Kickass Torrents Gets The Megaupload Treatment: Site Seized, Owner Arrested And Charged With Criminal Infringement

from the because-of-course dept

So just as the US government itself is accused of being engaged in massive copyright infringement itself, the Justice Department proudly announces that it has charged the owner of Kickass Torrents with criminal copyright infringement claims. The site has also been seized and the owner, Artem Vaulin, has been arrested in Poland. As with the original Kim Dotcom/Megaupload indictment, the full criminal complaint against Vaulin is worth reading.

As with the case against Dotcom/Megaupload, the DOJ seems to ignore the fact that there is no such thing as secondary liability in criminal infringement. That's a big concern. Even though Kickass Torrents does not host the actual infringing files at all, the complaint argues that Vaulin is still legally responsible for others doing so. But that's not actually how criminal copyright infringement works. The complaint barely even shows how Vaulin could be liable for the infringement conducted via Kickass Torrents.

But, of course, that doesn't matter because the guy at Homeland Security Investigations (formerly: ICE: Immigrations & Customs Enforcement) just spoke to the MPAA and the MPAA said that Kickass Torrents had no permission to link to their content. Yes, link.

As part of the investigation, I have communicated with representatives of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) regarding this investigation. The representatives provided me with information the MPAA had developed about KAT, among other websites. The representatives stated that the MPAA closely monitors KAT and that a significant portion of the movies available on KAT are protected by copyright. The representatives also specified that the MPAA has not granted permission to KAT to index, link, frame, transmit, retransmit, provide access to, or otherwise aid or assist those who distribute and reproduce infringing copies of copyrighted motion picture or television content of MPAA members.

Here's the thing: most of those things listed above are not rights granted by the copyright act. The copyright act is pretty specifically limited to a few rights, including reproduction and distribution. But, again, note the games played in the complaint: "index, link, frame, transmit, retransmit, provide access to" don't directly infringe on the stated copyright exclusive rights (yes, there are some cases where some of the above may infringe on some of the exclusive rights, but it's not particularly cut and dry). So instead, the government tosses in this "otherwise aid or assist those who distribute and reproduce infringing copies of copyrighted motion picture or television content."

So, you see, once again, the government is creating a form of secondary liability for copyright infringement that does not exist in the law. That's a problem. Because that's not how criminal copyright law works. At all.

Furthermore, the complaint goes on about how KAT, as it calls Kickass Torrents, rejected DMCA takedown notices for a variety of reasons, but leaves out the fact that KAT is not an American company and is not under the jurisdiction of US laws. So I'm not entirely clear why US copyright laws apply here. The best they can do is note that they found a few servers that were apparently in Chicago.

The complaint spends lots of time on the fact that KAT makes a fair bit of money from advertising revenue. But, again, I'm not entirely clear how that's relevant to the claim of criminal copyright infringement. The implicit argument is clearly "people go to KAT to get infringing content, the site makes advertising from all that traffic, thus the revenue is ill-gotten gains." But... again that relies on the idea that KAT itself is engaged in criminal behavior. Creating a popular tool for finding content -- some of which may be infringing -- and then making money from advertising, are separate things. It seems wrong to make this weird if->then conditional assumption that just because the site made lots of money it was infringing.

No one is suggesting that Kickass Torrents was not regularly used by individuals to infringe on copyrights. It was. A lot. And you can argue how horrible that is and how it was killing Hollywood and all that -- but the specifics here do matter. The same arguments were made about the VCR for years. After all, the MPAA insisted that it was used exclusively to infringe on content for years until they finally realized that it was a good idea to release content for the home video market. And, again, the US government isn't allowed to make up criminal liability concepts that aren't actually in the law. They, and their supporters, of course will now argue that it's not about secondary liability, but about "aiding and abetting." But that argument doesn't fly either. The standards for aiding and abetting are much more involved -- and would require that the actual infringement be criminal. But that won't fly, because the individuals downloading via Kickass Torrents weren't violating criminal copyright law themselves.

In other words, the DOJ is trying to argue that helping a bunch of people engaged in civil copyright infringement magically turns into criminal aiding and abetting. But that's not how the law works.

Meanwhile, the DOJ's press release on this is filled with all the usual insane bluster:

"Copyright infringement exacts a large toll, a very human one, on the artists and businesses whose livelihood hinges on their creative inventions," said U.S. Attorney Fardon. "Vaulin allegedly used the Internet to cause enormous harm to those artists. Our Cybercrimes unit at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago will continue to work with our law enforcement partners around the globe to identify, investigate and prosecute those who attempt to illegally profit from the innovation of others."

Funny. Is he also going to charge the US Navy for its massive copyright infringement? Or is that not the kind of copyright infringement harm Fardon goes after?

"Vaulin is charged with running today’s most visited illegal file-sharing website, responsible for unlawfully distributing well over $1 billion of copyrighted materials," said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell. "In an effort to evade law enforcement, Vaulin allegedly relied on servers located in countries around the world and moved his domains due to repeated seizures and civil lawsuits. His arrest in Poland, however, demonstrates again that cybercriminals can run, but they cannot hide from justice."

The $1 billion of copyrighted materials is a nice touch, but again represents merely the estimated cover price, not any actual losses to the industry. Not that the DOJ wants to admit that. But the next guy is even worse, no longer just claiming that over $1 billion was distributed, but directly stating that Vaulin stole $1 billion.

"Artem Vaulin was allegedly running a worldwide digital piracy website that stole more than $1 billion in profits from the U.S. entertainment industry," said Executive Associate Director Edge. "Protecting legitimate commerce is one of HSI’s highest priorities. With the cooperation of our law enforcement partners, we will continue to aggressively bring to justice those who enrich themselves by stealing the creative work of U.S. artists."

Aren't law enforcement people supposed to actually know the law? There was no stealing. There may have been copyright infringement using the tool that Vaulin built, but that's not stealing.

"Investigating cyber-enabled schemes is a top priority for CI," said Chief Weber. "Websites such as the one seized today brazenly facilitate all kinds of illegal commerce. Criminal Investigation is committed to thoroughly investigating financial crimes, regardless of the medium. We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to unravel this and other complex financial transactions and money laundering schemes where individuals attempt to conceal the true source of their income and use the Internet to mask their true identity."

Illegal commerce? It was basically a search engine for free content. What illegal commerce happened there?

Yes, yes, lots of infringement happened via the site. No one denies that. But having law enforcement folks stand up and make clueless statements like this suggest they don't even understand what Kickass Torrents did, and they just want to puff themselves up and look good for Hollywood.

Meanwhile: does anyone really believe that this move will cause anyone who used KAT to suddenly go back to purchasing movies?

