Megaupload Drops Lawsuit Against Universal Music 439
bs0d3 writes "Not so long ago, a legal video was taken down by repetitive DMCA requests to YouTube. In response, Megaupload filed a lawsuit against Universal Music. This past week, Megaupload was raided by U.S. authorities and forced offline, which is costing Megaupload millions of dollars in damage. Today; while employees are in U.S. custody, Megaupload has mysteriously dropped their lawsuit against Universal Music."
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:5, Insightful)
You are ignorant. (Score:5, Insightful)
Megaupload paid to create a video promoting/defending their site and posted it on YouTube. Universal Music (who had no legal claim to the video) abused the take-down agreement they had with Google (and possibly the DMCA) to pull this video off of YouTube simply because they didn't like it. That is a cut-and-dry case of censorship if I have ever heard it.
If the information in the indictment is true then Megaupload is guilty of copyright infringement and should be held accountable for it. However, Universal Music should also be held accountable for their abuses of the law.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:3, Insightful)
But only if NZ actually extradites them. Please also note the DMCA is valid for the US only., the rest of the world (rightfully) wipe their asses with this piece of legal sh**.
Hah... you're silly because you think that the US seems to accept that their laws don't apply universally. Most of the US government seems to be of the attitude that if it's on the internets, then it's US jurisdiction.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:4, Insightful)
For all the nerd-rage it caused at the time, the DMCA was a remarkably balanced and far-sighted law. Some other nations have copied it, and others haven't, I don't know if NZ has such a law or not, but it doesn't matter much - the MegaUpload guys are also accused of plain old copyright infringement, which is certainly illegal under laws and treaties NZ has signed.
Oh, and they're also accused of money laundering, which again would be considered an extraditable crime. I don't personally pay much attention to accusations of money laundering because those laws are extremely vague, poorly thought out and there's no distinction between actually hiding the sources of illegally gained funds and simply failing to follow the byzantine regulations intended to make value flows trackable - they are both considered "money laundering", although plenty of innocent people with no criminal intentions can fall foul of the latter. As a result convictions purely for ML and nothing else are very rare and have often been overturned by courts. That's one reason it usually comes attached to accusations of other crimes.
Re: the DMCA. Like I said, in hindsight I think it's actually worked out very well for the net. The lightweight framework of copyright enforcement it created kept huge workloads away from the courts without creating unworkable levels of abuse (there is some, but there's abuse of the regular legal system too). It has made copyright enforcement available to the little guy, again without huge legal fees. It has protected sites like YouTube and search engines. And whilst measures like making circumvention systems illegal caused a lot of fuss, their impact was trivial - last time I checked this part of the law has neither prevented circumvention software being readily available nor wiped out Linux. In fact its impact on both sides of the copyright fights have been negligible.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:4, Insightful)
And most of the world's governments agree with them.
Oh... :( you made me sad.
Re:its not a piece of legal shit (Score:4, Insightful)
the only people who complain about the 'draconian DMCA' are fucktards who never actually create or build anything themselves.
Actually, they usually are objecting to the criminalization of hacking encryption schemes.... that is the part that gives the whole law a "piece of legal shit" rap.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this even a criminal case? Why not leave it to the civil courts. When the music industry was ripping off artists in Canada, all that happened was a settlement. No people were arrested and extradited.
F*ck with American Corporations (Score:3, Insightful)
... And the American governments Fs you in the A.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you can't extradite people over civil matters and you can't confiscate property on foreign soil to cover the award.
In this case though, the money laundering and other charges are pretty much always going to be felonies. And apparently if you distribute one or more work worth $1 000 or more during a 180 day period you're committing a felony. I don't agree with it, but that is what the law says.
Considering that nobody forced them to locate a server in the US, I'm not sure whom they can reasonably blame other than themselves. It remains to be seen whether the allegations lead to any convictions, but the US certainly does have the right to try them for those felonies.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this even a criminal case? Why not leave it to the civil courts. When the music industry was ripping off artists in Canada, all that happened was a settlement. No people were arrested and extradited.
Exactly.
In almost no other case does the US government get involved in protecting private property to the extent they rush in and protect the music and film industry. Have your patent ripped off, or your house broken into, they won't even listen to you. Its up to you to defend your patent at your own expense, and you can file a police report about the burglary, but you will likely never see your property again.
Why is the US government acting as a mob enforcer for the Media Giants?
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:5, Insightful)
The lightweight framework of copyright enforcement it created kept huge workloads away from the courts without creating unworkable levels of abuse
Lightweight framework of enforcement? You mean like having the entire DOJ work for the media giants leaning on every country in the world to violate their own laws and arrest people and surrender them to US authorities?
No unworkable levels of abuse? You mean like millions of take down notices filed every day against thing that have no pirated content what so ever, beyond simply mentioning a word in the title?
