RIAA Files A Near Word For Word Copy Of MPAA Lawsuit Against Megaupload

from the because-that's-not-infringement dept

Earlier this week the MPAA filed a very questionable lawsuit against Megaupload, recognizing that the statute of limitations would run out in a few months. And just days later, the RIAA has followed suit with a nearly identical filing. While they're done by two different law firms, the similarities between the lawsuits are uncanny -- including the numerous defective (to dangerous) attempts to reinterpret copyright way beyond what the law actually says. We already covered why most of these theories are defective, but let's look at some similarities between the filings. I mean, honestly, if the RIAA and MPAA weren't so close, and if it were possible to claim copyright on legal filings (as some do assert), you'd think that the MPAA attorneys might have a claim on the RIAA's attorneys for copying their work. One wonders how much the RIAA's lawyers charged to basically rearranged some words in the MPAA's filing.

Let's start at the beginning. Here's how the MPAA describes what Megaupload does:

Megaupload amassed the millions of popular content files that it hosted on its servers and offered to the public for download by openly encouraging and paying users to upload these files. Any Internet user who went to the Megaupload website could upload a computer file, whether or not the user registered as a member. When the upload was completed, Megaupload reproduced the file on at least one computer server it controlled and provided the user with a Uniform Resource Locator ("URL")"link" beginning with "megaupload.com." The uploader could then propagate the link broadly over the Internet, so that anyone interested in downloading or otherwise accessing a copy ofthe file could easily find it on Megaupload's servers.

Any user who had the URL link could access and download the associated content from Megaupload's servers. By "clicking" the URL link (or copying it into any web browser), the user was taken to a "download page" on the Megaupload website that allowed the user to download a copy of the file from a computer server controlled by defendants.

And the RIAA's version:

Beginning in late 2005 and continuing at least to January 2012 when Defendants were indicted, Megaupload amassed the millions of popular content files that it hosted on its servers and offered to the public for download by openly encouraging users to upload these files. Until mid-2011, Megaupload went so far as to actually pay its users to do this. Any Internet users who went to the Megaupload website could upload content files, regardless of whether the users registered as members. Upon completion of the uploads, Megaupload reproduced each file on at least one computer server it controlled and provided the users with a Uniform Resource Locator ("URL") "link" beginning with "megaupload.com" for each uploaded file. The uploading users could then propagate the links broadly over the Internet, so that anyone interested in downloading or otherwise accessing copies of the files could easily find them on Megaupload’s servers.

Users in possession of the Megaupload URL links could access and download the associated content from Megaupload's servers. By "clicking" the URL links (or copying them into any web browser), users were taken to a "download page" on the Megaupload website that allowed users to download the content, including Plaintiffs’ recorded music, from computer servers controlled by Defendants.

Yeah. That's pretty damn similar, including numerous identical phrases. Someone's copying something. Okay, how about the lack of a search (which, as we noted previously, is ridiculous, since Napster got in trouble for having a search, and now everyone's saying that not having a search is just as damning). Here's the MPAA:

To conceal the scope of infringennent occurring on the Megaupload website, defendants did not provide users with a searchable index of files available for download from the Megaupload website (although defendants themselves had access to such an index). Instead, defendants relied on numerous third party "linking" sites to host, organize, and promote URL links to Megaupload-hosted infringing content, including plaintiffs' copyrighted works. Such linking sites made infringing content broadly and easily accessible to users by maintaining an index of links to content files organized by category and/or alphabetically by titles of the copyrighted work; some such linking sites also offered search boxes where users could enter queries quickly to find the content they wanted. Many of these linking sites were blatant pirate sites, hosting thousands of links to infringing material. Any visitor could quickly see the widespread availability on many linking sites of links to infringing content on Megaupload. Defendants knew of this open infringement on pirate linking sites and closely tracked the traffic from those sites to Megaupload. Furthermore, defendants provided financial incentives for premium users to post links to these sites through the Uploader Rewards program.