Filed Under: aiding and abetting, artem vaulin, copyright, criminal copyright infringement, dhs, doj, hsi, ice, secondary liability
Companies: kickass torrents, mpaa

Larry Lessig Tells New Zealand Court That DOJ's Case Against Kim Dotcom Is A Sham

from the taking-it-up-a-notch dept

As Kim Dotcom's extradition case appears set to finally be heard (after many, many delays), Dotcom has brought in some interesting firepower. Presidential candidate and famed legal scholar Larry Lessig has submitted an affidavit that completely destroys the DOJ's case. He argues not only that Dotcom's actions do not amount to any sort of extraditable offense, but that they don't even seem to be against US law at all. If you've been following the case at all, you know that under the US/New Zealand extradition treaty, copyright infringement is not an extraditable offense. That's why the US has lumped in a bunch of questionable claims about "conspiracy" and "wire fraud." But most of those are just repeating the infringement claims in different ways. Lessig dismantles all of them and suggests the DOJ case is a lot of smoke and mirrors. His summary brings it all together:

It is my opinion that the Superseding Indictment and Record of the Case filed by the DOJ do not meet the requirements necessary to support a prima facie case that would be recognized by United States federal law and subject to the US-NZ Extradition Treaty. An attempt has been made to extract facts from multiple sources and over a wide span of time, to organize a large number of otherwise disconnected facts by using systematic phraseology and to juxtapose phrases in order to create an impression of coherence and substance. However, the attempt fails to reach its goals and any impression of coherence or substance dissolves under examination. Insofar as they are alleged in the Superceding Indictment and the ROC, respondents’ actions were not prohibited by criminal statutes of the United States. Filings of the DOJ attempt to create a false impression of criminal guilt and are not reliable.

Lessig's detailed analysis covers many of the same issues I raised just days after the raid on Dotcom's mansion and his arrest. Basically, it appears that the DOJ is trying to make up a form of criminal copyright infringement that is based on "well, Hollywood really dislikes him." A key issue, as we've discussed in the past, is that there is no such thing as secondary criminal copyright infringement. The Supreme Court, in the Grokster case, created a concept known as inducement for civil copyright infringement, but criminal copyright infringement cannot be expanded by the courts -- only by congress. Yet, the DOJ is trying to pretend that there is such a thing as secondary criminal infringement, despite it not being in the law.

... criminal copyright liability cannot be broadened by invoking civil concepts of secondary copyright infringement directly or under the guise of the general aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2. See Sup. Ind. Counts Four, Five, Six, Seven, and Eight. The United States legislature previously removed “aiding and abetting” from the copyright act, evincing an intent to eliminate that form of liability

He further notes that the indictment and DOJ arguments repeatedly refer to the DMCA, but the DMCA is only for civil copyright infringement, not for criminal:

The DMCA is only a defense in the civil context because only civil indirect or secondary liability is possible under the common law. Common law liability principles cannot be extended to criminal liability, which must be specifically proscribed by statute. See Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, 213-214 (1985). Because there cannot be common law crimes under United States law, the DMCA further emphasizes that criminal indirect liability for copyright infringement does not exist by statute.

And thus, Megaupload's "failures" to follow the DMCA cannot be the basis of criminal charges:

... allegations of defendant’s failure to maintain a DMCA policy or defects in a defendant’s DMCA procedures cannot be the basis of criminal copyright charges....

And, of course, he points out that under the Sony Betamax case that confirmed VCRs were legal in the US, the standard the Supreme Court set up was if a technology had "substantial non-infringing uses," which Megaupload clearly had.

Lessig also points out something that should be pretty obvious, but is often forgotten: the US Copyright Act does not apply outside the US.

An important limitation on enforcement powers of the DOJ is the principle that the United State Copyright Act has no application outside of the territorial bounds of the US, and therefore there is neither civil nor criminal liability under United States law for acts of infringement taking place outside of US borders.

And, yes, the DOJ points out that Megaupload had servers in the US, but as Lessig points out that's not enough under US law:

The Superseding Indictment does discuss the existence of Megaupload servers in the United States.... But the mere presence of data servers in Virginia does not establish that direct infringement took place there. See, e.g., CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, 549-50 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that direct infringement under the civil standard requires more than “mere ownership of a machine used by others to make illegal copies” and that there “must be actual infringing conduct[.]”); Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, 131-32 (2d Cir. 2008) (direct civil infringement requires “volitional conduct,” not mere ownership of device used by others to infringe).

The Superseding Indictment never states that any specific user, much less any of the criminal defendants, chose to upload or download any specific infringing work from within the United States.

That seems like a pretty big flaw in the DOJ's case.

Perhaps an even bigger flaw? The lack of any showing that any of the defendants engaged in all of the required elements for criminal copyright infringement:

the DOJ fails to show direct criminal copyright infringement on the part of Megaupload personnel or on the part of Megaupload cloud storage users. The allegations in the Superseding Indictment and the Record of the Case do not match up to all of the elements of offenses. Importantly, there is no showing that any specific Megaupload representative or third-party user had the requisite mens rea to willfully violate copyright law. There is an even more fatal failure to show that Megaupload personnel agreed with a third party user to commit such violations. An agreement requires communications between defendants and the user, not just discussions among Megaupload personnel and a general “environment of infringement.” Attempts to juxtapose pieces of allegations do not succeed in making even a single whole, unified criminal charge.

As Lessig details, criminal copyright infringement requires willful infringement for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain. The complaint does not do a very good job of showing the "willful" part. Just showing that the company was slow to take down content is not enough. In fact, Lessig points out, charges of criminal copyright infringement need to list out the actual works infringed and then show all the other necessary elements:

proof of charges of both Criminal Copyright Infringement and also Conspiracy to commit such crimes must identify specific copyrighted works on a work by work, link by link basis, and describe the who, what, when, where, why, and how to meet all the elements for each such instance and to examine fair use, amongst other things. The “willfulness” requirement means that a person must have had the specific intent to commit copyright infringement as to each individual work.

And yet, the Dotcom indictment fails to do basically all of that.

As for the attempt to get around the fact that there is no secondary infringement in criminal law by saying, "oh, well, it's just aiding and abetting," that doesn't fly either. Yes, users may have willfully infringed, but the evidence is lacking that the Megaupload team did the same, and just "aiding and abetting" doesn't work:

Aiding and abetting requires a showing of “double wilfulness,” which is lacking in the Superceding Indictment and ROC. A vague charge of “making available” a copyrighted work under a theory of “Aiding and Abetting Criminal Copyright Infringement,” is insufficient. In my opinion the government has failed to allege sufficient facts that the Megaupload defendants shared in any alleged infringer’s criminal willful intent. Gestalt allegations that the Megaupload cloud storage system brought about the arrangment that made the vague criminal acts of the alleged infringers possible is insufficient “willfulness” as a matter of law. As discussed above, Megaupload did not exercise volitional control over user uploads, link sharing, and downloads.

Basically, he's calling out the fact that the DOJ is picking and choosing different actions by completely different actors and trying to tie them all together to create all the elements for criminal copyright infringement. But you can't do that.

The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the aiding and abetting statute converts an accomplice into a principal, but that aiding and abetting is neither a separate crime nor is it relevant to the distinct crime of conspiracy. See Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 11 (1954) (“Aiding, abetting, and counseling are not terms which presuppose the existence of an agreement. Those terms . . . mak[e] the defendant a principal when he consciously shares in a criminal act, regardless of the existence of a conspiracy.”) (emphasis added). Therefore, allegations that defendants aided or abetted a crime of copyright infringement do not amount to an extraditable offense. The crime, if it exists, must be specifically shown.

A similar argument dooms all the "conspiracy" charges. End users may have willfully infringed, but that doesn't create a "conspiracy" between them and the Megaupload team.

