Megaupload Farce Stirring Up Backlash Against Copyright Overreach

from the too-much-to-hope? dept

Just when you think the Megaupload farce can't get any more ridiculous, it does. Following revelations that New Zealand's Government Communications Security Bureau illegally intercepted communications in the Megaupload case and provided those details to law enforcement authorities, the country's Prime Minister has been forced to apologize personally to Kim Dotcom: "Of course I apologize to Mr Dotcom, and I apologize to New Zealanders." From his position of increasing strength as more and more missteps by the New Zealand authorities come to light, Dotcom graciously accepted those apologies.

But the political fall-out is continuing. An article in the New Zealand Herald does a good job rounding up the country's deepening frustration over the way the New Zealand government carried out this botched operation, and at the behest of others:

If provincial newspaper editorials are anything to go by, there is growing anger about the authorities' handling of Kim Dotcom. The Waikato Times' editorial entitled, NZ: 51st state of the US, is particularly worth reading. It says that the announcement of the illegal spying has 'heightened suspicions that this country's relationship with the United States has become one of servility rather than friendship'. The editorial's conclusion is worth quoting at length: 'Dotcom is wanted in the US to face nothing more threatening than breaches of copyright laws.

That last point is new, and important: it means that people outside the world of digital activism are beginning to realize that the underlying reason this series of extraordinary blunders and abuses has come about is because enforcing copyright -- and making an example of those alleged to have infringed on copyright -- has been placed above concerns about an individual's rights, or even the law.

Some are rightly beginning to question whether the price being paid by society in terms of loss of fundamental rights is simply too high for the very limited gains by the media companies as a result of these actions. In a new post on his blog, James Firth explores this theme, and makes a bold claim:

This surely is a watershed moment when even the most ardent securocrats wake up and realise such abuses help no-one. Without public trust in the security apparatus we can never feel free, even if we are.

It would certainly be good news if that were the case, but it remains to be seen how many do in fact wake up -- and whether the grip of the copyright industries on both the legislative and executive branches around the world is loosened as a result.

Another question is whether in the wake of the public outrage over the New Zealand government's supine behavior in the Megaupload case, the latter might start asserting its sovereignty a little more by standing up to the US in the current TPP negotiations, and refusing to submit over things like software patents. It now looks increasingly likely that they will be introduced into New Zealand, and the suspicion has to be that this is partly as a result of continuing US pressure. Saying "no" to software patents would allow the New Zealand government to point to an area where it has defended the country's interests despite demands from elsewhere.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: backlash, copyright, kim dotcom, new zealand
Companies: megaupload

NZ Gets New 'Homeland' Episodes Less Than 4 Hours After US

from the fighting-piracy-and-connecting-fans-by-breaking-windows dept

Despite windowing and regional restrictions being the international sign for "PIRATE ME!" many content providers continue to throw artificial locks on their offerings. Their potential viewers soon discover that "2 weeks out" in TV network time means "3 hours or less" in TorrentTime. If the content providers truly believe that Piracy = Lost Sales, why aren't they doing more to eliminate the gap between the content's debut and its worldwide spread?

It's not as if it's impossible. Another case in point: New Zealand's TV3 is chopping away at the excessive (and arbitrary) delay between Showtime's American debut of Homeland episodes and their availability locally.

TV3 is going to screen the new series of Homeland just four hours after episodes play in the US – with episodes posted to TV3.co.nz's on demand service at midnight on the day of broadcast.

The timing is actually even tighter than that. Here's the breakdown directly from TV3:

Homeland episodes will screen 3 hours 25 minutes after the Pacific Time debuts in the US. That US-NZ gap will be consistent until there's a daylight savings change. The broadcast time in each country won't change.

With ondemand, we can have each ep available from midnight the same night.

As someone in the comments points out, that's roughly the same amount of time it takes for new episodes to show up at, um, "unlicensed" distributors:

4 hours would put it on schedule with me getting it off torrents, so quite viable to watch.

Beating free at its own game often simply means eliminating legacy remnants like exaggerated delays and other restrictions. Even though this move will likely trim down the number of fans looking elsewhere for new episodes, MediaWorks (TV3's parent company) refreshingly claims converting pirates is not the "primary motivation" for this move:

"TV viewing is increasingly a community event, and online communities are global rather than local," spokeswoman Rachel Lorimer told NBR.

"By screening international shows as close to their global premieres as practical, we ensure our audience is part of the global conversation around a big show and, of course, that keeps us relevant. Those are the main motivations.

