79 replies to this topic

[Kitsune]

Sweeney, on 19 January 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

I... don't know o.o
My understanding of crime is limited.

Waser Lave, on 19 January 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Ange would know.

That I do. My understanding (albeit of US law, which is rather limited since you know, I don't live there) is that in using any money gained through methods deemed to be illegal is money laundering.

This case is quite ridiculous, and I believe it will fail. I'm studying it in my masters class for IT law... I'll even be discussing it briefly in my thesis.
What's the difference between megaupload and youtube? Service providers simply aren't responsible for the actions of their users under US law, and while flaunting the money gained for many years and drawing attention to his wealth, Dotcom has not done anything illegal personally. He has in fact gone above and beyond his legal requirements to prevent his service being used for copyright infringement. Yes his service was clearly used for copyright infringement, that does not make him liable for providing a service that can be used to do so. I understand Youtube won their case using this same argument.
His reward scheme I'm iffy about. That's probably going to count against him in some way.

I think the police went overboard to err on the side of caution, knowing Dotcom has significant resources available to protect himself. A failed attempt is more embarrassing than going a bit overboard, but getting the job done.

Ironic really that guns are legal in the US, and a person selling a gun isn't liable for the actions of someone who bought a gun from them - who then uses that gun to murder or seriously injure, yet Dotcom selling a service that *some* used to infringe copyright is a major problem worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

I'm 50/50 on his extradition... it's difficult as we are a very small country and going up against the US without very good reason is unwise at best.

Oh yeah, sorry for gravedig. Found my name mentioned and thought this was worth an opinion.

[iargue]

Kitsune, on 14 March 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

That I do. My understanding (albeit of US law, which is rather limited since you know, I don't live there) is that in using any money gained through methods deemed to be illegal is money laundering.

This case is quite ridiculous, and I believe it will fail. I'm studying it in my masters class for IT law... I'll even be discussing it briefly in my thesis.
What's the difference between megaupload and youtube? Service providers simply aren't responsible for the actions of their users under US law, and while flaunting the money gained for many years and drawing attention to his wealth, Dotcom has not done anything illegal personally. He has in fact gone above and beyond his legal requirements to prevent his service being used for copyright infringement. Yes his service was clearly used for copyright infringement, that does not make him liable for providing a service that can be used to do so. I understand Youtube won their case using this same argument.
His reward scheme I'm iffy about. That's probably going to count against him in some way.

I think the police went overboard to err on the side of caution, knowing Dotcom has significant resources available to protect himself. A failed attempt is more embarrassing than going a bit overboard, but getting the job done.

Ironic really that guns are legal in the US, and a person selling a gun isn't liable for the actions of someone who bought a gun from them - who then uses that gun to murder or seriously injure, yet Dotcom selling a service that *some* used to infringe copyright is a major problem worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

I'm 50/50 on his extradition... it's difficult as we are a very small country and going up against the US without very good reason is unwise at best.

Oh yeah, sorry for gravedig. Found my name mentioned and thought this was worth an opinion.

I fail to see why they would not be extradited. The servers were placed in the us. This was the Swedish cooperating with the US to capture them, all of the evidence is located in the US. I don't exactly see Sweden pressing charges and ignoring the US's call for extradition.

The owner of TVShack was extradited to the US from the UK, and he didn't even face criminal charges in the UK.

Youtube won because of two reasons. The proved that the responded to all DMCA notices, and they agreed to improve their blocking services even more (Stupid content id match).

In the US, to violate the copyright law, you must meet one of two requirements

1)Upload/download the file yourself.
2)Make money from other people uploading/downloading the file yourself

They violate part two, and if they knew that copyrighted files were stored, and chose to not remove them, then they would be punished. Kim obviously feels VERY confident in what hes doing, as he made no attempt to erase data while in his panic room for 2 hours. but the US court system is beyond retarded, and fails to comprehend the least complicated concept for when it comes to computers (eg. Blizzard vs MMO Glider)

Sadly, shits not even going down until august (fuck you law system) so we just gotta give up on that. Even if megaupload comes back, it wont be for like 3 years.

[Waser Lave]

iargue, on 14 March 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

The owner of TVShack was extradited to the US from the UK, and he didn't even face criminal charges in the UK.

That case is a complete farce, ruining the entire life of a young man who didn't even break any actual copyright laws in either the UK or the US.

[iargue]

Waser Lave, on 14 March 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

That case is a complete farce, ruining the entire life of a young man who didn't even break any actual copyright laws in either the UK or the US.

That's the power that the MPAA wields.

https://www.eff.org/...nces-under-dmca

An example of the abuse and bullshit that copyright is used for, and always has been used for.

[Waser Lave]

iargue, on 14 March 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

That's the power that the MPAA wields.

https://www.eff.org/...nces-under-dmca

An example of the abuse and bullshit that copyright is used for, and always has been used for.

I just find it strange that they never go after the big players like Google or Bing etc who do exactly the same thing as TV Shack did but on a truly industrial scale.