United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756 (4th Cir. 2010), a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is particularly instructive. In that case, the court was asked to decide if a store that sold thousands of glass vials was engaged in a conspiracy to distribute heroin, since it was well known that such glass vials were used primarily to package heroin for sale. Id. at 767-73. The Fourth Circuit explained that merely selling the vials was not sufficient to demonstrate the crime of conspiracy without something more. Id. The court would have required that the defendant possess explicit knowledge of specific plans to distribute heroin in order to be convicted of conspiracy. Id. This is consistent with other Fourth Circuit decisions which generally require a "showing that the defendant knew the conspiracy's purpose and took some action indicating his participation." Chorman, 910 F.2d at 109.

As mentioned above, a member of the conspiracy must undertake some "overt act" which furthers the underlying offense of the conspiracy. Chorman, 910 F.2d at 109. Thus, in order to properly state a claim for conspiracy to commit felony copyright infringement, there must be an agreement between two individuals to commit that crime, and then one of the individuals, who is a party to the agreement, must commit an act in furtherance of that crime.

As discussed above, infringing acts are alleged to have been committed by unnamed Megaupload users. A crime of conspiracy requires an agreement with criminal infringers. No such agreement is shown.

Lessig notes that while the record in the case shows lots of communication between Megaupload staff, it shows none between the staff and the users of the site who are actually doing the infringing. That's a pretty weak conspiracy.

there is no allegation of direct communication with the user, and no reason to believe that the Megaupload employees entered into a relationship with the user beyond a series of retail transactions regarding cloud storage space on the Megaupload leased servers.

Lessig also rips apart the arguments for wire fraud, noting that they all seem to be based on the idea that Megaupload didn't abide by the DMCA (again a US law).

Alleged frauds revolve around Megaupload’s practices under the DMCA and around an “Abuse Tool” Megaupload provided to copyright owners or agents who wanted to deliver to Megaupload DMCA notices of infringing materials on the Megaupload site and automatically disable access to such materials. It is alleged that Megaupload made misrepresentations in connection with the Abuse Tool, promising to delete access to referenced materials while only deleting the referenced URLs and without deleting all other URLs in the database that pointed to such materials. It is further alleged that the Abuse Tool did not operate as represented, that deletions were delayed and that the site promised to terminate repeat infringers but failed to do so....

As mentioned above, the DMCA serves to explicitly limit the copyright liability of Internet service providers and to provide a “safe harbor” from copyright claims.... If an online service provider like Megaupload is noncompliant the result is loss of the civil safe harbor defense not a criminal fraud.

Furthermore, Lessig notes that for there to be wire fraud, US law requires a scheme to defraud users and then the use of mail or wire in furtherance of that scheme. Yet the indictment is lacking in defrauded parties.

It is alleged that Megaupload received “advertising revenue as a result of the continued availability of files,” while never stating that the copyright holders themselves made any pay outs.... Thus, there is no allegation that the advertisers were ever lied to, deceived or misled; in other words, the party deceived and the party that lost property were two completely different individuals.

It is also alleged that Megaupload received money from users who purchased premium subscriptions.... However, as with the advertisers, there is no indication that the users were deceived or misled in any way.

Moreover, the DOJ must look at the monies actually received when charging the crime of wire fraud, and cannot look to any “intangible right” that may belong to the copyright holder. United States courts have explained that intangible rights cannot form the basis of a wire fraud charge. See United States v. Hilling, 891 F.2d 205, 208 (9th Cir. 1988) (reversing a mail fraud conviction based on intangible rights). Nor is a “license” a recognized property right. See United States v. Schwartz, 924 F.2d 410, 418 (2d Cir. 1991) (overturning wire fraud conviction because “[t]he [] licenses given appellants were merely the expression of its regulatory imprimatur, and they had no other effect as ‘property’”).

And all of that dooms the wire fraud claims:

In sum, the DOJ only alleges that one party was deceived: the copyright holders.... However, that party cannot lay a claim to a recognized property right that Megaupload is alleged to have taken; at best the rights claimed would be the right to license their works, or similar intangible rights which cannot form the basis of a wire fraud conviction.

Another defect in the DOJ approach is that it is contrary to the DMCA. The Fourth Circuit has repeatedly upheld the principal of statutory interpretation which holds that courts “must give effect to every provision and word in a statute and avoid any interpretation that may render statutory terms meaningless[.]” Scott v. United States, 328 F.3d 132, 139 (4th Cir. 2003). Here, in order to give proper effect to the DMCA, the wire fraud statute cannot be interpreted to criminalize Megaupload’s conduct.

Lessig also attacks the idea that Megaupload even violated the DMCA in the first place. As he notes, the law says a service provider needs to "reasonably implement" a DMCA policy, but leaves the interpretation of "reasonably implements" up to the courts. And the standard interpretation, from the Perfect 10 v. ccBill case is that it's reasonably implemented "if it has a working notification system, a procedure for dealing with DMCA-compliant notifications, and if it does not actively prevent copyright owners from collecting information needed to issue such notifications." And Megaupload had all of that.

The DOJ, instead, is rather incredibly arguing that because Megaupload did not immediately delete 100% of infringing files, it violated the DMCA and thus is guilty of criminal copyright infringement. That's stretching the laws way past breaking points in multiple directions.

The DOJ does not allege that Megaupload had no policy at all, nor does the DOJ allege that Megaupload “actively prevent[ed] copyright owners from collecting information[.]” Instead, the DOJ charges a much lower standard: that Megaupload failed to terminate 100% of all repeat infringers, ... and moreover, that this failure, in the face of Megaupload’s stated policy, was a misrepresentation sufficient to sustain a charge of wire fraud....

The purpose of the DMCA is to prevent liability where a defendant has stated a policy and reasonably implemented it—not where a defendant has failed to terminate each and every repeat infringer. Indeed, the statute recognizes that service providers are not required to terminate all repeat infringers in order to comply with the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512(I)(1)(A)) or to remove their posted content. See e.g. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., 2014 WL 8628034, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2014) (“Giganews had no obligation to indiscriminately remove every post a repeat infringer ever posted and Perfect 10 may not shift its burden of policing copyright infringement to Giganews in the guise of a claim for direct infringement.”).

Were the DOJ able to simply charge defendants with a separate crime (in this case wire fraud) then the liability safe harbor becomes meaningless, and Scott v. United States is thus violated. As a result, it is improper to interpret the wire fraud statute as criminalizing Megaupload’s actions, and the proper interpretation is to give effect to the DMCA’s stated safe harbor provisions.

Lessig also points out that the DOJ is just wrong on its argument that after receiving a notice on a file, Megaupload must delete all versions of that file. That's not what the law says at all.

The DOJ appears to be asserting that an online operator who receives copyright take down notices identifying one URL must search for and delete all duplicate files in the system or be subject to a copyright or fraud claim. In my opinion the DOJ’s theory of copyright or fraud liability is erroneous.

Megaupload reduced operating loads by “deduplication,” namely maintaining only a single copy of a file in its database and generating multiple pointers to such file. Each pointer identified an uploader of the common file. It is possible for one uploader to have a right to fair use of a copy of a file, e.g., a purchaser uploading a backup or an educational organization offering critical commentary, while other uploaders might have no such fair use right. It is contrary to the purpose of the DMCA that a fair use right would be violated though a take-down notice directed at another person’s wrongful use. If such a violation were to occur, the provider of the take-notice would be subject to liability under the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512(f)).

