once the
Lawyers have had their cut this will be sorted out.
Two Megaupload execs bailed
Two of the Megaupload executives arrested in last week’s raid on the company in New Zealand have been granted bail. Bram van der Kolk and Finn Batato will have to submit to strict bail conditions including electronic monitoring. The two, who won’t be released until police check their bail addresses, have also been banned from …
-
-
Friday 27th January 2012 00:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
@AC poster
The way I see it 'the people' (sic) will be all too willing to drop all charges as soon as the terrists (sorry; suspects) are willing to tick in $10K / month for the upcoming 30 years.
Justice isn't served here; greedy boffins are the key beneficials here.
Two things which really upset me in this case... First; what about the people who used the Megaupload servers for legitimate contents? What about their rights ?
Second; if this endeavor was the huge threat as some groups portrait it to be; how come that the music & move industry has seen a /major/ increase in profits on digital media ?
Sure; one can easily argument that "without Megaupload there would have been MORE profit" but honestly.. Isn't the ongoing argument that the income of the authors is plain out threatened with "digital pirating" ?
Question... If the licensing /agency/ (so /not/ the artist!) manages to increase their profits while said artists are on their payroll.... How is this damaging the income of said artists exactly ?
Repeating myself but; this isn't about justice.
-
Friday 27th January 2012 08:55 GMT Mad Mike
@AC
"30 years plus $10K per copy should do the trick nicely. It should send a clear message to other criminals."
What a balanced comment!! So, copyright infringement should be seen as a more serious crime than murder now? Talk about a lack of perspective. They are being accused (as far as I know) of money crimes only. Not crimes against the person. The day when money crimes attract higher sentencing than crimes against the person, you really know society is doomed. People need to get their priorities straight. How can relieving someone, even illegally, of some money ever be seen as worse than relieving them of their life?
If these guys are fairly prosecuted and proved to have done wrong, then they should receive a just sentence. The reason the law is in such disrepute these days is partially because of the stupid sentencing which has absolutely no relation to the scale or impact of the crime.
-
-
-
Friday 27th January 2012 09:00 GMT Mad Mike
@SDoradus
Yes, I do wonder about the money laundering charges. Haven't seen the detail yet, but you do wonder if they're just to make the extradition easier rather than for any particularly good reason. Course, they may be genuine, in which case fine, but know the FBI and USA in general, they're not beyond using these dubious methods. I think the defendants should count themselves lucky they're not on a flight which never existed if you know what I mean.
-
-
Friday 27th January 2012 08:58 GMT Mad Mike
@AC
"Denial is not an effective legal defense, nor is stupidity so these boys are headed for the Iron Bar Hotel."
Errr. No. The basis of the legal system is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, denial is a completely effective legal defence unless the prosecution can prove your guilt. Otherwise, anyone who ever pleads innocent to a crime and is found not guilty is, according to you, guilty or your statement is wrong......
-
-
Friday 27th January 2012 09:41 GMT Richard Wharram
Hypertension and diabetes?
Well maybe if Kimble wasn't such a fat, greasy fuck he would be healthy?
Seriously though, the money laundering wouldn't surprise me at all. Kimble is the most odious man you could ever meet and would never respect other people or laws. It's not in his nature. He is the model aggressive internet sociopath.
This also highlights that there is no need for new laws on copyright and IP. If the authorities actually go to the effort to make a proper case they can catch people. Hopefully they will find some way to prove that piracy was central to his business and was done wilfully. If not then he shouldn't be prosecuted for IP infringment, proof must be required still, but they can still have him on money laundering and any other number of offences it wouldn't surprise me to learn he's committed.
(if you are wondering about the hate there's many an old hand from the internet in the 90s who are hoping he gets locked away from the internet forever)
-
Friday 27th January 2012 09:54 GMT Mad Mike
@Richard Wharram
Personally, I have knowledge of the man beyond media writeups and he may well be guilty of money laundering. I have no idea. From what I can find out, he seems to be an extremely intelligent person who is able to manipulate people very effectively, but probably doesn't have much of a social conscience.
You are absolutely right about the law. There is absolutely no need to put new laws in place. The current ones are perfectly adequate to deal with people. However, as the problem is so widespread now, they seem to be trying to cut corners and find quicker and simpler ways of dealing with IP infringement. Unfortunately, the powers that be and their backers seem quite happy to throw due process and the small question of innocent until proven guilty away in the process. Not the first time, or even the first area in which this has occured, but the others were more restrictive in who they generally hit and therefore less of an issue.
I still find myself amazed that merely tracing the offending IP address back to a specific house and therefore contract is enough to find the contract owner guilty. Firstly, we all know IP addresses can be faked. Secondly, maybe it's a virus (or other piece of malware) doing it rather than the owner who may be oblivious. Finally, perhaps more than one person uses the link and therefore assuming it's the contract holder (or his liabiltiy) is a real push. However, in the UK, IP address seems to be enough to single you out for abuse from rabid dog solicitors (see Crossley) etc.
-
Friday 27th January 2012 10:28 GMT Richard Wharram
IP address does attract solicitors...
...but the cases have never been upheld to the best of my knowledge. Rightly so too. It's circumstantial evidence. That's why they are constantly trying to circumvent the need for real evidence as you point out.
I just hope people don't make Kimble out to be some martyr standing up for due process against big entertainment pigopolists. He isn't. He's a twat.
-
-
-
Friday 27th January 2012 17:30 GMT Dani Eder
New competition?
If the operators of Megaupload really made the huge profits claimed, won't that simply attract replacement websites to fill the void? The public's demand for content has not changed, nor has the cost of operating a site. New competitors, assuming they have half a brain, will have a less flashy lifestyle, squirrel away profits somewhere secure, and locate in less extraditable countries.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
