonish, given the three year statute of limitations on infringement claims. The MPAA's press statement simply parrots the DOJ's highly questionable assertions:
“When Megaupload.com was shut down in 2012 by U.S. law enforcement, it was by all estimates the largest and most active infringing website targeting creative content in the world,” said MPAA global general counsel Steven Fabrizio. “Infringing content on Megaupload.com and its affiliates was available in at least 20 languages, targeting a broad global audience. According to the government’s indictment, the site reported more than $175 million in criminal proceeds and cost U.S. copyright owners more than half a billion dollars.”The MPAA is using its favorite law firm for these kinds of cases, Jenner & Block. Of course, there's a (pretty strong) argument that if the MPAA was so upset by Megaupload, it should have filed this lawsuit years ago, rather than convincing the DOJ to twist and turn things to pretend that it was a criminal issue. Megaupload has a pretty strong defense to a civil suit in pointing out how the DMCA works and the fact that the company complied with DMCA takedowns. But, now, with Megauploads' assets frozen, Kim Dotcom separately having to fight extradition charges and the criminal charges, it just makes it that much more difficult to also fight the civil case -- which is exactly how the MPAA likes it.
Really, this is perfect for the MPAA. There's no reason at all for this lawsuit. Megaupload is about as dead as can be -- and, in fact, much of the data has been deleted already thanks to the DOJ's actions. But at this late stage of the game, the MPAA can pile on, likely get some sort of court victory and will then crow about how it fights copyright infringement hard. And those lawyers at Jenner & Block will certainly be paid nicely.
Of course, what none of this will do is help the MPAA or the studios actually deliver more good content in a format people want. That's too much work.
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: civil copyright, copyright, criminal copyright, doj, kim dotcom
Companies: megaupload, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yet another reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet another reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet another reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yet another reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet another reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet another reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet another reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet another reason...
Just pirate the stuff. It's not like you would be supporting the people who deserve it. The MPAA surely doesn't. They're just lining their own pockets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet another reason...
Complete and total boycott of EVERYTHING they make.
Which kind of sucks, I wanted to watch Kick Ass 2, the new Star Wars movies and other things too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yet another reason...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140401/15195926769/newscasters-reenact-final-four-moments-rather- than-wait-game-highlight-rights-to-clear.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet another reason...
Erm, no. Pirating stuff instead of paying for it doesn't support the people who deserve it. Seeking out independent content from non-MPAA members and paying for it *does*, as does using other forms of entertainment not affiliated by them.
Not that it probably matters, since they'll blame piracy whatever the reason for their revenue loss, but at least by supporting independent cinema you make sure some people get the money they deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet another reason...
That's like breaking the stranglehold of distilleries on society by distilling window cleaner.
That's actually increasing the revenues of distilleries by turning people into drunkards that could not otherwise afford it. So their aspirations are focused on being able to afford higher spirits.
Just say no. Then not just your purse but also your brain will thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder how much of that was hypothetical money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And this is the sort of mindset we're supposed to respect in copyright enforcement. Disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, given the whole thing has been a farce from the get-go, it wouldn't surprise me if, upon the default judgement should it go that route, the judge found that since the civil and criminal cases are 'linked', that the assets from one can be used to pay the fines of another.
Alternatively, they could order Dotcom to pay the millions the *AA's are sure to demand, and should he refuse/be unable to, and the assets ever get unfrozen, order them to be seized to pay for the fines(with a hefty 'penalty' tacked on to make the sum even more).
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Me thinks that the intention of filing the civil lawsuit in the US by the MPAA is so that the MPAA can get an easier victory with the fact the neither the company or Dotcom will be in the US to defend the civil lawsuit and therefore the MPAA will have more chance of an easy win through default.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because they were USA works is irrelevant. Otherwise the case in Australia in regards to iiNet could of been filed in the USA with an absolutely totally outcome. Instead it HAD to be filed here in Australia for the simple fact being that then they can recover equitable damages if they win the case. Otherwise it's just for show and political purposes since a 'win' elsewhere means basically squat under current reciprocity situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shame that half a billion put a real dent into the proceeds of their membership during that time. o_O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Alternatively, and more effectively, just do what several people here do, and never go to the movies, refusing to give money to people so determined to screw everyone over to 'protect' their control/profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]