Such an approach can lead to mass DMCA 512(f) misrepresentation claims against the DMCA noticing parties.

As he notes, the US courts -- particularly in the Lenz case -- have said that takedowns require looking at fair use. And if the DOJ's theory was accurate, that would be wiped out, because notices would be sent for files without any idea if they were fair use or not.

There's a lot more in the document, but it basically picks apart the entire DOJ indictment, and points out that they're making up new criminal theories that they're not allowed to, and misrepresenting other claims at the same time. Thus, not only is it not clear that Dotcom did anything deserving of extradition, it's not even clear that he broke any laws at all.

Of course... whether or not the New Zealand court pays attention to any of this, remains to be seen -- but it is a strong argument from a well respected and knowledgeable source.

Filed Under: criminal copyright infringement, doj, extradition, kim dotcom, larry lessig, new zealand, secondary infringement
Companies: megaupload

US Court Rules That Kim Dotcom Is A 'Fugitive' And Thus DOJ Can Take His Money

from the um. dept

In the long, convoluted and complex legal battles facing Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom, there was some bizarre stuff that happened late last year. As you may recall, early on, the US government seized basically all of his stuff and money. Dotcom has made efforts to get some of it returned, as it's tough to fight the most powerful government in the world when it's holding onto all of your money. Keep in mind from our previous discussions on asset seizure and forfeiture, the government can basically seize whatever it wants, just by claiming it was somehow related to a crime, but the seizure is only a temporary process. If the government wants to keep it, it then needs to go through a separate process known as civil asset forfeiture, which is effectively the government suing the assets. Back in July, the US government moved to forfeit everything it had seized from Dotcom in a new lawsuit with the catchy name USA v. All Assets Listed In Attachment A, And All Interest, Benefits, And Assets Traceable Thereto. As you may have guessed, Attachment A [pdf] is basically all of Kim Dotcom's money and posessions.

Back in November, the DOJ argued that it should get to keep all of Kim Dotcom's money and stuff because he's a "fugitive", which is a bizarre and ridiculous way to portray Kim Dotcom, who has been going through a long and protracted legal process over his potential extradition from New Zealand (though he's offered to come to the US willingly if the government lets him mount a real defense by releasing his money). Dotcom's lawyers told the court that it's ridiculous to call him a fugitive, but it appears that Judge Liam O'Grady didn't buy it.

In a ruling [pdf] that was just posted a little while ago, O'Grady sided with the government, and gave the DOJ all of Dotcom's things. You can read the full reasoning here and it seems to take on some troubling logic. Dotcom's lawyers pointed out, as many of us have, that there is no secondary copyright infringement under criminal law, but the judge insists that there's enough to show "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement." But the reasoning here is bizarre. Part of it is the fact that Megaupload did remove links to infringing content from its top 100 downloads list. To me, that seems like evidence of the company being a good actor in the space, and not trying to serve up more infringing downloads. To Judge O'Grady and the DOJ, it's somehow evidence of a conspiracy. No joke.

The government has alleged that the conspirators knew that these files were infringing copyrights, as evidenced by their exclusion of infringing files from the "Top 100" list. The "Top 100" list purported to list the most frequently downloaded files on Megaupload.... According to the government, an accurate list would have consisted almost entirely of infringing content, so the claimants "carefully curated" the list to make the site look more legitimate.... Additionally, the claimants regularly told copyright holders, including many U.S.-based organizations, that they would remove infringing content, when in actuality they only removed particular links to the files.... The actual infringing files remained on the Mega-controlled servers and could be accessed from other links.

As for that latter part, there are tons of perfectly legitimate reasons to only remove the links and not the underlying files. If Megaupload was doing deduping, then some version of the same file could be perfectly legitimate. Let's take an example: say that you and I have an MP3 of a Katy Perry song. I upload it to Megaupload to keep as a backup. You upload it to distribute to the world. Megaupload dedupes it, and just has the file stored one time. Your link could be potentially infringing if you distribute unauthorized copies, whereas my copy may be a legitimate personal backup. Given that, Megaupload should only delete the links that are called out as infringing, rather than the underlying files, which -- depending on their use -- may or may not be infringing. But the court just takes the DOJ's version and says "good enough for me."

The court also has no problem with the fact that most of the assets aren't in the US, noting that since some of the "conspiracy" took place in the US, that's good enough. It more or less brushes off the concerns raised by Dotcom and the other defendants that this appears to violate existing treaties between New Zealand and the US -- basically saying that because Dotcom refuses to come to the US, it's not "punitive." Huh? On top of that, the judge says that taking all of Dotcom's assets shouldn't interfere with the legal process in New Zealand, because the New Zealand courts could (yeah right) reject the DOJ's request after this ruling to hand over Dotcom's assets.

Then we get to the whole "fugitive" bit. Judge O'Grady notes that the statute does allow him to call anyone who "declines to enter" the United States a fugitive, and argues that Dotcom fits that description. Furthermore, he actually argues that Dotcom's offer to the DOJ to come willingly to the US if the money is freed for his defense actually works against Dotcom, and gives weight to the fugitive claim:

As demonstrated, Dotcom need not have previously visited the United States in order to meet the prerequisites of § 2466. The statute is satisfied where the government shows that the claimant is on notice of the criminal charges against him and refuses to "enter or reenter" the country with the intent to avoid criminal prosecution. Because the court assesses intent under the totality of the circumstances, it is certainly relevant that Dotcom has never been to the United States and that he has lived in New Zealand since 2011, where he resides with his family. This tends to show that he has other reasons for remaining in New Zealand besides avoiding criminal prosecution. However, the existence of other motivations does not preclude a finding that he also has a specific intent to avoid criminal prosecution. Dotcom's statements, made publicly and conveyed by his attorneys to the government, indicate that he is only willing to face prosecution in this country on his own terms. See Technodyne, 753 F.3d at 386 (2d Cir. 2014) ("The district court was easily entitled to view those [requests for bail], evincing the [claimants'] desire to face prosecution only on their own terms, as a hallmark indicator that at least one reason the [claimants] declined to return in the absence of an opportunity for bail was to avoid prosecution"). Dotcom has indicated through his statements that he wishes to defend against the government's criminal charges and litigate his rights in the forfeiture action. If it is truly his intent to do so, then he may submit to the jurisdiction of the United States.

In short, damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is the justice system, ladies and gentlemen. The DOJ gets to seize and keep all your money, and merely asking for access to it to fight to show your innocence is used as a reason to allow the DOJ to keep it. So he comes to the US and has to fight criminal charges without his own money, or he stays in New Zealand and the government uses it as an excuse to keep all the money. How is any of this even remotely fair? Where is the "due process" in totally handicapping Dotcom from presenting a defense?

Again, it is entirely possible that Dotcom and the others broke the law -- though the case certainly does look pretty weak to me. But what's really astounding is how far the DOJ appears to want to go to make it absolutely impossible for Dotcom to present a full defense of his case.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, conspiracy, copyright, copyright infringement, criminal copyright infringement, doj, fugitive, kim dotcom
Companies: megaupload

Feds Tie Themselves In Legal Knots Arguing For Domain Forfeiture In Rojadirecta Case

from the that-makes-no-sense dept

If you don't recall, among the various domains that ICE and the DOJ seized last year were two domains -- rojadirecta.com and rojadirecta.org -- held by a Spanish company, Puerto 80. After extended negotiations to try to get the government to return the domain names, Puerto 80 finally sued the government to get them back. Almost immediately after, the government filed to forfeit the domains (seizing property is supposed to be a temporary thing -- if the owner wants it back, the government has to file for forfeiture to keep it permanently). Thus there are two semi-parallel issues going on here. Either way, the judge rejected the request to return the domains prior to the trial, and while the appeal on that process is ongoing, back in the district court, the fight over forfeiture has continued.