Okay, and the RIAA version:

To conceal the scope of infringement occurring on the Megaupload website, Defendants did not provide users with a searchable index of files available for download from the site (although Defendants themselves had access to such an index). Instead, Defendants relied on numerous third party "linking" sites to host, organize, and promote URL links to Megaupload-hosted infringing content, including Plaintiffs' copyrighted works. Such linking sites made infringing content broadly and easily accessible to users by maintaining an index of links to content files organized by category and/or alphabetically by titles of the copyrighted work; some such linking sites also offered search boxes where users could enter queries quickly to find the content that they sought. Many of these linking sites were blatant pirate sites, hosting thousands of links to infringing material. Several of these linking sites exclusively offered Megaupload links. Any visitor could quickly see the widespread availability on many linking sites of links to infringing content on Megaupload. Defendants knew of this open infringement on pirate linking sites and closely tracked the traffic from those sites to Megaupload. Defendants also knowingly interacted with users of linking sites and have visited such sites themselves. Defendants also provided financial incentives for premium users to post links to these sites through the Uploader Rewards program.

Right. So those two paragraphs are identical, except the RIAA adds in two extra sentences about the linking sites. It goes on and on like this, with both filings clearly working off of either each other or the DOJ indictment, which they're copy/pasting into their own filing and fussing with a word or two here or there. Here's just one more example. Both filings claim that Megaupload can't be considered a "cloud storage" site because it would delete unpopular files. Here's the MPAA's version of this:

Contrary to some of defendants' public assertions, Megaupload was not designed to be a private data storage provider. Users without premium subscriptions were restricted not only in their downloading capabilities, but also in their ability to store files on the site. Any content they uploaded would be deleted if it was not also downloaded within a certain period of time -- after 21 days in the case of unregistered, anonymous users and after 90 days in the case of registered users who were not premium subscribers. Only premium subscribers (estimated to be 1% of users) could use Megaupload for long-term file storage.

And the RIAA's nearly identical text:

Megaupload was in no respect designed to be a private data storage provider. Users without premium subscriptions were restricted not only in their downloading capabilities, but also in their ability to store files on the site. Any content that users uploaded would be deleted if it was not also downloaded within a certain period of time--after 21 days in the case of unregistered, anonymous users, and after 90 days in the case of registered users who were not premium subscribers. Only premium subscribers (estimated to be one percent of users) could use Megaupload for long-term file storage.

Of course, Kim Dotcom has now refuted this claim, saying that content that was unpopular was not deleted from Megaupload.

However, even beyond that, I fail to see how having a service like this that deletes unpopular content suddenly disqualifies it from being a legitimate service. Lots of other legitimate services have similar terms. While it appears to have recently changed this, the popular image sharing site Imgur (which we use at Techdirt) used to have a very similar clause, saying that "images that are not viewed for 6 months may be removed. However, images with pro accounts can only be removed by you." That doesn't mean they were not a legitimate service.

Nor does it mean it's not a "cloud" service. Different cloud services serve different markets, and services like Megaupload (and Imgur) tend to be more focused on the immediate sharing of content (not necessarily infringing content). In fact, if you look back at the origins of Megaupload, it initially resembled services like the old "YouSendIt," which were focused on making it easier for people to move any file from one person to another. That's not encouraging infringement, it's encouraging being able to transport a digital file it's completely neutral to whether or not the content is or is not infringing.

Either way, the RIAA's lawsuit is a near carbon copy of the MPAA's, and is just as faulty in its reasoning. It's nothing more than a blatant pile on in the attempt to twist copyright laws to their liking.

