Find content
Male
Display name history
Quote
THE cast of characters in a controversial case involving alleged online piracy of copyrighted content seems like it could have come straight from an action-film script. There is Kim Dotcom, a German internet entrepreneur who changed his surname from Schmitz to reflect his passion for the web, and at whose mansion in New Zealand the police reportedly seized a load of luxury cars, including, yes, a pink Cadillac. There is a bunch of activist hackers, or “hacktivists”, collectively known as “Anonymous”. There are Hollywood film and music companies. And there are the G-men from America’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Yet there is nothing remotely fictional about the accusations that have been made against Megaupload.com, an online file-sharing site that Mr Dotcom founded. On January 20th the FBI and authorities in a number of other countries, including Hong Kong, Britain and the Netherlands, seized servers or other assets of the firm, effectively shutting down the service. Mr Dotcom and several other people allegedly involved with the site were arrested in New Zealand the same day.
These moves were a response to charges brought by American prosecutors, who have accused the site of criminal copyright infringement and money laundering on a massive scale. A lawyer representing Megaupload has said that the company intends to “vigorously contest” the allegations, which are “without merit”. The case will be watched closely by entertainment companies in America, whose efforts to get legislation passed to make it easier to pursue copyright violators have just been stymied by opposition from the internet industry, as we reported in this week's print edition.
That legislation was aimed at companies operating entirely outside America. In Megaupload’s case, the Hong Kong-based firm was already vulnerable to a legal challenge from the United States because it used a large number of servers on American soil. Like other so-called “cyberlockers”, the firm enabled customers to store films, music and other content on its servers and then to create links to the material to be shared electronically. People wanting to keep large amounts of stuff on Megaupload—and to take advantage of faster uploading and downloading speeds—paid a fee to the firm, which touted its services in videos such as this one, which claims that the site accounted for 4% of all internet traffic.
These fees plus revenue from online adverts allowed Megaupload to make megabucks. According to prosecutors, the firm had generated over $175m since 2005. They also say that when entertainment companies complained to the company that their copyrighted material was being exchanged illegally via its service, it removed some offending links to the material, but not the content itself. This is said to have deprived copyright owners of over $500m in revenue.
Whatever the eventual outcome of the case, it has already elicited a swift response from two very different quarters. The entertainment industry has been quick to point out that if Megaupload hadn’t had operations in America, it would have been beyond the reach of its prosecutors. Industry lobbyists say this shows why new legislation is badly needed to target copyright violators with no presence in the country.
The other response came from Anonymous. After news of Megaupload’s fate emerged, outraged members of the group launched a series of cyberattacks on several websites, including those of the FBI, America’s Department of Justice and the New Zealand police service. The hackers appear to have used large numbers of computers to overload the target sites with traffic, knocking them offline, in what is known as a “distributed denial of service” attack. The sites were eventually able to recover from this digital assault. Megaupload will find bouncing back from the legal one it faces much harder.
Yet there is nothing remotely fictional about the accusations that have been made against Megaupload.com, an online file-sharing site that Mr Dotcom founded. On January 20th the FBI and authorities in a number of other countries, including Hong Kong, Britain and the Netherlands, seized servers or other assets of the firm, effectively shutting down the service. Mr Dotcom and several other people allegedly involved with the site were arrested in New Zealand the same day.
These moves were a response to charges brought by American prosecutors, who have accused the site of criminal copyright infringement and money laundering on a massive scale. A lawyer representing Megaupload has said that the company intends to “vigorously contest” the allegations, which are “without merit”. The case will be watched closely by entertainment companies in America, whose efforts to get legislation passed to make it easier to pursue copyright violators have just been stymied by opposition from the internet industry, as we reported in this week's print edition.
That legislation was aimed at companies operating entirely outside America. In Megaupload’s case, the Hong Kong-based firm was already vulnerable to a legal challenge from the United States because it used a large number of servers on American soil. Like other so-called “cyberlockers”, the firm enabled customers to store films, music and other content on its servers and then to create links to the material to be shared electronically. People wanting to keep large amounts of stuff on Megaupload—and to take advantage of faster uploading and downloading speeds—paid a fee to the firm, which touted its services in videos such as this one, which claims that the site accounted for 4% of all internet traffic.
These fees plus revenue from online adverts allowed Megaupload to make megabucks. According to prosecutors, the firm had generated over $175m since 2005. They also say that when entertainment companies complained to the company that their copyrighted material was being exchanged illegally via its service, it removed some offending links to the material, but not the content itself. This is said to have deprived copyright owners of over $500m in revenue.
Whatever the eventual outcome of the case, it has already elicited a swift response from two very different quarters. The entertainment industry has been quick to point out that if Megaupload hadn’t had operations in America, it would have been beyond the reach of its prosecutors. Industry lobbyists say this shows why new legislation is badly needed to target copyright violators with no presence in the country.
The other response came from Anonymous. After news of Megaupload’s fate emerged, outraged members of the group launched a series of cyberattacks on several websites, including those of the FBI, America’s Department of Justice and the New Zealand police service. The hackers appear to have used large numbers of computers to overload the target sites with traffic, knocking them offline, in what is known as a “distributed denial of service” attack. The sites were eventually able to recover from this digital assault. Megaupload will find bouncing back from the legal one it faces much harder.
Not to worry, im sure the guys will find their way out of this. With the cash they have, they can afford the best legal defense, and itll be up in a few months.