Last December (actually the same day that the government was handing back the Dajaz1 domain in a similar dispute), the lower court dismissed the forfeiture claim -- saying that the government failed to plead willful copyright infringement, which is necessary to show criminal copyright infringement. However, it allowed the government to refile, which it did. The two sides have filed their latest motions in the case, and once again, it appears that they're talking about two totally different things. In fact, reading through the government's filing, it appears that they either have no understanding of the law itself, or have twisted themselves into such a tight knot, that they're not sure how to get out of it.

The details are a bit tedious, but let's see if we can break it out. First off, the seizure and forfeiture are "in rem" -- meaning that the case is against the domains themselves, and not the owners of the domains. That can be an awkward distinction, obviously, but the government makes it much, much more awkward in that it seems to shift its argument back and forth constantly. For example, it repeatedly (in a rather mocking tone) rejects the arguments of Puerto 80 by noting that no one is accusing Puerto 80 of anything. The case is merely about how the Rojadirecta domains "facilitate" criminal copyright infringement. So the government argues that the court should ignore the (rather compelling) defenses for why Puerto 80 did not violate criminal copyright law.

Now, that part is fine... but where it gets weird is that the government immediately then tries to use Puerto 80s actions as proof of facilitating infringement. If you're playing along with the home game, the government is arguing both that Puerto 80s actions are meaningless to the case and that Puerto 80's actions are the key to facilitating criminal copyright infringement. Basically, whenever Puerto 80 points out that its actions do not meet the standard of criminal copyright infringement, the government waves its hands and says "doesn't matter, we're not charging you, just the URL." But then to prove that the URL "facilitated" the actions, it cites Puerto 80's actions, rather than the URL's actions. That's because the URL doesn't act. It's just a URL. See the following as an example:

Additionally, there can be no serious argument that the Government has alleged that the Rojadirecta Domain Names' facilitation of the underlying copyright offense was anything but substantial. See Amended Complaint... ("At all relevant times, the links displayed on the main homepage of the Rojadirecta Website were purposefully aggregated and organized by the owner(s) and/or operator(s) of the Rojadirecta Website. Moreover, more than half of the material available on the Rojadirecta Website at any given time during law enforcement's investigation appeared to be dedicated to making infringing content available to users of the Rojadirecta Website.")....

Puerto 80's arguments about its own conduct are irrelevant and misapprehend the nature of the inquiry

See that? First it's "here's all the evidence of things done by Puerto 80"... and then immediately, "Puerto 80's actions are irrelevant".

At times this reaches absolutely absurd levels, such as the part of the government's filing in which they assert that the domain itself had knowledge of infringement. The feds can't say Puerto 80 had knowledge, since (again) they admit that Puerto 80 is not being charged. So they switch and anthropomorphize the domain itself:

Indeed, the Rojadirecta Domain Names were repeatedly noticed that they were linking to copyright infringing content.

You see? It's not Puerto 80 who was noticed, but the domain name itself. It must have "known." Or something.

The government's argument gets even worse from there, because nowhere does it show where the criminal copyright infringement happened. In order for the government to claim that the Rojadirecta domains facilitated criminal copyright infringement, you would think the first step would have to be to show where it actually happened. Here, the government basically waves its hand and says, "of course it happened." First, it highlights the fact that because of links on the Rojadirecta sites, content could be streamed from third party sites. In fact, it straight out admits that Rojadirecta hosted no infringing content, but rather it was all on these other sites. It then notes that such streams likely violated the performance and reproductions rights under the Copyright Act. That may be true, but that, alone, does not make it a criminal offense. That requires willfulness -- which was the problem in the original filing.

But, here again, the feds run into a serious problem: how can they show willfulness on the part of the infringer when they never identify an infringer? The entire filing insists that the domains should be forfeited because they were used to facilitate a crime, but they never show that any crime was actually committed, because they never even attempt to identify who committed the crime. They admit that it's not Puerto 80 (even as they try to use Puerto 80's actions). It likely isn't the users of Rojadirecta (and the government doesn't even try to make that claim). Instead, it seems to hint at an imaginary party who willfully infringed, but is never actually identified! It's really amazing.

The implications here are staggering. Basically, the feds are arguing that they can seize and then forfeit a domain without showing any crime actually happened. Instead, all they need to do is vaguely assert that someone, somewhere may have possibly violated a law somehow using the domain in the process -- but they never have to actually prove anyone violated the specific law. In other words, if the government wanted to, under this definition, it could easily seize and forfeit any search engine domain or any website that allows public comments, merely by asserting that a link in a search result or a link in a comment led to infringing material. That's an insane interpretation of the law -- yet it appears to be the one that the feds are asserting.

One hopes that the judge actually understands the absolutely insanity of the feds' argument here. Puerto 80's lawyers lay it out nicely (pdf) in their response, but courts can be funny sometimes -- especially in copyright cases. Still, the argument made by Puerto 80's lawyers lay out just how ridiculous this interpretation would be:

Under the government’s construction of [the law], every domain name that pointed to a website containing links to infringing copies would “facilitate” and have a “substantial connection” to the offense of criminal copyright infringement, and would therefore be subject to forfeiture. The broad construction of the term “facilitation” the government seeks would give it the power to shut down google.com, yahoo.com, bing.com, or any of an array of other channels of communication that—like every site on the Internet—link to content provided by third parties that might or might not be infringing. The property in question is two domain names, which (in the government’s words) are merely “labels” that “resolve” to websites, and are distinct from the servers that host the website or any content of it....

The government’s theory would have allowed it to seize the New York Times issue that published the Pentagon Papers and destroy it, on the theory that the New York Times was facilitating Daniel Ellsberg’s violation of national security laws. And the Times would have had no opportunity to show that its speech was lawful. There is no reason to think Congress intended the forfeiture statute to extend so broadly. And even if it had, Congress lacks the power to confer such plenary control over speech on government agents acting without judicial sanction.

Of course, all of this doesn't even touch on two other important issues in the case. One is the First Amendment questions raised by seizing a domain and the second is the fact that US copyright law only matters in the US, not in Spain. In both cases, the government again comes back with wacky responses. On the First Amendment claim, it argues there's no First Amendment issue, relying incorrectly on the Arcara vs. Cloud Books case. But that ruling is clear that it only applies if the crime in question is not expressive. But copyright infringement is often absolutely expressive. It may not be protected expression but it is expression, and as such it requires First Amendment scrutiny to make that determination. The government flat out claims that copyright infringement (which it falsely calls "intellectual property theft") is "unrelated to speech." That's simply incorrect. Courts have long established that there is a balance between copyright and the First Amendment, and you can only establish infringement following a ruling by a court. Yet here the government wants to skip over that step entirely. As Puerto80 notes:

The government argues that the links on the Rojadirecta website are not protected speech because they constitute copyright infringement. But that argument exactly misses the point of the prior restraint doctrine. Unless and until there has been a final determination on the merits after an adversary hearing, there is no basis to find that criminal copyright infringement occurred on the third party sites to which the Rojadirecta website linked.