How often do you hear a spokesperson for a large corporation (content or otherwise) talk about doing what's important for the fans rather than, say, the quarterly financial statements? Many, many content providers refuse to acknowledge that the internet has made "country of origin" a non-factor while also providing an incredibly powerful platform for both distribution and "global conversation."

Lorimer also acknowledges the side benefits of catering to the customers:

"However, positive side effects may well be that our viewers save on their broadband data cap and are less likely to risk illegally downloading TV series. And a win for viewers is a win for us."

Giving viewers what they want when they want it. It's a plan so crazy it might be profitable.

Filed Under: homeland, new zealand, tv, windows
Companies: tv3

NZ Prime Minister Admits That The Government Illegally Wiretapped Megaupload Employees

from the yet-another-mishap dept

Since the January raid of Megaupload, not a month seems to go by in which another massive error in procedures isn't revealed concerning how US and New Zealand law enforcement handled the whole process. And each time, the mistakes seem to get bigger and bigger. They had the wrong warrants. They mishandled evidence. They mishandled the extradition request. And today comes the big news. New Zealand's Prime Minister, John Key, revealed that the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), the equivalent of the NSA in New Zealand, illegally intercepted communications regarding individuals in the Megaupload case and provided those details to law enforcement. Like the NSA, the GCSB is in charge of monitoring electric communications, but is not allowed to use those tools domestically, only on foreign communications. Key has now ordered an investigation.

Mr Key says the Crown has filed a memorandum in the High Court in the Megaupload case advising the Court and affected parties that the GCSB had acted unlawfully while assisting the Police to locate certain individuals subject to arrest warrants issued in the case. The Bureau had acquired communications in some instances without statutory authority.

After being informed about the matter by the Director of the GCSB on September 17, the Prime Minister referred the Bureau’s actions to the Inspector-General, Hon Paul Neazor. The Inspector-General is an independent statutory officer with the power to enquire into any matter related to a government intelligence agency’s compliance with the law.

Once again, like pretty much all of these "mishaps," this seems to suggest a rather cavalier attitude towards actually following proper procedures under the law to go after Dotcom and Megaupload. Throughout this whole process, it really does appear that law enforcement, under pressure from Hollywood, believed that Dotcom was such a criminal mastermind that they could skirt the law in all sorts of ways to try to shut him down. And each time these mishaps come to light, it just raises more and more questions about whether or not law enforcement really had any legitimate evidence or reasons to do what they did.

Filed Under: gcsb, john key, kim dotcom, new zealand, spying, surveillance, wiretapping
Companies: megaupload

Two Years Later, Lobbying By Microsoft & IBM Creates Loophole In New Zealand To Allow Software Patents

from the tried-to-wait-it-out? dept

You may remember a few years ago there was some controversy down in New Zealand over software patents. There was a plan to explicitly outlaw software patents, but then someone accidentally leaked the fact that big tech companies (mainly US ones, like Microsoft and IBM) had lobbied hard against outlawing software patents, leading to a change in plans. After that leak resulted in more public outcry it was claimed that the proposal would go back to outlawing most, but not all software patents. Well, it seems that the supporters of the big US software firms were just biding their time. As various reports are noting, more than two years after all of this, proposed amendments have finally been made to the bill, and they appear to create a massive loophole for software patents, which certainly seems to reflect the desires of Microsoft and IBM's lobbying efforts in the country. One hopes that further public outcry will finally make Kiwi politicians realize that they don't have to do what American companies demand...

Filed Under: lobbying, new zealand, patents, software patents
Companies: ibm, microsoft

New Zealand Court Releases $4.83 Million To Kim Dotcom

from the another-loss-for-the-doj dept

The US government keeps having setback after setback after setback in its legal fight against Kim Dotcom and Megaupload. If the US had its way, all of Dotcom's assets would have been frozen, he would be stuck in jail with no opportunity to be bailed out, and New Zealand would have already rubber stamped extradition papers. But none of that has happened.

The latest is that, against the wishes of the US and the New Zealand governments, the court has granted Dotcom the use of $4.83 million out of the assets that were frozen in order to pay some of his legal expenses (though, not for his US lawyer, Ira Rothken). The order also says that the released funds cannot be used for Dotcom's co-defendants. The ruling, embedded below, is pretty thorough and suggests (yet again) that the US-driven prosecution of Dotcom is mostly focused on trying to railroad him, rather than allow him to mount an adequate defense. He may very well be guilty, but it's pretty shameful that the steps taken by the US and New Zealand governments seem designed to not even give him a chance to properly defend himself. At least the New Zealand court has recognized that's not right, and will allow him access to some funds, with specific limits, so that he can put together his defense.

