http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57342716-281/rep-issa-sopa-wont-be-approved-unless-fixed/
or
alturl. com/ssqdz
both are correct
Feds Shut Down Megaupload
- Thread starter cvrle77
- Start date
- Status
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57342716-281/rep-issa-sopa-wont-be-approved-unless-fixed/
or
alturl. com/ssqdz
both are correct
Gerner2010
Active Member
Seems like it lol
Skylookspink
Active Member
Skylookspink
Active Member
MU is a big company. didnt they use any trick or loophole to aoid these sort of disasters?
How Fed approached and what reason they showed for seizing property and bank account?
How Fed approached and what reason they showed for seizing property and bank account?
I cant for the life of me see why they shut down megaupload. Megaupload never supported warez, it complied with dmca complaints. The U.S government has way too much control, if this goes on like this they wouldnt even need sopa to shut down sites lol. They will just go inside any country as they please and just arrest random people(except China,Iran,North Korea) (we all know what happens if they try and go there). Something needs to be done about this !>_>
PS: They never paid uploaders who uploaded ilegal files so meh.
PS: They never paid uploaders who uploaded ilegal files so meh.
Gerner2010
Active Member
YES!
You will be sent to Guantanamo!
All of you!
You will be sent to Guantanamo!
All of you!
)))There is more info in the indictment backing up each of these, but you can read for yourselves. Let's take just a few of the statements:
They used MegaUpload as a place to get their own pirated material. Here's one statement of at least tenfolds through the indictment:
Conspirators have searched the internal database for their associates and themselves so that they may directly access copyright-infringing content on servers leased by the Mega Conspiracy.
They didn't really delete files when they got DMCA and abuse requests:
[...] During the course of the Conspiracy, the Mega Conspiracy has received many millions of requests (through the Abuse Tool and otherwise) to remove infringing copies of copyrighted works and yet the Conspiracy has, at best, only deleted the particular URL of which the copyright holder complained, and purposefully left the actual infringing copy of the copyrighted work on the Mega Conspiracy-controlled server and any other access links completely intact.
They themselves used it, rather stupidly, to spread infringing material (lots of emails and such through the text):
Members of the Mega Conspiracy are aware of the way that their sites are actually used by others; have themselves used the systems to upload, as well as reproduce and distribute, infringing copies of copyrighted content; and are aware that they have financially benefitted directly from the infringement of copyrighted works that they are in a position to control.
the list goes on.
Computerbuddy
Active Member
Megaupload lawyer Q&A on DOJ criminal case
Megaupload.com is going to fight the federal indictment against it and seven of its employees. The company, attorney Ira Rothkin says, wasn’t given due process and believes there are several legal precedents that will absolve it from the FBI’s criminal case.
Here’s an edited version of an interview late Thursday with Rothkin on the music and video file-sharing and storage site’s defense:
Q: Introduce yourself and what your initial reaction is to the criminal indictment.
A: I’m Megaupload’s outside litigation counsel. We heard about the indictment for the first time by reading the DOJ’s press release today. It was in the morning Pacific Time.
There was a complete lack of notice and opportunity to be heard by Megaupload. That raises some serious due process concerns that the government could shut down an entire series of Web sites without a court hearing the other side.
Q: Didn’t the FBI approach you about its concerns or its intention to file the indictment?
A: Never did law enforcement reach us. Megaupload has never been found to be [a] copyright infringer. There are no civil or criminal judgements against us. This was all done through a secretive process, an indictment process in Virginia where Megaupload was never able to bring up its side.
Q: They have much evidence in their indictment of illegal activity. They have seized not only the site but assets of employees. How will you defend yourself?
A: The allegations in the indictment appear very similar to the types against popular sites in civil cases like YouTube. YouTube ultimately prevailed in its case.
Megaupload will vigorously defend itself in this case, and we believe we will likely succeed.
Q: Did Megaupload know it was hosting the illegal transfer of copyrighted files?
A: It’s difficult if not impossible to know the answer to that question. But even if you assume that users are uploading infringing works, under the Supreme Court (opinion in a previous case), you could still pass substantial non-infringing uses and be immune from liability and process.
In a second case, Sony prevailed when sued over Betamax (video recording) with the Supreme Court saying it wasn’t liable for infringing copy as long as it was capable of substantial non-infringing uses.
So at a very minimum, the case is of first impression against a cloud storage company where there are robust defenses where the government has acted in what appears to be an aggressive and needlessly aggressive way.
Q: What about knowledge of illegal content, though?
A: Under the YouTube standard, in which YouTube prevailed, it’s not enough for an Internet service provider to have even a healthy knowledge that illegal files are stored on a site. It has to have specific notice by copyright owners before it is held responsible for it. Otherwise YouTube would only be as good as some hearsay on it. There would be no YouTube today if that was not the standard.
It seems rather curious that the government would act so aggressively especially given the risk that at the end of the day they could be wrong.
Q: What do you mean by the risk?
A: If they are wrong, given the fact that they have taken down a site completely, there is no way to unring the bell. If it ends up being that Megaupload wins its criminal case, the fact that the government acted to take down the site and dried up all traffic, it will be virtually impossible for the site to be resurrected.
Q: What next? How long will the site be down?
A: Can’t say. That will ultimately be decided by the court. Right now we are in the process of retaining criminal defense counsel.
Q: What about your employees that were arrested?
A: Four have been arrested in New Zealand and counsel has been retained in New Zealand in that issue and to communicate with them.
As for the others, we aren’t certain.
Q: What is the status of CEO Kaseem “Swizz Beatz†Dean?
A: In terms of CEO, my understanding is that there wasn’t actually a CEO of the company. He is almost a CEO.