Tell me, what hole have you had your head in for the last 5 years?
Re:Not Censorship! (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in the eyes of misguided fucktards like yourself Princess. The original legal case was about illegal use of the DMCA to take down material. It had nothing to do with "censorship" nor "free speech", despite what you and the tinfoil hat brigade may like to think. Why don't you leave the legal and technical discussions to the men who know what they are talking about instead of getting your pretty little head confused about such basic concepts?
BTW, shouldn't you be in the kitchen baking?
Oh see, it's funny, because it's intentionally sexist. Now, ignoring all the sexist bullshit, because it's just not worth getting into, because it's a total tangent to the real issues at matter...
Illegal use of the DMCA is considered a form of censorship in colloquial speech. I noted in my post that it wasn't about "pure" censorship, which is a government making specific speech illegal. However, it is colloquial censorship in that it is someone blocking access to someone else's content with or without legal authority.
Also, the original filing of the suit commented that it were an abuse of the DMCA, but Universal Music Group the original defendant in the case, pointed out that not only were they not actually responsible for the offending action, (it was UMG which is a subsidiary company of Universal Music Group, but not jointly-liable) but as well, it wasn't even an abuse of the DMCA, as UMG was making use of the tools that they were granted access to by contract with YouTube, that allowed UMG to bypass even the DMCA process. Thus, the whole situation was chalked up to, "YouTube granted UMG that access, and the only injured party in this abuse of tools provided was YouTube, and thus MegaUpload has no valid standing to file suit in the first place in a breach of contract between UMG and YouTube."
But getting back to the point, colloquially "censorship" is used by the general public, and in this case the slashdot categories to refer to anything where a non-first-party effects the removal of speech of another person without their consent. But you know, enforcing legal definitions of words on an informal forum such as slashdot seems like a way much better idea than using the same jargon, dialect and register as the audience of that forum.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:5, Insightful)
Promoting copyright infringement is a crime in quite a few countries (hence one reason why MegaUpload was blocked in a few countries even before this happened). The DMCA is just a specific law that attempts to set rules for US citizens for what is and isn't copyright infringement on the Internet.
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:3, Insightful)
Who are you going to jail? Do you pierce the corporate veil and order the person that signed off on it? They'll just point to their boss who ordered them to do it or they'd be fired. If you say they shouldn't have complied, there's 10,000 people waiting just outside the building to fill in their position when they get fired. If you go for the boss they'll point to their boss, right up to the CEO who simply gave the vague order to profit.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:5, Insightful)
When they got a complaint about the file, they only removed the URI in the complaint, when they knew or reasonably could have known they were still making the same content available on another part of their site.
Child pornography is illegal, in the sense that nobody is legally allowed to have it or distribute it. Copyrighted material, on the other hand, isn't inherently illegal. Just because one person is not legally allowed to distribute a copy doesn't mean that nobody else is. Nor is this hypothetical, given the number of musicians who are noting that they distribute their own work via Megaupload.
That's not to say that those who ran Megaupload didn't deliberately bend and/or break the law. Just that this, taken by itself, is arguably neither illegal nor morally wrong.
Yes it is (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it isn't a first amendment violation, but it is censorship. The word and concept has never been limited to the government. Universal Studios used their power to censor what Megaupload had to say, and anytime those with power use it to silence other it is a big problem, not just when the government does so.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:5, Insightful)
But as the grandparent points out, the other charges are dependent on the alleged DMCA violations. If that's not a crime in New Zeeland, then the money they got from it are legal, and there's no money laundering.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:4, Insightful)
"In this case though, the money laundering and other charges are pretty much always going to be felonies."
But its only money laundering if the first place if the civil copyright issues are treated as criminal issues. You can't 'launder' money that didn't come from criminal activities, even if that money was supposedly made from an activity which gave you civil liability.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:4, Insightful)
Promoting copyright infringement is a crime in quite a few countries
If "promoting copyright infringement" was a crime, then all broadband providers would be shut down long ago. There needs to be a criminal intent, which is very hard to prove.
Also, it depends on the exact circumstances. It doesn't necessarily have to be illegal in the extraditing country (although it usually is), but that would be determined on a case by case basis, I believe.
It's not decided on a case-by-case basis; the extradition treaty outlines exactly which crimes may lead to extradition even if they're only criminal in the country requesting extradition.
no it isnt enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
Schmitz' globulous ego
i prefer schmitz's globulous ego. because, schmitz's globulous ego is not buying laws to restrain MY freedoms for HIS profit. schmitz can queue up to 100 mercedes, bmws if he wants to. as long as he doesnt interfere with my freedoms for the sake of his own profit.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:5, Insightful)
This SOPA thing must be really awful if it's making people say the DMCA is good!