As for US law being applied outside the US, here the government just tries to wave this issue off again. It first admits that US law does not apply outside its borders, but then insists that it is "inconceivable" that some infringement didn't happen inside the US. But that's not how the law works. You have to actually show the infringement. You can't just insist that it happened somewhere in the US and move on...

The further this case goes, the worse and worse the government's arguments seem to get, and the less and less it seems to understand about the hole it has dug for itself.

Filed Under: criminal copyright infringement, doj, forfeiture, ice, rojadirecta, seizure, spain
Companies: puerto 80

Megaupload Details Raise Significant Concerns About What DOJ Considers Evidence Of Criminal Behavior

from the bad-cases-and-bad-law dept

Yesterday I wrote up a first reaction to the Megaupload case. Having spent some more time going through the indictment in much greater detail, I have some more thoughts and concerns.

First, it's important to acknowledge that the founder of Megaupload, who goes by Kim Dotcom, has a long history of flaunting flouting the law in a variety of ways. That makes him quite unsympathetic in a court. On top of that, there are certain claims in the indictment that, if true, mean it's quite likely that he broke the law. Whether or not the violations amount to racketeering & conspiracy is beyond any analysis that we're going to be able to do here. I would say that I would not be at all surprised if he's found guilty.

Where my concerns come in is in some of the "evidence" that's used to add to the overall indictment. To be clear, in a case like this, the issue is the evidence as a whole, combined to show intent and a general pattern to actions. So the allegations in the indictment don't necessarily mean that any individual action is, by itself, illegal. But, I still worry that some of the specific actions used to paint this picture are (1) potentially taken out of context, (2) are presented in a way that likely misrepresents the actual situation and (3) could come back to haunt other online services who are providing perfectly legitimate services.

• For example, the indictment points out that Megaupload did not have a site search, by which users could find material. That's interesting, but it seems like an odd piece of information in making the case. Other copyright cases have specifically found that having a search engine is part of an inducement claim -- so there's an argument that the idea not to have a search engine wasn't so much "conspiracy," as it was an attempt to follow the guidance of the court and to stay legal. To use the lack of a feature, that previously was shown to be a problem, as evidence of a conspiracy is crazy. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.



• Separately, the indictment lists various feature choices as part of making its case. There is, for example, the fact that if certain files aren't downloaded in a certain amount of time, then they are deleted. The indictment presents this as evidence that the service is mainly for infringement, because it potentially precludes the idea that the site is used for long-term backup. Of course, that falsely assumes that long-term backup is the only legitimate use of a cyberlocker. But that might not be the case at all. The service could (and is) used to just distribute large files in a directed, short-term effort. If anything, the fact that files are deleted after they're done being shared highlights a key legal function of the site: it was used by people to exchange large files once or twice, since they're too big to share via email attachment.
  
  On top of that, other, legitimate, sites have similar policies. The popular image hosting site Imgur does the same thing: if people don't access an image for an extended period of time, Imgur may delete it. That's not because it's encouraging infringement, but because it knows that the service is being used for short-term distribution.



• There is also the question of paying certain uploaders. However, there does seem to be a bit of a stretch in assuming that because some uploaders get lots of downloads by posting infringing content, all such "paid" users must be putting up infringing works. There are plenty of viral videos that are quite popular not because of infringement. In fact, much of this seems to be based on the simple assumption that encouraging more usage means they must be encouraging infringement. It's entirely possible that Dotcom did encourage infringement, but it feels like there should be more actual evidence of that, rather than pasting together a bunch of claims that could be interpreted in legitimate ways. Paying users for popularity is not, and should not, be evidence of criminality, or even infringement.



• There is also the claim that, while the company did remove some works upon takedown notice, it merely removed one link to the work, but left up other links. The issue here, as noted elsewhere in the indictment, is that Megaupload has a system for de-duplication -- so that if multiple people uploaded the same file, it only kept one version, but made it available at a different link for each person. This is the same sort of thing that lots of legitimate sites do, including Dropbox. The question, then, is if you do something like that with a locker service, and keep a single file, accessible through multiple locker links, what do you do if you get a takedown? This is still somewhat of an open question -- and was one of the points raised (in a civil copyright infringement context, which is very different) in the EMI vs. MP3tunes case. In that case, the company was told that it did, in fact, have to delete the actual file. But that raises other questions. Let's present a hypothetical: what if infringer A and authorized distributor B both upload the same file. The system de-dupes and uses a single file for each to access. Now, the copyright holder discovers A's version, and issues a takedown. It will automatically take down B's authorized work as well -- even though that copy was not infringing. Or... what if someone uploads a copy, but for their own personal use to access remotely, but never shares the link? In that case, no infringement is occurring... but DOJ seems to claim that the site would have to delete the file anyway, or there may be criminal risk. That's crazy.



• The complaint argues that because Megaupload's "top 100" list does not actually list the top 100 downloads on the site, this is more evidence of conspiracy. The issue here is that the list apparently removes files that are likely infringing. But... again, in other cases (like the IsoHunt case) such lists were also seen as proof of inducement. So, again it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If Megaupload's list showed infringing works, then they'd be charged with inducement... but removing them from the list makes them guilty of conspiracy?



• In addition, the indictment shows that, despite the company not being a US company, it did set up a DMCA agent, a tool to make removing files easier, and did take down works on request. There are some reasonable questions about if it ignored some takedown messages (likely) and the fact that it put limits on how many takedowns could be done per day with its tool. Those certainly work against the company in terms of retaining any DMCA safe harbors. Similarly, there is some evidence that the owners of the site may have uploaded infringing files themselves -- which, again, has no DMCA protections.



• The indictment points out that Megaupload used its hashing system to maintain a list of known child porn and block those files from being re-uploaded. The problem here is that copyright is different than child porn. Child porn is a strict liability issue: it is always illegal. There are no extenuating circumstances. But copyrighted content is different. It could be authorized. It could be fair use. And that depends on the specific use, not the file. So using a hash system there doesn't make sense, whereas it can make sense for child porn.



• The indictment also lists all sorts of emails, some of which are more damaging than others, but some of which may be taken out of context. All of them seem to assume that Megaupload employees can easily tell, often just by file name, what's infringing and what's not. I think this is an assumption that many people who don't understand copyright law make. And while you can guess... it's not always so easy. The recording industry, for example, regularly uses cyberlockers as a legitimate way to distribute promo copies. How would Megaupload know if certain files were legit or not, without further details? Yes, there's obvious infringement happening on the site, but will Megaupload always know which specific files are infringing?



• The indictment discusses demands from Universal Music that Megaupload would need to meet before UMG would even discuss a potential license. This included: "proactive fingerprint filtering to ensure that there is no infringing music content hosted on its service; proactive text filtering for pre-release titles that may not appear in fingerprint databases at an early stage; terminate the accounts of users that repeatedly infringe copyright; limit the number of possible downloads from each file; process right holder take down notices faster and more efficiently." While the DMCA does require action against repeat infringers, there are no legal requirements for the other issues. It's not clear why that should be evidence here. The fact that Megaupload didn't go above and beyond what the law requires shouldn't be seen as evidence of wrongdoing...