Q: What does that mean?
A: I don’t think he was officially the CEO. He was still in negotiation on that.
Q: Has anyone in the U.S. been indicted?
A: Not to my knowledge.
Q: Why was this indictment in Virginia, for a Hong Kong based company?
A: Apparently there were some servers used by Megaupload sites in Virginia.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...riminal-case/2012/01/20/gIQA3HJhDQ_story.html
Megaupload.com is going to fight the federal indictment against it and seven of its employees. The company, attorney Ira Rothkin says, wasn’t given due process and believes there are several legal precedents that will absolve it from the FBI’s criminal case.
Here’s an edited version of an interview late Thursday with Rothkin on the music and video file-sharing and storage site’s defense:
Q: Introduce yourself and what your initial reaction is to the criminal indictment.
A: I’m Megaupload’s outside litigation counsel. We heard about the indictment for the first time by reading the DOJ’s press release today. It was in the morning Pacific Time.
There was a complete lack of notice and opportunity to be heard by Megaupload. That raises some serious due process concerns that the government could shut down an entire series of Web sites without a court hearing the other side.
Q: Didn’t the FBI approach you about its concerns or its intention to file the indictment?
A: Never did law enforcement reach us. Megaupload has never been found to be [a] copyright infringer. There are no civil or criminal judgements against us. This was all done through a secretive process, an indictment process in Virginia where Megaupload was never able to bring up its side.
Q: They have much evidence in their indictment of illegal activity. They have seized not only the site but assets of employees. How will you defend yourself?
A: The allegations in the indictment appear very similar to the types against popular sites in civil cases like YouTube. YouTube ultimately prevailed in its case.
Megaupload will vigorously defend itself in this case, and we believe we will likely succeed.
Q: Did Megaupload know it was hosting the illegal transfer of copyrighted files?
A: It’s difficult if not impossible to know the answer to that question. But even if you assume that users are uploading infringing works, under the Supreme Court (opinion in a previous case), you could still pass substantial non-infringing uses and be immune from liability and process.
In a second case, Sony prevailed when sued over Betamax (video recording) with the Supreme Court saying it wasn’t liable for infringing copy as long as it was capable of substantial non-infringing uses.
So at a very minimum, the case is of first impression against a cloud storage company where there are robust defenses where the government has acted in what appears to be an aggressive and needlessly aggressive way.
Q: What about knowledge of illegal content, though?
A: Under the YouTube standard, in which YouTube prevailed, it’s not enough for an Internet service provider to have even a healthy knowledge that illegal files are stored on a site. It has to have specific notice by copyright owners before it is held responsible for it. Otherwise YouTube would only be as good as some hearsay on it. There would be no YouTube today if that was not the standard.
It seems rather curious that the government would act so aggressively especially given the risk that at the end of the day they could be wrong.
Q: What do you mean by the risk?
A: If they are wrong, given the fact that they have taken down a site completely, there is no way to unring the bell. If it ends up being that Megaupload wins its criminal case, the fact that the government acted to take down the site and dried up all traffic, it will be virtually impossible for the site to be resurrected.
Q: What next? How long will the site be down?
A: Can’t say. That will ultimately be decided by the court. Right now we are in the process of retaining criminal defense counsel.
Q: What about your employees that were arrested?
A: Four have been arrested in New Zealand and counsel has been retained in New Zealand in that issue and to communicate with them.
As for the others, we aren’t certain.
Q: What is the status of CEO Kaseem “Swizz Beatz†Dean?
A: In terms of CEO, my understanding is that there wasn’t actually a CEO of the company. He is almost a CEO.
Q: What does that mean?
A: I don’t think he was officially the CEO. He was still in negotiation on that.
Q: Has anyone in the U.S. been indicted?
A: Not to my knowledge.
Q: Why was this indictment in Virginia, for a Hong Kong based company?
A: Apparently there were some servers used by Megaupload sites in Virginia.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...riminal-case/2012/01/20/gIQA3HJhDQ_story.html
powermatrix
Active Member
These SOPA and PIPA for protecting the Hollywood movies n music only right...So if any user uploads movie in a filehost , are they also liable for prosecution or only the owner will be caught ?
And what abt if someone share other Language like Japanese,Indian movies ?
And what abt if someone share other Language like Japanese,Indian movies ?
Computerbuddy
Active Member
powermatrix,
I am uploading Indian movies and didn't receive a single DMCA notice so far :-)
I am uploading Indian movies and didn't receive a single DMCA notice so far :-)
Rapidshare post on facebook..
RapidShare
Dear RapidShare fans,
You posted some comments on our wall today regarding the shutdown of Megaupload. There is no reason to be concerned. We distinguish ourselves from services like Megaupload in many major issues and we aren’t threatened in any way. One of the main differences between RapidShare and Megaupload is that we never wanted to escape from the legal access of any administration. RapidShare AG was founded in Switzerland, was always based at the address cited in the imprint and was always managed with an authentic name without any anonymous intermediary companies. The drastic measures against Megaupload were obviously seen as necessary by the FBI because the situation was different there.
We wish you a great time with RapidShare!
RapidShare
Dear RapidShare fans,
You posted some comments on our wall today regarding the shutdown of Megaupload. There is no reason to be concerned. We distinguish ourselves from services like Megaupload in many major issues and we aren’t threatened in any way. One of the main differences between RapidShare and Megaupload is that we never wanted to escape from the legal access of any administration. RapidShare AG was founded in Switzerland, was always based at the address cited in the imprint and was always managed with an authentic name without any anonymous intermediary companies. The drastic measures against Megaupload were obviously seen as necessary by the FBI because the situation was different there.
We wish you a great time with RapidShare!
- Status