Re:You are ignorant. (Score:5, Insightful)
Censor [reference.com]
an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
I don't understand why you libertard types can't understand that not only government can violate civil rights. Corporations do it on a daily basis and we have essentially zero recourse against them in most cases, especially when a cartel or monopoly decides to violate them (like ISPs). Yet, you go around saying things like "the government didn't, as a matter of policy because of the content, take down the video," which not only missed the definition of censorship, but totally absolves private organizations of violating your rights. We are increasingly corporatist because of this bullshit line of thinking.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that Dotcom is not originally New Zealander. Countries sometimes refuse to extradite people born in their country, but such usually isn't the case with foreign nationals.
Doesn't matter - the alleged act still needs to be a crime in the country granting the extradition.
And I'm pretty surprised you would support him either
I'm not supporting the person, I'm supporting a company that provided a valuable service to the public. MegaUpload helped people all over the world to exercise their fair use rights.
For example, in my country, I could rip my music CDs and put them on MegaUpload, and then listen to them anywhere, since format shifting is legal here.
Of course, the American media companies didn't like that, so they demanded that MegaUpload delete all copies of a file, even the copies that were uploaded legally.
I'm pretty tired of American corporations who like to pretend American law applies to the whole world. They have no right to ask a New Zeeland company to delete a Swedish users files, just because the files happen to be illegal for Americans.
Re:A link in the article (Score:5, Insightful)
If politicians weren't corrupt media cartel cronies this would be a civil case as well.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll just point to their boss who ordered them to do it or they'd be fired.
If they can prove the boss did that then the boss did so he should be jailed too.
If you say they shouldn't have complied, there's 10,000 people waiting just outside the building to fill in their position when they get fired
Will there be that many people waiting just outside the building to file bogus DMCA notices after a few people are in jail for doing so?
Yeah it sucks for the peons who are put in between a rock and a hard place but ultimately to stop psychopaths (and there will always be a certain portion of psychopaths in society) doing something it it necessary to make the punishment for doing it outweigh the benefit of doing it. That applies whether it's filing bogus DMCA notices or fitting dodgy parts to aeroplanes.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure they are, but that's not a crime covered by the Extradition Treaty.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty tired of American corporations who like to pretend American law applies to the whole world. They have no right to ask a New Zeeland company to delete a Swedish users files, just because the files happen to be illegal for Americans.
A thousand times this. It's about time the rest of the world stands up and tells the Americans to go fuck themselves.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty tired of American corporations who like to pretend American law applies to the whole world..
As an American, I'd like you to know that most of us are tired of this, too. The same goes for our government.
Unfortunately far too few of us have yet to make the connection that we put those assholes there in the first place and maybe we should do something about it. But we're working on it, really. A lot of us are trying very hard.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:5, Insightful)
There are lots of people under the jurisdiction of US law who aren't US citizens. So no you didn't fix it.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, Americans are free to shut down the American servers if they like. But they can't make laws that magically apply to people on the other side of the world.
You obviously have little experience with the standard "America Fuck Yeah, We Are The Greatest Nation On The Planet" morons that come from our side of the pond. They think every single American law applies wherever they go.
Re:Good luck with that... (Score:5, Insightful)
2 weak neighbors?
No. You have a neighbor to the north which is not an imperialistic war machine.
There is a difference. We don't have to pour an insane amount of money into our military budget because we don't practice insane foreign policy just to line the pockets of the men that own the politicians.
Re:Not Surprise for MegaUpload (Score:3, Insightful)
"Considering that nobody forced them to locate a server in the US, I'm not sure whom they can reasonably blame other than themselves. It remains to be seen whether the allegations lead to any convictions, but the US certainly does have the right to try them for those felonies."
What a load of bollocks. Most people have no idea where their hosts server's are located, it's been pointed out many a time, that if you had broken Iranian law would you thus be happy to be extradited to Iran? If you signed up for a web hosting package because it was cheap, hosting something about gay rights, only to find the servers were in Iran you'd be happy to be sent over there to face the death penalty would you?
Sorry, but it doesn't matter if the servers were hosted in the US, all this means the US should be able to do is seize the servers, and any financial assets related to them passing through US financial institutions, it doesn't mean they should be able to extradite foreign citizens over it.
I know America thinks differently, seeing as it's abducted many hundreds of people over the last decade for things not illegal in their country like funding political viewpoints the US just happens to dislike, but that doesn't make it right, or acceptable, nor does it mean the people involved in any way deserve or should have to blame themselves for being extradited - it's a massively unfair, and disproportional step, and the only time extradition is acceptable is if the crime is both serious (i.e. rape, murder), and actually committed whilst the person is physically on US soil, and has escaped the country, or if the person in question is a US citizen living overseas - and even then it's questionable, but any dispute should fall into the category of an effective asylum request.