Dotcom and six others are alleged to be part of a group called the "Mega Conspiracy",
(From NZ Herald today)

It's usually used in a way that would imply to anyone not familiar with the case?

And are guaranteed the same co-operation by other countries, as when, for example, our police were working to get back several million dollars accidentally deposited into someone's bank account.

Proceeds of crime.
Or victims who wish to sue?

Arrests do almost always happen before trials, rather than after them.

Seizure of assets and shutting down of business operations, though? Shouldn't that require more proof than "Hollywood said so"?

Just about everyone ever arrested has been on unproven allegations?

Any word yet on the number of trombones?

The case has been before a grand jury in the US and satisfied the conditions that must be met. Read the indictment ? it?s quite interesting.

Agree, but I'd be more inclined to think that a push came from the fact that Universal, and by?

Indeed. The forcible closure, without a trial, of a service used legitimately by millions of people seems a little different, though.

It's interesting that the key to the indictment is that the defendants are alleged to have committed infringements?

Thanks

I guess you need a crime to have proceeds of it to launder.

I think that's the key to it, yes.

A: If you rip off the poor, you get to build the Chrisco mansion. If you rip off the rich, you get to be arrested in it.

I was shocked at the level of state force used in?

Yes, only 6 of them were rusty.

I agree, Mark. I've long been surprised at how little noise has been made by the mega-content owners over these.

That said, as Russell says, these sorts of sites are extensively used by the?

Mind you, one of them was finally cut from his panic room and found to have a shotgun for company. Does?

Yup. It's like I say to people about unions – if you treat your staff?

I'm quite familiar with how Megaupload works,?

Torrentfreak has a rather caustic assessment of their efforts in Australia with the iiNet case.

I'd be really interested to know if Dotcom installed the panic room, or the Chrisco people :-D

this ham is rank!

TVNZ's 6.00 news last night produced a filmmaker from Christchurch who breathlessly told us how many thousands she had lost to Kim. No evidence to support this of course.

Will they televise?

Megaupload (and cyberlockers in general) generate a unique ID for any items in their content management system and that's what you share as a link. While each ID will only access one item, an item?

I see Winston Peters is already trying to manipulate it into a political story too, surprise, surprise.

Right, so how does Megaupload deactivate a hyperlink on a site that is not?

the trial by lifestyle currently going on in the media is disgusting – I expect?

It astonishes me how many people allow their line of thinking to be formed by police press releases dutifully relayed through a?

76 police officers, some of them from the Armed Offenders Squad, and two helicopters, to search and contain this place. I just?

Heh. I bet he's the only one who used it, though. Cracks me up, the idea of using a panic room against the police, though. Did he think they'd just give up and?

I'm surprised they didn't say that he had a knife. ;)

Simple – the target page doesn't actually contain any specific content. The link goes to a script which looks at the ID supplied in the URI and then?

Quite ? and I was one of the ?Big Six? studios who are the MPAA?

Or, as Corin Dann would have it, "Rick Sherpa".

Sorry? The site is their own. They are not just posting links, they are actually hosting the material. So the link is internal. CMS's are databases of content?

Well, he did look like he was tensing for something...

So, when someone says "those are drugs", the police should wait until after trial before seizing the wads of cash when they raid a drug house? And the drug-sellers should be?

Dylan, you know as?

Well, it's reported that they were using up to 25 petabytes of storage in Virginia alone, so I?

Yes, I was thinking that's the relevant section.

This is what intrigues me. Does anyone really believe YouTube management has no idea it's hosting potentially infringing content until?

Thanks, Robert, but my question is, how is that *not* considered removing access to content?

Ok, cool. I just had no idea that you could *choose* which links to your page work and which don't.

your post is currently at http://publicaddress.net/system/topic/3346/?i=50#post246560.
now imagine that someone decides your post is infringing.
they complain to Russell.
instead of Russell deleting your comment, or some of the words in it, Russell makes it so http://publicaddress.net/system/topic/3346/?i=50#post246560 doesn't go there.
go to http://publicaddress.net/system/topic/3346/?i=50,?

This is what intrigues me. Does anyone really believe YouTube management has no idea it?s hosting potentially infringing content until?

Ah, bugger, I'd missed that section. I thought I'd seen all the bits on criminal infringement, too.

They will know, statistically, that there is content on their system that is infringing. They?re not required by the DMCA to do anything about it?

The email segments are included in the indictment.

one issue has been oddly absent: what about the customers, paying or otherwise, who use the site for its ostensible purpose — as an online locker for files they own or are permitted to copy?

In theory it should be the same as when you have personal property in a?

Nope. The content is still there and it?s the content that infringes. The DMCA requires you to remove the infringing content, not just?

No more than I believe many corporations are unaware that they cheerfully (and profitably) facilitate with one hand what they condemn with the other. :)

I understand that. But I would submit that they have a more than merely statistical knowledge of the content they host. They know?

But is that the case?

As far as I can recall (I can't test it now obviously) MegaUpload links had a single publicly?

One thing that no one seems to be mentioning is http://megavideo.com/ which was basically the streaming/youtube version of megaupload.

Humans (like myself) tend to be a but hypocrital (or maybe?

My bit.ly example was just that, an example that I could quickly conjure?

Since it's a bit difficult to test (ahem) the functionality now, was it possible to search for content if you didn't have the URL? Say I'd like to download the?

Megavideo is mentioned in the indictment 79 times, often in relation to the "Mega" people pillaging YouTube to start the site off.

Good thing you're not a lawyer, then ;-)

That was simply one situation in?

No, they specifically did not provide a search tool on the site to protect themselves under the DMCA. The indictment states that they did have an?

