Feds kill Megaupload... are you buying Namecoins yet?

[FreeMoney]

They would burn down and destroy all of America if they thought it was in their personal interests to do so.

If we just put more government on top they can make burning America illegal then we'll all be safe.

[1715373358]

1715373358

[1715373358]

1715373358

[1715373358]

1715373358

[1715373358]

1715373358

[Red Emerald]

They would burn down and destroy all of America if they thought it was in their personal interests to do so.

If we just put more government on top they can make burning America illegal then we'll all be safe.

I lold

[sadpandatech]

They would burn down and destroy all of America if they thought it was in their personal interests to do so.

If we just put more government on top they can make burning America illegal then we'll all be safe.

I lold

HAHAHA, aye.

Thanks for that, FreeMoney!

[ZodiacDragon84]

They would burn down and destroy all of America if they thought it was in their personal interests to do so.

If we just put more government on top they can make burning America illegal then we'll all be safe.

I lold

as did I!

[repentance]

I always hated megaupload, but it sucks that its government action that took them down

Eh, they're just looking for someone to sue. I doubt MegaUpload did anything much different from the plethora of other similar file-hosting sites.

If you bothered to read the actual indictment then you'd know that they did do things differently from other file-hosting sites.  For a start, they paid users for uploading illegally obtained files and then charged other users for downloading them.  They also knowingly and quite deliberately failed to comply with take-down requests (the emails show the extent to which this was intentional) by not actually removing content.

Kim Schmitz is a nasty piece of work who's been prosecuted in the past for credit card fraud, embezzlement and insider trading (to name a few).  You're incredibly naive if you don't believe that he intentionally used the model he did so that users would be the ones at risk of prosecution and that the business itself could claim safe harbour.  Fortunately, he's not as smart as he likes to think he is - he also recently lost a copyright infringement action brought by a porn distributor.

File-hosting sites will never gain legitimacy unless people like Kim Schmitz are prosecuted.  He's not some kind of free speech champion - he'd have assumed the legal risk himself if he was instead of operating in a manner he thought made him immune to prosecution while transferring that risk to his users.  He's a scum-bag opportunist who has always sought to enrich himself at the expense of others and international conspiracy charges couldn't happen to someone more deserving.

[BinaryMage]

If you bothered to read the actual indictment then you'd know that they did do things differently from other file-hosting sites.  For a start, they paid users for uploading illegally obtained files and then charged other users for downloading them.  They also knowingly and quite deliberately failed to comply with take-down requests (the emails show the extent to which this was intentional) by not actually removing content.

Kim Schmitz is a nasty piece of work who's been prosecuted in the past for credit card fraud, embezzlement and insider trading (to name a few).  You're incredibly naive if you don't believe that he intentionally used the model he did so that users would be the ones at risk of prosecution and that the business itself could claim safe harbour.  Fortunately, he's not as smart as he likes to think he is - he also recently lost a copyright infringement action brought by a porn distributor.

File-hosting sites will never gain legitimacy unless people like Kim Schmitz are prosecuted.  He's not some kind of free speech champion - he'd have assumed the legal risk himself if he was instead of operating in a manner he thought made him immune to prosecution while transferring that risk to his users if he was.  He's a scum-bag opportunist who has always sought to enrich himself at the expense of others and international conspiracy charges couldn't happen to someone more deserving.

I stand corrected. I read multiple news stories, but not the indictment itself. Thank you for that information! I agree, that sort of behavior discredits file-hosting sites and is immoral.

[ZodiacDragon84]

I always hated megaupload, but it sucks that its government action that took them down

Eh, they're just looking for someone to sue. I doubt MegaUpload did anything much different from the plethora of other similar file-hosting sites.

If you bothered to read the actual indictment then you'd know that they did do things differently from other file-hosting sites.  For a start, they paid users for uploading illegally obtained files and then charged other users for downloading them.  They also knowingly and quite deliberately failed to comply with take-down requests (the emails show the extent to which this was intentional) by not actually removing content.

Kim Schmitz is a nasty piece of work who's been prosecuted in the past for credit card fraud, embezzlement and insider trading (to name a few).  You're incredibly naive if you don't believe that he intentionally used the model he did so that users would be the ones at risk of prosecution and that the business itself could claim safe harbour.  Fortunately, he's not as smart as he likes to think he is - he also recently lost a copyright infringement action brought by a porn distributor.

File-hosting sites will never gain legitimacy unless people like Kim Schmitz are prosecuted.  He's not some kind of free speech champion - he'd have assumed the legal risk himself if he was instead of operating in a manner he thought made him immune to prosecution while transferring that risk to his users if he was.  He's a scum-bag opportunist who has always sought to enrich himself at the expense of others and international conspiracy charges couldn't happen to someone more deserving.

Hear hear

[zer0]

There are plenty of megavideo clones the US didn't go after with the exact same biz model. The only reason they were able to extradite Kim dotcom and his cronies is because they were stupid enough to use US hosting where the Feds could get access to their internal emails and get all the evidence they needed to launch an extradition request.

[sadpandatech]

There are plenty of megavideo clones the US didn't go after with the exact same biz model. The only reason they were able to extradite Kim dotcom and his cronies is because they were stupid enough to use US hosting where the Feds could get access to their internal emails and get all the evidence they needed to launch an extradition request.

exactly, and thanks for the info, m8.


TL;DR

  Megaupload were a bunch of thieving bastards who promoted profiting from stolen 'works'.

