Could you ever let that rest?
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a Dann!
What I don’t understand is why Mr Mega was denied the right to buy that tacky mansion, . Has it got strategic or intrinsic value, related in any way to Sir Michael Fays arguments about not allowing bad foreign people to fleece us of… um dairy farms.
And the Dotcom mansion was built by Richard & Ruth Bradley who I believe, are the British founders of Crisco.
Further to @nzlemming's and my agreement (an unusual occurence) that there is a lot of water to flow under the bridge in this matter, a quick glance at another aspect of the Extradition Act reveals a further avenue. With the warrants having been granted, section 21 requires USA to notify Justice Minister Judith Collins, who must then consider whether to have the proceedings discontinued and the warrants quashed.
No doubt an eminently judicially reviewable decision.
Further to @nzlemming’s and my agreement (an unusual occurence)
All we need now is Farrar to say "ditto" and we'll be counting down the end days.
The amount of information detailed in the indictment speaks to a considerable period of surveillance and preparation, which the authorities say was 2 years. Like the SOPA/PIPA protests, I’d guess that this was coincidental and not linked to the raid.
Probably right. I'm not inclined to see conspiracy, though it's good fodder for those who are. Still, interesting to see what mr.com was up to. Big plans, stacks of cash.
The following was in today's ODT ....
Because it's always a good time for a fat joke amirite?
Indeed, that is a shocker.
yeah - it just continues from all those carefully chosen not-so-flattering photos
Media framing is not our friend, the Chinese angle on the Crafar sale is wearisome also.
Looking forward to Obama appointing First Citizen John Key an Honorary Sperical Agent of the FBI; similar in away to Nixon and Elvis:
& here also:
I blah blahed on about Dotcom on my website, btw:
There are a lot of fascinating aspects about this case.
Fundamentally I believe he knew what was going on with MegaUpload, but he spent a lot of money on lawyers to make sure he did all the things the law required to keep him out of trouble. But it didn't work. It's interesting, because that's pretty much what many big companies do - act in ways that are probably outside the spirit of the law, but carefully within the letter of it.
Like I said upthread, low hanging fruit.
The FBI could shutdown Google and arrest its staff on much the same grounds, but they won't because Google is a public company with shares held by many institutions that in turn own senators and congressman.
I'm sure that if Dotcom had thought to spend a few mil buying a congressman and issuing a few shares to well connected US VC outfits, he'd have had no troubles.
First Citizen John Key an Honorary Sperical Agent of the FBI;
You mean like…
Special Agent Kimble
The influx of cash began to fuel Schmitz’s fantasy fulfillment engine, funding his love of fast cars and outrageous antics. He promoted his new bad-boy rich hacker genius image through a bizarre Flash movie called Kimble, Special Agent, in which his cartoon alter-ego drives a “Megacar” and then a “Megaboat” before breaking into Bill Gates’ compound and riddling the wall behind Gates with a machine gun (spelling out “Linux” with bullet holes). The cartoon was the first public demonstration of Schmitz’s obsession with all things Mega.
The FBI could shutdown Google and arrest its staff on much the same grounds
If Megaupload encouraged their users to infringe copyright and were profiting from that infringement then they're definitely breaking the law. The FBI has emails where Megaupload staff discuss encouraging their users to infringe copyright. If the FBI can prove Megaupload were encouraging and profiting from copyright infringement then they'll get their convictions, and fair enough.
I don't think anyone has accused Google or YouTube of encouraging people to upload copyright infringing content. They've definitely profited from their users' copyright infringement, but that by itself isn't a crime. Also note that Google is being sued by Viacom for failing to do enough to stop copyright infringement.
breaking into Bill Gates’ compound and riddling the wall behind Gates with a machine gun (spelling out “Linux” with bullet holes)
..suddenly I like him a lot more ... but I'm still sure his business model relied on copyright infringement a whole lot more than google's
The FBI has emails where Megaupload staff discuss encouraging their users to infringe copyright.
any more detail from the filing? unlikely to have time to read it any time soon.
So how do the copyright get infringed?
Megaupload Customer A uploads copyrighted material to his account - Customer A then posts a link to file in his account on a message board that enables other people (who view the message board) to access and download the copyrighted material. The link may even be password protected and Customer A may even post the password to the secure link.
Shouldn't it be customer A, the person who is hosting the message board and the people who are downloading the materials who are infringing the copyright and should face extradition?
In my parallel universe I have a Ferrari and I let my friends drive it - the parallel here is that Ferrari get pinged with my and my friends speeding tickets as they built the machine with which we broke the speed limit.
With regard to extradition, generally, are the FBI going to use NZ as a mechanism to trap and extradite other persons of interest to the US of A.
The indictment alleges that MU staff not only knew that users were uploading copyrighted material and sharing the links, but were encouraging them to do so, were paying them to do so, were profiting from them doing so and were not fulfilling their requirements under the DMCA to remove material when notified by "rightsholders".
I note here that the FBI indicment is for massive copyright infringement and money laundering.
So how does "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA) which is United States copyright law take affect in New Zealand - and are the notices valid in NZ or anywhere but the USA and the power of the US Federal Governemtn to Seize/ make porperty subject to forfeit get to apply in NZ.
Please go back and read the thread. The accused are not being charged under New Zealand law. They are being accused of criminal copyright infringement under US law. The New Zealand Police were requested to assist in the apprehension of the accused under international treaty, and now the FBI will apply to extradite them to the USA to stand trial. Seizure is by the US because they are bringing the charges. The seizure is global, as I understand it.
The DMCA can have an effect on NZ citizens - if you post a video (say, a spoof advertisement) to YouTube that someone (say, Telecom) objects to, they can use the DMCA to have it taken down because YouTube falls under US jurisdiction.
If you're coming for a fight, at least load your gun ;-)
, section 21 requires USA to notify Justice Minister Judith Collins, who must then consider whether to have the proceedings discontinued and the warrants quashed.
Which we know what that means. Arse, kiss, much? Collins will be rubbing her hands with glee. She can get her name up in the big smoke. National loves USA. It makes them feel important.
Who are the real Pirates...
Booz Allen Hamilton would come under the heading of "Privateer"one would think.
Avast and belay me hearties.
Cybersecurity is a journey, not a destination. Today’s cyber battleground is constantly evolving, and cyber criminals are devising increasingly sophisticated attacks for both financial and political gain. To stay one step ahead of threats, organizations need access to a host of Cyber resources designed to help them prevent, identify, and effectively respond to rogue cyber agents. Booz Allen Cyber Solutions Network capabilities were created to do just that.
Not quite. See s131(5)(a) of the same Act. Criminal copyright infringement in NZ can carry penalties of up to five years' imprisonment, which is well above the 12-month limit needed to trigger the Extradition Act 1999. The key element in s131 is that the infringement is 'in the course of business' (i.e. for material gain) or 'otherwise than for [personal use]'. I think Megaupload.com would probably satisfy these conditions.
Ooh, I've got one. It's really like I saw a show on TV about how to make a nice cheese sandwich, so I made one, and it was nice. Now Mediaworks is gone and all their employees are in prison because it turns out some dude in the US made that same sort of sandwich years ago and got a recepieright, and he wasn't the only one, and one of the cleaners totally knew!.
Only people realised how fucking crazy it would be to stop people sharing the food they liked, so didn't, and it only happens when I make myself a copy of a book, a song, a movie, or a whole boatload of pictures. Or if I sing "happy birthday" to someone at a public restaurant, because that's not "public" either.
NZ just arrested a man for running a near-unlimited public server at a profit. We should all be so fucking proud.