• Many of the emails discuss the fact that, in general, there are infringing works on the site. Yeah, but that's the same issue in the YouTube case and other cases. General knowledge that your tool is used for infringement is kind of meaningless, because you can't take works down if you don't know what's actually infringing.



• Money laundering claims are tricky and perhaps there was some "money laundering" going on here, but this indictment seems to include basic payments to Megaupload's hosting companies. Using payments to companies for hosting as evidence of money laundering seems pretty extreme, and suggests the possibility that this is just a "lumping in" situation, just to pile on more things that look bad, but aren't illegal by themselves.

Do these kinds of things work together to paint a picture of the company encouraging infringement? It's certainly possible that a court will add up a bunch of things like this and insist that's true. My fear is that, at least with some of these points, there are perfectly reasonable, non-infringing contexts for them. Then, what I worry about, is that in later cases, these types of things are used as "evidence" against companies and services that are legit. Even worse, there's a real worry that it creates chilling effects for lots of legitimate services who do things like de-duplification, or have legitimate backup services. If you're running Amazon S3 or Dropbox, do you now suddenly change how you do business, just to avoid the possibility of being accused of racketeering and criminal copyright infringement? That's worrisome.

But the bigger overall issue is why this action and why now? Companies in the US have filed civil cases against Megaupload in the US and the company was willing to come to the US and deal in US courts. Taking it up to a criminal "conspiracy" and racketeering charge seems like overkill, with tremendous collateral damage and chilling effects.

Filed Under: censorship, chilling effects, copyright, criminal copyright infringement, kim dotcom, racketeering, takedowns
Companies: megaupload

Court Dismisses Puerto 80 Rojadirecta Case (For Now)... But Doesn't Give Back The Domain

from the um,-what dept

As we're still discussing the mess from the Dajaz1 censorship, in the other big case involving domain censorship, we've got another troubling situation.

Yesterday was the latest hearing in the forfeiture case involving Rojadirecta (Puerto 80), and the end result was that -- believe it or not -- the case was dismissed (pdf). The ruling doesn't say much -- basically says the reasons were stated during the oral arguments, and there's no transcript yet. However, the basics are that it was dismissed on a technicality (over a failure to plead the willfulness, which is necessary for criminal infringement), and the government has 30 days to amend and refile its complaint -- which is quite likely. While having the case dismissed sounds like a big deal, this seems more like a temporary pause, rather than anything meaningful at this point (unlike the Dajaz1 situation).

But here's the weird thing: technically, because of the dismissal, there's no forfeiture case going on, and the seizure time period has long expired. So... um... why does the government still have the domains in question? There's no ongoing case, and even if the government intends to refile, it's hard to see how it has a right to hang onto the domains in the meantime. But... it is. It seems like both Dajaz1 and Puerto 80 should be celebrating the returns of their domains today, but only one is....

Filed Under: copyright, criminal copyright infringement, doj, domain seizures, forfeiture, rojadirecta, seizures
Companies: puerto 80, rojadirecta

Another NinjaVideo Admin Pleads Guilty, Expect The Rest To Do So Too

from the dead-to-rights dept

This isn't much of a surprise, given our earlier stories. As we noted when the Justice Department indicted five people for their roles in the Ninjavideo community, they appeared to have a pretty strong case against them. So it really wasn't a surprise that one of the defendants, Matthew Smith, agreed to a plea bargain, which we noted almost certainly involved him agreeing to testify against the rest. For the Justice Department, that's pure gold. They can then use that to pressure everyone else into plea bargains as well (and each one down gets worse terms). So, it looks like Hana Beshara -- who was "the face" of NinjaVideo -- was the second to fall, taking a plea bargain deal in which she also pleads guilty. Those two were the big fish. I'd be surprised if the other three don't fold quickly as well at this point. Of course, as with the Smith plea, you should take what they admitted to with a pretty big grain of salt. If you want an obvious sign of how the agreement and reality may differ, just look at the details of the Beshara plea, in which she claims that she personally got $200,000 out of the alleged $500,000 the site made. We're skeptical that the site ever made anywhere close to $500,000 or that Beshara made $200,000. So notice that the $200k number is mentioned in how much she made, but no amount is stated in how much the government took from her:

Beshara admitted that she and her co-conspirators collected more than $500,000 in overall proceeds during the website�s two-and-a-half years of operation, with Beshara personally receiving more than $200,000. As part of her plea agreement, Beshara agreed to forfeit assets seized by ICE�s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in June 2010, including cash, an investment brokerage account, two bank accounts, a Paypal account and one Internet advertising account.

If ICE got anywhere near $200,000 out of those accounts, they would have said so. They didn't, probably because that money never existed.

Filed Under: criminal copyright infringement, dhs, doj, hana beshara, ice, indictment, ninjavideo

One Ninjavideo Defendant Pleads Guilty; Expect Him To Testify Against The Others

from the they're-going-to-lose dept

When the government indicted five people for being involved with Ninjavideo, we noted that the government's case looked a hell of a lot stronger than many of its other efforts involving seizing websites, and we predicted that the people involved were likely to lose in court. So it came as little surprise that one, Matthew Smith, has already pled guilty. Of course, knowing a little about how these things work, it's pretty clear that the feds did a plea bargain deal with this guy, and he's now likely to testify against the others. That's the basic deal: plead guilty to these lesser charges (two out of the six charges), provide evidence against everyone else, get a promise of less time in jail (which the judge can ignore).

This is why some other countries don't allow plea bargains. It makes it way too easy for people to agree to say whatever the feds want in other cases, just to protect their own hide.

I still think that the feds have a much stronger case against Ninjavideo -- though it still seems like this should be a civil suit, rather than a criminal suit. Separately, from other information I've seen, it appears that the feds do get some things in the indictment incorrect, including the claim that Ninjavideo hosted videos. That was part of the reason why I thought Ninjavideo was going to lose badly, but others have pointed out that while Ninjavideo tries very hard to make users think it hosts the videos, in actuality, it does not. Still, at this point, given the other activities of those involved in the site, I'm not sure that distinction matters. And now that Smith is likely to appear against the others, my original prediction stands: everyone else is going to lose badly, whether or not they get plea bargain deals as well.

Filed Under: copyright, criminal copyright infringement, matthew smith
Companies: ninjavideo

US Gov't Continues Indicting People For File Sharing; 5 Indicted For NinjaVideo

from the best-use-of-resources? dept

As lots of people have been submitting, the Justice Department, in coordination with Homeland Security's ICE group, have indicted five people associated with the site NinjaVideo.net, claiming that together they represented a "conspiracy" to commit criminal copyright infringement. I will say this: compared to the laughable Rojadirecta case, in which the government fails to even show any actual criminal copyright infringement, the indictment here seems a lot stronger -- and unless they got something in the indictment totally wrong, I would predict that these five people are going to lose and lose badly in court.