  This case also serves as good evidence that we don't need SOPA to fight entities that would seek to 'pirate' for profit.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fighting theft of IP for profit is good.
Treating everyone that does not want to buy your damn product like they are a thief is BAD.
And making everyone else responsible for the protection of your IP, costing everyone else a HUGE amount more than what you are supposedly protecting is theft through legislation.

[bb113]

The interesting part is that megaupload was able to make so much money selling access to pirated IP while the IP holders claim to be losing money left and right. They refuse to adapt their business model and instead fall back on lobbying and lawsuits.

[rjk]

The interesting part is that megaupload was able to make so much money selling access to pirated IP while the IP holders claim to be losing money left and right. They refuse to adapt their business model and instead fall back on lobbying and lawsuits.

^ This. I say it is the fault of the labels for not being innovative, in the slightest.

[zer0]

The interesting part is that megaupload was able to make so much money selling access to pirated IP while the IP holders claim to be losing money left and right. They refuse to adapt their business model and instead fall back on lobbying and lawsuits.

They made hardly any money from premium accounts they made 700 million/yr from feeding you forced ads everytime you clicked to watch something.

[bb113]

So? Apparently it was acceptable to people so it worked. I don't see how that makes my point less legitimate.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Things might not be as clean as it seems on first sight. Kim Schmitz has worked for and against US agencies in the past.

Expect a drawn out extradition process in the NZ courts and maybe a failure to bring a successful prosecution against this seemingly "made-for-television" villain that the FBI couldn't have asked a better poster child to act as "dr. evil copyright pirate" ....

tl;dr ... prosection fails ... SOPA passes. (fbi and kim both win).

[zer0]

So? Apparently it was acceptable to people so it worked. I don't see how that makes my point less legitimate.

It doesn't make your point invalid, I just corrected you they didn't make all their loot selling access.
There's just too many middle men at the trough getting fed from studios, corporations and agents they can't change their model as they've all signed ridiculous huge contracts for 10+ years to each other.

[bb113]

Ah, thanks for the insight. So it is due a bunch of people signing contracts with no foresight creating an environment that stifles innovation.  That is an interesting failure mode that I can see occurring in an industry functioning in a libertarian society.

[ArticMine]

I always hated megaupload, but it sucks that its government action that took them down

Eh, they're just looking for someone to sue. I doubt MegaUpload did anything much different from the plethora of other similar file-hosting sites.

If you bothered to read the actual indictment then you'd know that they did do things differently from other file-hosting sites.  For a start, they paid users for uploading illegally obtained files and then charged other users for downloading them.  They also knowingly and quite deliberately failed to comply with take-down requests (the emails show the extent to which this was intentional) by not actually removing content.

Kim Schmitz is a nasty piece of work who's been prosecuted in the past for credit card fraud, embezzlement and insider trading (to name a few).  You're incredibly naive if you don't believe that he intentionally used the model he did so that users would be the ones at risk of prosecution and that the business itself could claim safe harbour.  Fortunately, he's not as smart as he likes to think he is - he also recently lost a copyright infringement action brought by a porn distributor.

File-hosting sites will never gain legitimacy unless people like Kim Schmitz are prosecuted.  He's not some kind of free speech champion - he'd have assumed the legal risk himself if he was instead of operating in a manner he thought made him immune to prosecution while transferring that risk to his users.  He's a scum-bag opportunist who has always sought to enrich himself at the expense of others and international conspiracy charges couldn't happen to someone more deserving.

I have read the indictment and it is fair to say that this is no "dancing baby" copyright case. It will be interesting to see if the United States Government will be able to prove this in court, in particular the part about the $500,000,000 in losses.  If they can make this criminal case stick, I have no sympathy for Mr. Dotcom and his co conspirators. Interestingly the fact that these people could make so much money of pirated content serves to demonstrate how wrong the big copyright business models really are.

[bb113]

Ah, thanks for the insight. So it is due a bunch of people signing contracts with no foresight creating an environment that stifles innovation.  That is an interesting failure mode that I can see occurring in an industry functioning in a libertarian society.

Seems like it requires a state to me.

Why? My understanding is contracts would be king. The difference is it would be easier for the organizations running this failed industry to be replaced.

[zer0]

Basically corporations like the leasing rights model where they make all their money. They lease the rights to other corporations for insanely huge fees in one lump sum and now that corp is responsible for making back the money, so they go after anybody else doing it since they're probably already operating at a loss for paying so much in fees in the first place.

For instance any US network TV show is sold to my country for exclusive network rights that they pay hundreds of millions for per year. If that company doesn't have online streaming, I'm fucked I can't watch it online anywhere unless I pirate it or ssh/proxy/vpn with a US ip, or buy a $700 box set. This is why megavideo and it's clones are so popular. Also they (usually) don't make you sit through ads before getting content, and the ads were most likely stuff people would be interested in like gambling, online gaming and pr0nz.

I suspect the bulk of megavideos users were in foreign countries trying to get access to US made content which is geoIP restricted. Content holders in the US instead of leasing out their rights to the highest bidder possible and signing 10+year contracts with them should instead have an open leasing system where absolutely anybody can stream their content and pay them monthly instead of a huge lump sum. Then Megavideo could've given half of that 700 million to the rights holders and everybody wins but no.

[bb113]

Right, this could still occur without a state though. People don't always think long term (and can't predict the advent of paradigm changing technologies) when creating contracts. If the industry was large enough, there would still be a sizeable barrier to entry imposed on any newcomers due to lack of mindshare, etc.