Mr Dotcom's rights under the NZBORA and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further tip the balance in his favour. The State's contingent interest in the restrained property is of punitive nature and limited to depriving Mr Dotcom of the fruits of his alleged offending. In contrast, Mr Dotcom's access to counsel is supported by his rights to natural justice, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and to consult and instruct a lawyer and to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence. It is generally assumed that the right to access defence counsel includes the right to counsel of the defendant's choice....

Filed Under: kim dotcom, legal fees, new zealand
Companies: megaupload

New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom

from the not-going-well dept

The US's case against Kim Dotcom and Megaupload continues to run into significant problems. While the US Justice Department (with an assist from New Zealand law enforcement) has continued to insist that extraditing Kim Dotcom halfway around the world to the US was a mere formality, and that the evidence against him need not be shown, the courts in New Zealand have taken a rather different view. They refused to rubberstamp the acquisition as the US hoped. Then, the New Zealand High Court stepped in to review the extradition issue, making a final ruling that says that the FBI needs to reveal its evidence and that the extradition request does not comply with the law as currently written.

In other words, a complete and utter failure by the FBI in this effort.

The full ruling (pdf and embedded below) is quite an interesting read, if you've got the time. Basically, the court agrees with the assertion from the US that an extradition hearing isn't meant to try the full case... but, then points out that this doesn't mean you completely ignore the basic rights of the accused. It is still a criminal case, and as such they have certain basic rights that must be observed -- and which the US was trying to deny to Dotcom. The court considers a variety of case law, including some Canadian extradition cases, and even directly notes that some past cases involved "rubber stamp" approvals of extradition (literally using that term). However, more recent cases have pushed back against that and said that the home court need not try all of the evidence, but should at least look at the evidence to see if it is defective.

The court further notes the fundamental unfairness of the argument made by the US and New Zealand: "severely restrict[ing] the ability of [one party] to file relevant evidence would not easily be characterised as 'fair.'"

The bigger question, then, was whether or not the FBI needed to release its evidence to Dotcom, and again, the Court ruled against the US's position. The Court notes that the law enforcement folks rely on obsolete and outdated caselaw to make their argument, and notes that "I do not find this line of authority particularly persuasive" because they really cover different issues, and (of course) the arguments made appear to be stretched from the original intentions. The judge seems to recognize that the FBI and the Crown are making ridiculous arguments, noting that there is "nothing incompatible" with revealing the evidence in New Zealand and then using it in the US case should extradition be granted.

In my view disclosure should be provided by the requesting state. The Act provides the person sought with a right to challenge whether the threshold for extradition has been met before he will be extradited. Consistent with the requirements of... the Bill of Rights Act to a fair hearing, the person sought should be given access to sufficient information to enable him or her to fully participate in that hearing on an equally informed basis. Without access to materials relevant to the extradition hearing phase, the person sought will be significantly constrained in his or her ability to participate in the hearing and the requesting state will have a significant advantage in terms of access to information.

The order lists out what needs to be disclosed, and it's a pretty long list. Basically "all documents" relating to each of the key charges.

Separately, the judge noted that the "Record of Case" document, which the Crown (with the FBI) used to argue for extradition wasn't up to proper legal standards in that it did not provide the necessary info to support extradition.

She also found the "Record of Case", the document which made the argument for extradition, did not currently meet the legal requirements. She said the FBI was under an "obligation of candour" to provide any evidence which could impact on the court's judgment of whether the extradition threshold had been met - and no information had been provided to support FBI claims. The document "did not comply", she said.

Basically, this is the final ruling on this issue. The New Zealand government and the FBI can't appeal it any higher and now have to actually let Dotcom and his lawyers see the evidence against him. What a concept.

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

Video Of Dotcom Raid Revealed, As NZ Police Admit It Was 'Over The Top'

from the ya-think? dept

Yesterday we noted that government officials were seeking to suppress video and images from the raid on Kim Dotcom's home. As a bunch of folks have been sending in all day, New Zealand's 3NEWS has revealed some of the footage in a video interspersed with video from the courtroom hearings and a tour they did a few months ago of the room in which Dotcom hid. It's interesting to note that, contrary to some reports of law enforcement having to "break in" to a "safe room," the reality turned out to just be a hidden room which Dotcom left unlocked. But, much more telling is the ridiculous level of force that the government used to arrest someone for copyright infringement -- which even New Zealand law enforcement admitted was "over the top." Other reports have noted that Dotcom's security staff includes a police officer who could have been approached. Police also admitted that the effort was rushed and done with much less planning than they would have liked (which supports the notion floated by some that the timing was designed to happen right after the massive SOPA protests). Oh yeah, you'll notice in the video that two helicopters (and many police vehicles) were used -- but in court it was revealed that NZ law enforcement had said that "a full tactical response was not appropriate."