Filed Under: copyright, kim dotcom, lawsuits
Companies: megaupload, mpaa, riaa

MPAA's Lawsuit Against Megaupload Is Yet Another Broadside Attack On The Internet

from the collateral-damage dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about the MPAA's announced plans to sue Megaupload in a civil lawsuit to pile on to the criminal charges the company is already facing. As we noted, there's no legitimate reason for such a lawsuit, given the criminal lawsuit already underway, other than as a way to try to get a favorable court ruling it can use against others. Having now read the full complaint against Megaupload, it's quite clear that this is exactly what the MPAA is doing. The lawsuit is incredibly dangerous for the internet, even if you think that Megaupload itself was a bad actor. Even the LA Times -- Hollywood's hometown paper -- has called out the lawsuit for how it may have negative consequences felt broadly across the internet.

That's because the lawsuit makes a whole bunch of claims about Megaupload that are perfectly reasonable activities for tons of user-generated content and/or cloud computing companies. But, because Hollywood has spent years demonizing Kim Dotcom as a movie-style villain a la "Dr. Evil", it seems to be hoping that the courts won't notice that it's basically making up what they want copyright law to be, rather than what it is.

First, it describes the fact that when you upload a file to Megaupload, the service would then give you a link that you could share. The MPAA paints this as if it's some nefarious scheme to encourage infringement. But it's actually how pretty much any cloud or user-generated content site works.

When the upload was completed, Megaupload reproduced the file on at least one computer server it controlled and provided the user with a Uniform Resource Locator ("URL") "link" beginning with "megaupload.com." The uploader could then propagate the link broadly over the Internet, so that anyone interested in downloading or otherwise accessing a copy of the file could easily find it on Megaupload's servers.

But, of course, Dropbox or YouTube do the same exact thing. Then, they call out the fact that Megaupload did not provide its own search engine, as if that's something nefarious:

To conceal the scope of infringennent occurring on the Megaupload website, defendants did not provide users with a searchable index of files available for download from the Megaupload website (although defendants themselves had access to such an index). Instead, defendants relied on numerous third party "linking" sites to host, organize, and promote URL links to Megaupload-hosted infringing content, including plaintiffs' copyrighted works.

Except, cloud storage companies from Dropbox to Box to Google Drive don't supply a searchable index of files available on their services either. And that's for a very good reason. Because they're not promoting their services as a place to go to search for infringing works. In fact, you just have to go back to the RIAA's lawsuit against Napster, to see where the exact opposite claim was made. In that case, the court found that Napster was, in part, liable because it had a search feature:

Napster is not an Internet service provider that acts as a mere conduit for the transfer of files.... Rather, it offers search and directory functions specifically designed to allow users to locate music, the majority of which is copyrighted.

Yet, now, the MPAA seems to be arguing that not having a search engine means you're trying to hide copyright infringement. Damned if you do, damned if you don't -- just how the RIAA and MPAA like it. If you have a search engine, you're enabling infringement, if you don't have a search engine, you're "concealing" infringement.

The MPAA also tries to paint other perfectly reasonable business model choices as nefarious. Offering premium paid-for services for faster downloads, or access to larger files, is painted as some evil plan to profit off of infringement. But it also makes perfect business sense for a company like Megaupload seeking to cover its bandwidth bills. Similarly, the famed "financial incentives for premium users" is treated as if this is actually paying people to post infringing works. But that makes little sense. It's actually an incentive to get people to post good content. It's the same reason that YouTube today pays top YouTubers who bring in lots of visitors. Is the MPAA really arguing that such an incentive program is illegal?

To ensure a vast and ever-growing supply of popular copyrighted content to which they could sell premium access, defendants paid users to upload popular content to Megaupload's servers. Defendants' Uploader Rewards program promised premium subscribers cash and other financial incentives if they uploaded popular works, primarily copyrighted works, to Megaupload's servers. The rewards program also encouraged users to publicly promote links to that content, so that the content would be widely downloaded.