Unlike the Rojadirecta case, the indictment suggests that NinjaVideo hosted content itself. It also suggests that these admins were very much directly involved in seeking out and distributing infringing content, and profiting from it. The fact that the feds are charging admins and uploaders together as "a conspiracy," is an interesting move, and one that is probably intended to get around the huge problem in the Rojadirecta case: which is that they show users sharing content, but not making money from it, and they show the site admins making money, but not uploading content. You have to show both by a single party for criminal copyright infringement to have happened. So, in this case, they're trying to link the five people together as a conspiracy. From the indictment, which is obviously one-sided, they make it appear that the two major uploaders were closely aligned with the admins. Whether or not that's actually true may be a big part of determining whether or not this case works. Also, it's not clear from the indictment how the hosting setup worked, and if NinjaVideo itself really hosted the material, but that also will be a key point in the case. Assuming that what's in the indictment is accurate, and not taken out of context, however, I just don't see NinjaVideo standing much of a chance in court.

One really interesting factoid in the indictment for all the Google-haters, who insist that Google is the major supporter of these kinds of sites: Google pretty quickly killed the AdSense account that the NinjaVideo folks had opened, telling them that it was because the site appeared to be distributing infringing works. Google-haters keep insisting that Google never shuts down such accounts, but this appears to be a case where they spotted the site pretty quickly and shut down the account.

TorrentFreak also points to a video made by Hana Amal Beshara, an admin for NinjaVideo who went by the name Phara. The video suggests that she and the others had some serious problems communicating with their lawyers, but that's really not going to matter much. She also notes that they wanted to go public with what was happening ever since ICE seized their website in the very first round of Operation In Our Sites, but that all the lawyers kept saying to stay quiet. She says she now regrets that -- especially since she was indicted anyway -- and doesn't plan to stay quiet any more. While I understand the sentiment, the video itself isn't going to do much to help her case, in that she expresses "no regrets" for her involvement in NinjaVideo. The video makes it clear that she means this because the community "saved her life," but you can bet that the Justice Department will use that against her in court -- claiming she has no remorse.

I still think it's a bit silly for the Justice Department and Homeland Security to be doing this -- as it really should be a civil issue. It seems like Neil MacBride -- the former "anti-piracy" VP for the BSA, and now a US Attorney who was heavily involved in the indictment -- is paying back some favors to the copyright industry he came from. But, this way Hollywood gets taxpayers to pay for these kinds of lawsuits, instead of having to cut back on their own excesses. I also still question the legality of the original seizure of the domain name prior to any adversarial hearing. But, on the whole, these actual charges appear to have a lot more meat to them than what we've seen before in some of the other cases. It won't stop people from infringing, of course. And it won't stop similar communities -- though they'll probably drive those groups a bit further underground, making it more difficult for MacBride and his friends to track them down. But I guess as long as they feel they're "making a difference...."

Filed Under: criminal copyright infringement, dhs, doj, ice, indictment, ninjavideo

Puerto 80 Responds Forcefully To DOJ's Claims Concerning Domain Seizures

from the government-overreach dept

While Puerto 80 has already appealed the rejection of its attempt to get back its domain names (the two rojadirecta domains that Homeland Security seized), the separate case, involving the permanent forfeiture of those domains, continues. As you may recall, Puerto 80 put forth its motion to dismiss, noting that the government appeared to be wholly making up a legal standard that doesn't exist, while also showing that Puerto 80 did not break criminal copyright law. The government responded bizarrely by trying to argue that Puerto 80's actions don't really matter, because it's not about Puerto 80... and then spent most of its brief explaining why Puerto 80 did things that broke the law.

Now Puerto 80 has responded, and this time it's coming out even more forcefully against the government, explaining how its theory for seizure and forfeiture is absolutely ridiculous, and would effectively allow the government to seize all sorts of property if it so chose, including any search engine domain, any telephone network infrastructure, any electrical company's infrastructure -- just because such tools could be shown to have been used by someone, somewhere, possibly for illegal purposes, even if the company in question had nothing to do with it:

The government�s view of its powers under the civil forfeiture law, articulated for the first time in its opposition to Puerto 80�s motion to dismiss, is breathtaking. In the government�s view, it doesn�t need to allege that Puerto 80 violated any law, or even engaged in any civil wrong, in order to seize and shut down its Internet domain name. As long as the government thinks that someone, somewhere in the world, is engaged in copyright infringement, it believes it is entitled to seize any asset that might be connected to that infringement, whether or not the owner engaged in any wrongdoing, and whether or not that asset in fact �facilitated� the commission of any crime. And it further believes it is entitled to seize Internet domain names and shut down protected speech without ever having to prove that the speech was, in fact, unlawful, much less that the owner of the asset was responsible for any crime.

On the government�s view of its powers, it is entitled to seize the Google, Bing, or Yahoo web site, because someone, somewhere, has used those sites� search engines to find infringing content. It is entitled to seize Verizon�s telephone network for the same reason. It is entitled to seize the power company, since numerous crimes are �facilitated� by the use of electricity. And the only reason the government lost the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), is that it asserted the wrong statute. Had the government simply seized the New York Times� printing presses, pointing out that they were being used to �facilitate� the disclosure of government secrets, it would have been able to block the disclosure of Daniel Ellsberg�s secrets.

As the filing notes, "this cannot be the law." And, almost certainly, it's unconstitutional.

The full filing (embedded below) is fantastic. It no longer dances around the issue and flat out points out that the government's argument is incoherent, pulling different actions from different actors together to try to pretend that a single party did something wrong.

But in attempting to argue its new �facilitation� theory, the government cites to different acts by different actors (Puerto 80, other websites that are streaming content, and unidentified users who follow links to the content) for different elements of the alleged offense. Not only does this approach render the government�s opposition brief incoherent; it does nothing to change the fact that the Complaint fails to plead the elements of criminal copyright infringement by Puerto 80 or any other actor.

Specifically, Puerto 80 points out that in order to show criminal copyright infringement, the government needs to show that a party willfully infringed for profit. But it doesn't do so. It shows that some people may have infringed. And it shows that Puerto 80 may have profited. But it does not (and cannot) show that Puerto 80 itself willfully infringed for profit. In fact, it doesn't even try, because it knows that Puerto 80 itself did not infringe directly.

Finally, Puerto 80 points out that even if the government's argument is accurate, then the law must be unconstitutional:

Under the government�s newly-raised construction of the statute, the government may use the forfeiture statute to make an end-run around the First Amendment by seizing a lawful channel of communication. Such a seizure prevents lawful speech, and constitutes a prior restraint on that lawful speech. The government�s suggested construction of the forfeiture statute would render it unconstitutional, and should therefore be rejected.....

[....]

If the government�s theory of �facilitation� were adopted, the government would be permitted to shut down a search engine, website, newspaper, and printing press not just prior to a determination of the illegality of the content, but without ever having to show that it was operating unlawfully. It would permit, for instance, the government to shut down an entire printing press and newspaper for running an advertisement that contained allegedly infringing content. Or it would permit the seizure of a search engine because of its indexing allegedly infringing material. Such actions are plainly unconstitutional.

It's nice to see Puerto 80 hitting much harder on these key points, which it seemed to skirt around in the earlier filings. I'm wondering if the Justice Department even realizes how screwed up the argument it's trying to make really is. It never shows any criminal copyright infringement, but then says it can simply seize a domain because of some criminal copyright infringement which doesn't even appear to exist. The whole thing is incredible. Hopefully the court recognizes this and smacks the Justice Department around a bit for its ridiculous claims in trying to take these domains.

Filed Under: copyright, criminal copyright infringement, doj, domain seizures, forfeiture, rojadirecta, seizures
Companies: puerto 80, rojadirecta