Perhaps they just wanted to look good on camera for the MPAA folks who were so infatuated with going after Kim Dotcom. Certainly, Americans were on the scene. NZ law enforcement admitted that the FBI came along for the ride...

Filed Under: copyright, kim dotcom, law enforcement, new zealand, over the top, raid
Companies: megaupload

Why Are New Zealand Prosecutors Seeking To Suppress All Images & Video Of Megaupload Raid?

from the seems-sketchy dept

As lots of publications are reporting, over in New Zealand, Kim Dotcom took the stand to testify about how the police treated him during the raid on his home as part of the international effort to seize and shut down everything related to Dotcom and Megaupload. I have no idea if the claims he makes of being kicked and punched and the like are accurate. I'm sure his detractors will question how trustworthy the testimony is. Frankly, I have no idea how accurate it is.

But here's the thing that I find most interesting. Buried all the way at the end of the Stuff article linked above is the following line:

The Crown is seeking for all images and CCTV footage from the raids to be suppressed.

To me, that seems like a point that should be made up top. If Dotcom is being inaccurate in his descriptions, then wouldn't showing the video and images that prove him wrong basically destroy all of his credibility and help the government with their case? The fact that they're trying to suppress that very evidence certainly lends credence to his claims, and (at the same time) calls into serious question the conduct of law enforcement during the raid.

Filed Under: details, evidence, kim dotcom, new zealand, prosecution, raid, suppression, video

US Has Ignored New Zealand Court Order To Return Data It Seized From Megaupload

from the of-course dept

There are a bunch of moving pieces in the various Megaupload legal proceedings, but if you recall, in the ruling in late June from New Zealand's High Court, it was made clear that the New Zealand government and the US FBI broke the law in sending data from Megaupload's hard drives overseas, and ordered them returned. Megaupload's lawyer, Ira Rothken is out reminding the world that the US has failed to comply with the order to return the data that was illegally taken, and has shown no signs of planning to comply. Apparently, the Justice Department, who is supposed to be enforcing the rule of law, doesn't believe such rule of law applies to its own activities.

Filed Under: data, doj, new zealand
Companies: megaupload

NZ Copyright Industry Claims New 'Three Strikes' Law Halved Movie Infringements After One Month: So What?

from the show-us-the-numbers dept

The implicit justification for various new copyright enforcement laws, such as the "three strikes" approach, is that they will encourage people to buy more authorized digital goods and thus support artists and their works. Naturally, those in favor of this logic like to produce figures that purport to show that it is working.

Here's another example, based on the claimed results from just one month's operation of a new three strikes law in New Zealand:

In a submission to a government review of the legislation's efficiency, NZ FACT [New Zealand Federation Against Copyright Theft] claimed New Zealanders illegally viewed movies in the top 200 online 110,000 times in August last year -- the month before the new law took effect -- but only 50,000 times in September.

Of course, those figures are unverified, and might well be wide of the mark – note that they were in a submission to a review by the New Zealand government, and not something released publicly. But even accepting them for the moment, it's significant that the same report on the Australian IT News site wrote:

Despite the drop in the first month, NZ FACT noted there had been no "discernible progress" since then.

So we have a drop followed by a plateau. The question is: what happens in the longer term? In Sweden, when the IPRED legislation against unauthorized file sharing was brought in, the Internet traffic for the country dropped by 30%, suggesting that the law had modified users' behaviors considerably. But eight months after that, traffic was back up to the original level, indicating that whatever users had stopped doing in the wake of the new law, they were doing it again -- something confirmed by more recent research. Similarly, an early report claimed that the French three strikes program had already resulted in increased digital sales -- except that was not the only possible explanation, as a previous Techdirt post explored.

This pervasive uncertainty means that one month's figures about supposed drops in unauthorized file sharing are really pretty meaningless. What we need to see is the long-term pattern. And more importantly, if there is indeed a significant, sustained fall in such sharing, we need to see an equally significant, sustained uplift in sales that correlates with that fall. Without that kind of positive effect, demonstrated with rigorous data, three strikes programs are little more than an exercise in vindictiveness.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: new zealand, sharing, three strikes