Except, nothing in this program appeared to be about encouraging people to post infringing works. In fact, it would seem like a pretty stupid program for encouraging infringement, as Megaupload would likely be able to bring in a lot more attention and revenue for authorized legitimate content. Such a program, in actuality, appears to be the perfect way for artists to go direct to their fans, offering them ways to get the content for free, while still earning money. In fact, that's why artists like Busta Rhymes spoke out in favor of Megaupload after it was shut down. He pointed out that he could make a lot more money releasing his own music directly via Megaupload, than in going the old record label system.

Furthermore, since this lawsuit is from the movie studios, they list out a number of specific movies that they claim were on the site. However, Megaupload says that the uploader rewards program only applied to files smaller than 100MB, meaning it likely didn't apply to any films that were uploaded. Assuming that's accurate, the studios are going to have quite a difficult time proving that the rewards program induced infringement of movies.

On top of that, even if the program was used by some to make money from sharing infringing works, the program itself is clearly content neutral, and not about encouraging sharing of infringing works. For the MPAA to allege otherwise threatens all kinds of incentive programs on pretty much any user-generated content site.

Next, the MPAA complains that when they sent takedowns to Megaupload, it only removed the specific URL they sent, and not all copies of the content. But, uh, that's all that the law requires. As the court in the YouTube/Viacom case ruled, under the DMCA, the service provider needs to be made aware of specific locations where infringing content is. They can't just be given a single URL and told to "block all copies of that." Nor would such a request be reasonable either, as infringement depends on context, not content. In the YouTube/Viacom case, Viacom initially sued over files that its own employees had uploaded, meaning they were licensed -- yet it argued those were infringing. You run into the same problem here in that the MPAA is arguing that if you know that a particular file is infringing, all similar content must be removed. But the law does not say that. Though, clearly, the MPAA is seeking to change the interpretation of the law.

Next, the MPAA argues that because Megaupload could have used filtering tools to prevent new uploads of works previously claimed as infringing, and did not do so, that proves it's liable. However, that's completely bogus. Many, many, many copyright cases have all said over and over again that nothing in the DMCA creates a duty for service to proactively filter new uploads. In fact, the industry itself admits that this is true, because they're currently asking Congress to change the law to make this a new legal requirement. Yet, in the Megaupload complaint, they pretend it is already the law:

Megaupload could also have implemented various readily available and effective technological solutions (including, without limitation, automated filtering using digital fingerprinting-based content-identification technology) to identify and prevent infringement of copyrighted content. Megaupload chose not to do so.

But there is no legal reason why it had to do so. In fact, considering that others have spent tens to hundreds of millions of dollars on such systems, there are perfectly good business reasons not to have spent such money. Here, the MPAA is using this lawsuit to try to get a court to suggest there's a legal duty to filter. This would have a huge negative impact on startups who couldn't afford the tens of millions of dollars entry fee.

You can argue that Megaupload was widely used for infringement. You can even argue that Megaupload management were awful people who didn't care that much about copyright. But if you read this lawsuit objectively, you have to admit that it is a straight up attack on the basic principles of cloud computing and user-generated content, while seeking to change settled law and reinterpret the DMCA in a way the MPAA fantasizes it should be, rather than the way the law is today. That's incredible dangerous.

It's no surprise that they're doing this against Megaupload, a company based halfway around the globe, with all its assets seized, and which is fighting a massive criminal complaint at the same time. That will, obviously, lead to limited resources to fight this civil suit, making it easier for the MPAA to sneak through dangerous changes to the law, via potential court rulings. These are changes that it's been unable to get written into the law for the past few years, so now it's using the courts to try to do its dirty work.

No matter what you think of Megaupload, this is a very dangerous lawsuit.

Filed Under: cloud computing, copyright, movies, user generated content
Companies: megaupload, mpaa

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.

