Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st May 2012 15:19 UTC
Legal "Megaupload is challenging the U.S. Government's possession of millions of dollars in assets it seized from the company and its operators in January. The newly-filed and eye-opening motion slams the U.S. for holding the defendants liable for alleged offenses that aren't even a crime, ignoring laws designed to offer them protection, failing to provide any detail whatsoever on alleged infringements, and pushing U.S. law far beyond its borders." I'm sure Megaupload wasn't exactly a fluffy bunny organisation, but rarely have I seen a government screw up so badly, and so publicly.
Thread beginning with comment 520315
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I have the feeling that the real mission is already accomplished. The goal was to destroy Megaupload and scare competitors, which is a total success on all accounts (piracy does continue elsewhere...).

They looked at the example of The Pirate Bay, where seizing the servers and trial was not enough to shut the service down. So they wanted something big, really big, that would make an impression, like sending SWAT units to arrest the guy, seizing the domain name and all assets that they could reach. If they could, they would have jailed Kim Dotcom's family.

They do not have legal grounds for all (or any of) their actions ? And they are taking the chance of getting the whole legal process canceled for violation of due process ? It does not matter, since, at the end of the day, the US government does not care if Kim Dotcom spend time in jail, they also do not care about his 100 m$ fortune.

Megaupload is dead, and the competition is now collaborating to get ride of pirated content. Mission is accomplished.

Reply Score: 4

ricegf Member since:

Megaupload is dead, and the competition is now collaborating to get ride of pirated content. Mission is accomplished.

If they want to get rid of "pirated" content, they should consider making legal use of their copyrighted material more convenient than illegal use. As it stands now, while it's mildly less expensive to violate copyright, it's HUGELY more convenient - no DRM, no enforced lectures on copyright, no restrictions on the devices on which I can use the material, backups... It's astounding to me that ANYone goes the legal route.

(Disclaimer: I go the legal route as a moral obligation - except that I purchase much less copyrighted material than in my younger days. And when I do, it's usually second-hand.

For example, I wanted to read "Atlas Shrugged" to better understand Ron Paul in the current US election cycle. An eBook version is $15, and is limited to one device type.

After long searching, I finally just bought a used paperback for $6, for which Rand's estate got $0, though I would have readily paid them $10 for a PDF. For people who champion capitalism, they really don't seem to understand it very well. *Sigh*)

Reply Parent Score: 5