If I am wrong on that case then YouTube has NEVER complied properly with a DMCA takedown notice, and the ability to dispute them is completely pointless as the data ceases to exist before anything can be done about it.

Disabling the public URL that provides access to a?

ah ok, I haven't seen it in any news stuff. Seems weird, the whole coverage is about it as a dl storage thing but it was also this?

Even if there are two URLs and you only disable one?

The indictment clearly claims (para 22) that MU did de-dupe (using MD5 hashes). It goes on to say that they demonstrated the ability to remove underlying content w.r.t. terrorist and child-porn material. Yet they never?

I believe?

Which is precisely what the indictment says they did.

Well that's what's unclear... Did MU files have multiple access URLs? It wasn't my experience in the few files I'd put on the service in the past.

Or did the multiple links referred to actually mean multiple copies of?

I used it a bit and there was never more than one link.

You click "upload" and when upload is finished you are provided with *one* link for that file.

(In the old days – but not in the?

Which is where I thought Graeme?s ?these are drugs? example upthread was a little bit off.

The DMCA requires that content providers "remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing". A sensible law, since it can be difficult to quickly?

I actually missed that comment...

So, when someone says ?those are drugs?, the police should wait until after trial before seizing the wads of cash when they raid a drug house? And the drug-sellers?

We welcome any former MegaUpload users who want to legitimately store, access, and share their data on our cloud storage service. We caution new users to read our Terms of Service carefully and understand that MediaFire takes violations of our Terms of Service very seriously.?

YouTube does automatically compare audio?

Yes, that might do it. But many of MU's files would be zipped or rar files. Extracting the audio out would be difficult. MU could have done something similar, but didn't

And Robert Bennett has withdrawn from the case, citing a conflict of interest.

Interesting times!

And it's not required of them.

With YouTube they then also present some options to the content owners, which?

In a strong bail application, Mr Dotcom?s lawyer Paul Davidson QC has said that the US government, including the FBI, have completely misunderstood the reality of Mr Dotcom?s business.

Mr Davidson told the court the business did not involve?

For that matter, should the company that manfactures the laptop I?m writing this on be liable if I use it to infringe copyright?

Also today,
FileSonic, FileServe, FilePost, MultiUpload, Uploaded.to, Sharebee are now all down or restricted to some extent.

We've been seeing that for a while with Sony building MP3 and video players that you have to break copyright to load up. I think it gets resolved around the?

Given the large?

It's on now. Talk about chilling effects.

And lost. How ironic. #can'tstopthesignal

Worked very well – I'd happily have paid for?

Yup. On this we totally agree ;-)

they seem to manage it in the US market

The BBC do a good job with the iPlayer – I know they've geoblocked the tv content, but the radio is pretty good.

It is certainly?

Territorial licensing and distribution agreements are a pain — but remain entirely logical with respect to physical product.

I'd have to say that for all it gets pilloried,?

If you're using Firefox, you might be able to run the Anonymox extension.

its the distribution channels that are changing not peoples desire to enjoy content... its for the content owners to find a way to generate revenue...

megaupload showed one way... allegedly with illegal content... replace that with sanctioned content?

Here, we are a secondary market. Shows here are sold to?

At a Great Blend some time ago, we had the BBC's Ashley Highfield as a guest. He asked the audience who would pay an annual license fee?

We have an extradition treaty with the United States.

Unless?

And it?ll get worse before it gets better. SKY is becoming the Ma Bell of NZ TV. Can?

Pretty much, yes.

Netflix did also cite the licensing situation. Sky's lock on content is a?

Even without all that, Sky now has the economic muscle to crush all before them (and will).

and it won't help us attract and keep high-value creative/knowledge industry workers who expect first-world cultural infrastructure.

I'm sure I'm going to get crucified for saying this, but I don't have a problem with lobbyists – whether they're corporate, unions or single?

On the other hand, I don't think NZ should be acting as America's colonial policeman. I believe?

O I rylly rylly hope so!

In an ideal world, where all viewpoints are given equal weight, there might be value in commercial lobbying but that's not how the world works. Consequently, commercial interests tend to out weigh private interests or even national interests. Mostly, they preclude evidence-based policy-making as well, though not?

No government will regulate away an entire business model. TVNZ, TV3, Sky – they all depend on the ability to exclusively license popular content.

Telecom.

I would suggest that the application was submitted in draft form for consideration of the Courts to see if it would be accepted and matter progressed from that point as it did.

After a deemed?

That is interesting. Certainly niche has been the way to go for some time in a number of industries – as long as the niche is big enough to make it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5LlaF2AoL-o

Geoff: Trade unions represent (and lobby for) the interests of their members – some?

Peripheral, but I'm struck by how this US usage has replaced the previously common "kerb" in a few published articles in NZ lately. Nothing personal, just a culture shift reflecting that broader dominance of another country's thinking. Much like the IP discourse.

A Techdirt story compiled his tweets thus:

1st of all I am soooo proud?

Makes sense who the entrenched middlemen would go after first.

It was also a sawn off shotgun, not commonly used for anything except scaring people at close range. Owning that is nearly the only thing I would hold against Mr Dotcom. Except the matter of befriending?

MegaUpload – Closed.
– FileServe – Closing does not sell premium.
– FileJungle – Deleting files. Locked in the U.S..
– UploadStation – Locked in the U.S..
– FileSonic – the?

This is just wrong.

A UK FSA study found evidence of money laundering — or at least?

Funnily enough, Stuff's Henry Cooke retweeted a similar argument.

Ah yes. That's the exception I was trying to think of.

They're only shooting themselves in the foot here, but it is worth noting that this is precisely the?

Though not Google (surprise, surprise).

All over, they launder
Ah, the hypocrisy of Democracy.