Filed Under: civil copyright, copyright, criminal copyright, doj, kim dotcom
Companies: megaupload, mpaa

DOJ Continues To Obstruct Efforts For Megaupload Users To Get Their Files Back

from the because-hollywood-once-told-us-someone-was-dr.-evil dept

For a while we had followed the bizarre situation with Megaupload's servers. As you may recall, the Justice Department seized them all, following its criminal indictment against Megaupload and many of its executives. However, soon after seizing all of the company's servers, the DOJ announced that it no longer needed them and told the hosting company that had them that the data on them could be destroyed. We pointed out that this seemed like a clear case of destruction of evidence by the DOJ. First, it seized pretty much all of the assets of a company, prior to any conviction, and then before any actual judicial proceedings, asked for most of those assets -- many of which could include exculpatory evidence -- to be destroyed. It seemed... quite questionable. That resulted in a bit of a legal battle, as the hosting company storing them, Carpathia, asked what it should be doing (since it's suffering from the cost of keeping the servers). Megaupload sought to buy the servers, but the DOJ has blocked that effort. Last we'd heard, the judge had told everyone to work it all out by themselves.

Torrentfreak has an update, noting that everyone's in a stalemate and nothing seems to be happening:

This effort was stopped because the U.S. didn’t want Kim Dotcom to have access to the files. Hoping to get out of this stalemate the Court then suggested that all affected parties should get together and come up with a solution, thus far without success.

“In separate written requests in the past year both Carpathia and Megaupload have asked Magistrate Judge Anderson – who was appointed by Judge O’Grady to mediate the cloud storage server data issue – to preside over follow-up negotiations on data preservation and consumer access,” Rothken tells TF.

“The US DOJ has shown little interest in such negotiations and the Judge has not been inclined to set any additional meetings,” he adds.

The whole situation is bizarre. Individuals who had legitimate content stored on Megaupload are still asking for access to get back their content, but the DOJ doesn't seem to care at all. In fact, it's coming up with increasingly bizarre excuses to justify shutting down an entire business based on the entertainment industry's say so, and seems to have no qualms about how many people this has created massive problems for.

As the Aereo case is about to be heard, and various concerns about its impact on cloud computing are being raised, people should look over at what's happening with Megaupload's servers and be even more concerned. If the broadcasters succeed in redefining what is a "public performance," it's entirely conceivable that the DOJ could choose to do the same to other cloud services you rely on -- and there seems to be no recourse whatsoever.

Filed Under: doj, evidence, servers
Companies: carpathia, megaupload

New Zealand Supreme Court Says DOJ Doesn't Have To Provide Its Evidence In Megaupload Extradition Case

from the blind-justice dept

Despite two earlier rulings that the US Justice Department needed to provide Kim Dotcom and others involved in Megaupload with the actual evidence being used against them for the extradition trial, an appeals court overturned those rulings and now the New Zealand Supreme Court has agreed in rejecting the request. While the chief judge dissented, the majority found that the extradition treaty does not require the country that has filed the charges against the individuals to provide the information and that the New Zealand courts have no real authority to order the US DOJ to provide the evidence. It does seem rather ridiculous that someone can be sent halfway around the world to face criminal charges without first being able to see the evidence against them, but that's apparently the law in New Zealand. They might want to fix that.

Either way, the actual extradition trial was recently pushed back until July (it had been scheduled to start in a few weeks). Seems quite bizarre that they're only just getting to the trial over extradition nearly two and a half years after Megaupload was seized and shut down. The judicial process isn't exactly known for its speed, which is kind of crazy when you realize how quickly (and with such flimsy evidence) DOJ and New Zealand officials acted to arrest Kim Dotcom and his colleagues.

Filed Under: doj, evidence, extradition, fbi, kim dotcom, new zealand
Companies: megaupload

Perfect 10 At It Again: Sues Web Host Of Megaupload In The Wrong Country With The Wrong Process

from the 10-is-the-loneliest-number dept

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a friend in the copyright discussion in Perfect 10. In case you're not familiar with it, Perfect 10 is a company that at one time produced wanking material before turning to the far more noble endeavor of entertaining the hell out of us by suing everyone on the planet for copyright infringement. I say they're a friend, because they appear to be going to some length to establish good caselaw by losing suit after suit after suit. Their work is exemplary, really, in terms of their inability to win anything at all.

And they're at it again. This time, they have decided to sue LeaseWeb, most notable as the hosting provider for Megaupload.

In their complaint, Perfect 10 accuses LeaseWeb of providing hosting services to several websites that host pirated copies of their images.

“Defendants host and provide Internet connectivity and other essential services to websites, including infringing websites operated in California that have infringed tens of thousands of Perfect 10 Copyrighted Works,” the complaint states.

According to Perfect 10, LeaseWeb currently hosts at least eight websites in the U.S. which store their work without permission; Imgchili.net, imgchili.com, imgtiger.com, imgserve.net, Poringa.net, ultraforos.com, ultraforos.net and Galleryworld.info.

Well, hey, Perfect 10, thanks for letting all of us know exactly where we can find your smut for free, I guess. We have a couple of problems, of course. First, they're suing the hosting provider, indicating that LeaseWeb is "directly responsible" for the infringement done on the aforementioned sites. Then, probably because they realize what a problematic argument that is to make, they mention that LeaseWeb hosted for Megaupload, as though just mentioning the infamous website was some kind of legal trump card. It isn't.

But the problems don't end there. To start, Megaupload is arguing that they regularly comply with DMCA notices sent its way.

“All infringing files Perfect 10 has ever reported to Mega have been removed within hours. We keep track of all DMCA notices and could identify all notifications from Perfect 10 and we have verified that all reported links were disabled within hours."

Some may find that claim dubious, but it doesn't even matter. The point is that hosts typically forward DMCA notices sent their way to the sites in question, who are responsible for taking the content down. LeaseWeb is a hosting service provider. One, by the way, that is hosting sites that aren't even located in the United States.

Leaseweb told Tf that the company hasn’t been served yet, and points out that most of the sites mentioned are hosted by the Dutch LeaseWeb Netherlands BV.

“We use the Dutch Notice and Takedown procedure for LeaseWeb Netherlands BV customers which gives an equivalent protection as the DMCA, we therefor do not see why the US would be the correct forum,” the company states.

So, while Perfect 10 is humbly asking for a mere $188 million in damages, they're likely doing so in the wrong country, against the wrong party, and throwing around an infamous website name like some kind of bower card. That isn't how the law works, but I encourage them to keep at it, since their track record suggests every lawsuit they file results in a winning token for our side.

Filed Under: copyright
Companies: leaseweb, megaupload, perfect 10

New Zealand Spy Agency Deleted Evidence About Its Illegal Spying On Kim Dotcom

from the oops dept

I have to admit that I'm consistently amazed at just how badly law enforcement in both the US and New Zealand appeared to screw up the raid and the case against Kim Dotcom. I've said it a few times before, but it really feels like authorities in both places actually believed the bogus Hollywood hype being spread by the MPAA about how Dotcom was really a James Bondian-villain, and acted accordingly, while ignoring any evidence to the contrary. As you know by now, the New Zealand equivalent of the NSA, the GCSB, illegally spied on Kim Dotcom and other New Zealand residents and citizens -- and the New Zealand government then decided to try to hide that. While the police agreed that the spying was illegal, they declined to do anything about it, so Dotcom sued the government himself.

The latest news in this: GCSB appears to have deleted key evidence in the case in a hamfisted attempt to cover up its illegal activities. Even more ridiculous, GCSB is trying to cover this up by claiming that the material had "aged off" -- implying that it was deleted automatically. New Zealand Prime Minister John Key claims that they had to delete the information under the law.

Of course, there are a few problems with that. The first is that under New Zealand law, like most countries these days, parties have an obligation to preserve documents likely to be necessary in a legal case. But, even more damning is that there's video of John Key in the New Zealand Parliament trying to defend against an earlier claim that GCSB had deleted some evidence by insisting that GCSB does not delete anything ever: In the video, he notes: "This is a spy agency. We don't delete things. We archive them. And they went right back to the ultimate source document, and asked themselves the question: Has there ever been a deletion? And the answer was NO!!" And yet now he's claiming that it's normal everyday policy to delete key evidence?

Filed Under: destruction of evidence, evidence, gcsb, john key, kim dotcom, new zealand
Companies: megaupload

60 Minutes vs. Vice On Kim Dotcom -- Neither One Goes Deep Into The Issues

from the two-sides dept

A few months back I spent quite some time on the phone with two producers from 60 Minutes concerning a story they were planning on Kim Dotcom. They insisted that it was going to be a more nuanced piece than the usual media coverage portraying Dotcom as the "Dr. Evil" of the copyright industry. The episode finally aired this past weekend, and to the show's credit, it definitely does take a somewhat more nuanced look at Dotcom. An interview with Dotcom is the centerpiece of the story, which certainly allows him to express some of his position. However, it also allows a number of highly questionable statements from the FBI and others, including saying that the $500 million that Megaupload made is "lost revenue" from Hollywood. However, when Dotcom himself makes a claim about being a businessman, the reporter openly laughs at him and points out the fact that decades ago, Dotcom claimed to have hacked into government computers. Much of the piece (and the extra material on the web) focuses almost exclusively on the fact that he lives in a mansion (they conveniently leave out that it's rented). It's not a completely one-sided portrait, but it hardly gets at any of the underlying legal issues that are at the core of the case. Basically, every time they suggest any of the legal issues, it's almost immediately followed up by "But look at this amazing house!" Meanwhile, a day or two before the 60 Minutes episode aired, Vice released its own interview with Kim Dotcom which is worth watching as well. It covers some of the same stuff from a very different perspective, of course. A lot more of a focus on video gaming, music and such. Unfortunately, it too, is a bit weak on the legal issues. In the second half of that video (the first half is basically just wandering around the house), Dotcom finally is given some chance to weigh in on legal and policy issues -- things that never come up at all in the 60 Minutes interview. Dotcom focuses much more on the NSA revelations, discussing how it's had such a negative impact on the tech industry. Of course, right after Dotcom goes into discussing all these points, the reporter immediately jumps to asking him about the photos of Dotcom on a private plane and a yacht. Also, way too much of the video focuses on the reporter wanting to sing in one of Dotcom's songs. Really? In the end, both of them are kind of different generations doing the same thing: a story on Kim Dotcom that focuses on "Gee, look at his massive house, and this crazy guy," rather than really presenting the key issues concerning copyright, surveillance, privacy, internet freedom -- and the policies behind all of the laws related to those things. That's too bad, as it's really a lost opportunity for both media properties. Vice at least lets Dotcom raise some of these issues, but pays almost no attention to them.

I can understand the "media" appeal of both stories. Dotcom and his persona are entertaining. But unfortunately, it seems like that too often is used to obscure the underlying issues which are incredibly important and serious.

Filed Under: 60 minutes, kim dotcom, vice
Companies: megaupload

DOJ Releases Some Megaupload Evidence; Actually Shows Difficulty Of Running Cloud Service

from the chilling-effects dept

Following the reports of how the DOJ was sharing Megaupload evidence with private companies, the DOJ has now unsealed details of some of the evidence it has against Megaupload. Looking through the details, it's not surprising that much of it simply repeats things that were in the Megaupload indictment. And, as we noted about the indictment, that seems to include taking a bunch of things out of context, and trying to paint them in the worst possible light, when put back into the context, much of what's discussed doesn't seem that bad at all.

For example, the DOJ discusses Skype chats and emails in which Megaupload employees discuss ways in which they might prevent some infringement from happening, and at other times say things like "I have the feeling that Kim tolerates a certain amount of copyright infringement." While the DOJ seems to think these are damning, it seems like the opposite. It seems clear from a statement like the one quoted that "enabling infringement" wasn't a focus of the operation. After all, if the company was so focused on profiting from infringement, wouldn't it be clearly known and wouldn't it be openly discussed as such? Saying that you think the boss "tolerates a certain amount of copyright infringement" suggests, without any direct evidence, that the company recognizes it needs to deal with the infringement effort, but that there are tradeoffs there. IF the company was really a "piracy conspiracy" as the DOJ and the MPAA like to claim, then you'd think the comments would be much more along the lines of direct quotes about figuring out ways to enable much more infringement. Instead, you get discussions of ways to possibly stop more infringement:

“Maybe we should automatically delete videos on Megavideo that are longer than 30 minutes and have more than XXX views or something because I still see so much piracy that is being embedded.”;

That doesn't sound like something coming from a company that is interested in building a business around infringement. It sounds like a cloud storage provider struggling with the best way to provide the best service possible, while thinking through ways to limit infringement.

As far as I can tell from these snippets, the DOJ seems to be arguing "well, they knew the service was used for infringement, thus they're guilty for not stopping it." But that's not (at all) how the law works. As was found in the Viacom/YouTube case, company officials need to be aware of specific cases of infringement (such as via a clear and complying takedown notice) rather than general knowledge that the platform is used (even widely) for infringement.

Once again, while you never know how a judge might read these statements out of context when presented in the worst possible light by a DOJ that's in-bed with the MPAA, the striking thing to me is that the evidence is so weak. Given just how much the MPAA made Kim Dotcom out to be pure evil, I honestly expected real evidence of an operation built around infringement. The DOJ's case is stunningly weak here. If I were working at the DOJ, honestly, I'd be hoping that the extradition attempt fails, because actually pursuing this case in court runs a very serious risk of a huge embarrassment for the government, bringing a highly questionable case on the weakest of evidence, presented entirely out of context.

Filed Under: doj, evidence, kim dotcom
Companies: megaupload

NZ Customs Refuses To Answer Questions After Revelations Of Illegal Orders To Give FBI Info On Kim Dotcom For 'Brownie Points'

from the the-scandal-expands dept

The scandal around New Zealand law enforcement's illegal activities in helping the US government raid Kim Dotcom's house and file criminal charges against him keeps expanding. The raid on the house has already been declared illegal by the NZ High Court. Then there was the issue of the local equivalent of the NSA, the GCSB, illegally spying on Dotcom for the US, despite rules that forbid GCSB from spying on New Zealand residents. It seems to be getting even worse.

A few days ago, it was revealed that a document, which was illegally withheld from an earlier freedom of information request, showed that a senior New Zealand Customs official named Greg Davis, told staffers that it would "buy you many brownie points" if they shared info about Kim Dotcom with the US FBI -- despite not being allowed to share info like this. At least one of the people who received the email noted that people should "seek legal advice" before handing over such information, but it's unclear if anyone actually did that.

Now, as concerned members of the New Zealand Parliament are wondering why top customs officials were interested in handing over private information on New Zealand residents to a foreign country's intelligence agencies for "brownie points," New Zealand's Customs officials have announced that they will not answer questions about it, in an effort to -- get this -- "protect the privacy" of the guy who sent that email, Greg Davis.

Davis, by the way, was running New Zealand Custom's "Integrated Targeting Operations Centre," which collects a ton of information on travelers. Many in New Zealand had already complained about the possibility of this group to abuse its powers, but at nearly the same time Davis was proving their point, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key was defending the center with that old liar's trope: "anyone who is innocent has nothing to fear." He should have added "unless US officials are interested in you -- then you're fucked."

Filed Under: brownie points, customs, fbi, greg davis, kim dotcom, new zealand
Companies: megaupload