Will MegaUpload Founder Get His Property Back?Added: Friday, March 23rd, 2012
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Current Events
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
Last week the press revealed the latest development in the case of famous file-sharing service MegaUpload. According to the reports, its owner Kim Dotcom may get some of his belongings back, including electronic devices, documents, and cars, thanks to procedural misconduct.
Despite the sad fact that MegaUpload service might never be back again, it founder Kim Dotcom has started to recover from this huge blow. Since his local authorities have admitted that there were some procedural mistakes made before seizing his belongings, the police may have to give them back to Dotcom.
During a TV interview that was taken at Kim Dotcom’s house, where he is currently forced to stay, MegaUpload owner explained that the company has been sued only once. It has never happened before, and no film company or major copyright outfit ever launched a lawsuit against the cyberlocker. Meanwhile, MegaUpload has spent millions of dollars on legal advice over the last years, and the company’s legal advisers assured the service was always secure.
Kim Dotcom was also talking about the history of his file-sharing service – about its enormous success, and welfare, and about how the Motion Picture Association of America removed more than 15,000,000 infringing links from the site. Dotcom also pointed at the issues of an obsolete business model in which the entertainment industry is sinking fast enough. In return, he suggested another business model – the one where everybody is able to access the content at the same time. That’s how the industry can eliminate a piracy problem, instead of continuing protecting an outdated monopolist business model which doesn’t even work anymore in our online era.
Today Dotcom is waiting for a court decision on whether he will recover his belongings. Meanwhile, his lawyers are trying to prove the local authorities lack of faith.
March 23rd,2012Posted by:
Friday, March 23rd, 2012
|Admittedly, DotCom has made an immense amount of money off of illegal file-sharing.|
However, due to my limited knowledge of the NZ legal system, I am still very confused as to how/why he has not had his property returned to him on the basis of a faulty/incorrect application or filing procedure.
The authorities are attempting to refile the correct one for the search and seizure, in the meantime holding on to what they already have, but doesn't that amount to both an abuse of the legal system itself AND theft/unlawful possession of personal/private property?
They can't say "well we uncovered more evidence from the items we've seized and that is the basis of more charges..." according to the law, can they?
If they seizure was not legally binding or incorrectly applied, all items or property is inadmissible regardless of the evidence.
That's like the police walking into anyone's house WITHOUT probable cause (only on the word of American corporations and lobbyists), seizing whatever they feel like, taking it back to their headquarters, rummaging about through it for damaging evidence, then laying charges against the person.
Either the legal system is adhered to in order to ensure the justice system's integrity, or not. Bending the law and rules to suit the needs of the authorities does not constitute integrity, so again, I am confused.
Whatever else we may think of Kim Dotcom, the blatant misuse and dismissal of proper legalities in order to ensure a scapegoat is basically crucified is highly inappropriate, and likely highly illegal.
Let's hope Justice prevailes, not legality.
|OpenMinder very true.|
In the USA that so called evidence would NOT be admissible in court since it was obtained illegally.
Kim Dotcom appears not to be the type of person who takes getting screwed lightly and I am sure when the time comes he will go on the offensive towards the people who did this.
The point is can these people prove Dotcom wasn't complying with any DCMA notices? It appears he was according to this article.
There is also all the innocent people and businesses that also have suffered allot of damage as well; let the law suits begin.
Always like your posts, even if I disagree with them.
Yeah, I just don't get the whole situation. To begin with, is DCMA globally binding? If it is, wouldn't a global or international court be responsible then to handle those cases outside the U.S. instead of extraditing them from their own countries?
I can see and understand extradition for certain charges; murder, for one, and child abuse (sex, porn, etc.)...things like that.
If he was complying, then what?
I agree he doesn't seem willing to take it lightly, and I really hope he prevails, but going against the U.S. government is no easy or light task.
It would have been better for Dotcom to sue THEM instead, as it's usually cheaper to file than to defend.
Then there are all the collaterally damaged participants, as you said, and what are they to do for their data?
These are interesting times we are in. I hope the entity of the Internet prevails over the attempt to control it, and Anonymous is most welcome towards this end.
At least, for me, but who am I or any of us, really, as individuals. Together, however...
|posted by (2012-03-23 20:51:59)|
|That's like the police walking into anyone's house WITHOUT probable cause (only on the word of American corporations and lobbyists), seizing whatever they feel like, taking it back to their headquarters, rummaging about through it for damaging evidence, then laying charges against the person.|
hahahahaha OK its like this: This is New Zealand. THATS exactly what the cops here do. We have a law (section 18 of misuse of drugs act) means cops can search you, your property, anything. Anytime they want, without any permission. If they find shit, booom your screwed. No such thing as illegal search and seizure here. AND BTW these articles about Dotcom getting his stuff back because of technicality? Not even on the national news once, are you sure its even true??
|Dotcom should get everything back including his busines.|
|True about what another poster says about drug seizes.|
But a point is being missed?
Dotcomm was arrested and his property seized on the orders of the USA agencies involved and they are working to extradite him to the US for trial.
The rules of evidence in a USA court apply also to evidence obtained in another country and if that evidence was obtained illegally; then it can't be used against him. It is called - fruit of the poison tree.
Anything obtained illegally and anything after that point can not be used as evidence.
By using a bad warrant they the MPAA, RIAA and who ever just screwed themselves.
Even if they get the correct warrant as we have read they are trying; it still wouldn't work.. NOT in a USA court..
NO evidence - no crime...
If that happens there will be a feeding frenzy from POS lawyers for the clients that had their LEGAL property seized.
One final and interesting point? Why have we not heard from the people who seized this property make a statement they have found infringing files?
|This is why I really appreciate menahunie's postings.|
I skimmed through section 18 and you're right. There is provision for probable (NZ wording is "reasonable") cause, but the definition of "reasonable" is so very loose that it begs the question of what is the point of the whole section anyways? Brutal.
Menahunie, I think (just a personal opinion) that we have not heard about any infringing files because I don't think there is any defining files or proof that clearly shows willful infringement.
There is undoubtedly frenzied action behind-the-scenes to develop something with which to nail Dotcom somehow. Time will tell.
For my part, I am really upset at the fact that this whole witch-hunt (not just Dotcom, but all file-sharers) is based upon the premises of "studies" and reports that were all commissioned or funded by the MPAA, RIAA and so forth, and policy is being developed and implemented based upon those reports' findings, and therefore, policed accordingly.
That's like Health Canada or the American Health Association creating a policy and standards of the health benefits of smoking (or lack of negative effects) based upon reports and commissions, funded by the tobacco companies, that state that smoking is in fact NOT bad for your health!
Making policy based upon one-sided information is never a bright idea, especially by those in power who are supposedly intelligent people. They are, after all, lawyers (most of them at one point or another) or successful business/corporation owners.
Some days it really feels like the Twilight Zone (that's not vampire-based for all you young-un's).
|i remember reading somewhere that Dotcom was trying something new i dont fully at this time remember the whole scope of the article it was on this site though but he was trying to do something that would change the way song writers and musicians licensed their material.|
now if that is true i can understand why the MPAA and the RIAA banded together and tried to crush him the way they did that threatens their income the truth is they dont want anyone or anything taking from what they can have
i also think and i could be wrong though they dont pass their ideas by me but my government for the most part doesn't care about piracy if we cared so much about stopping it PIPA and SOPA would have passed a long time ago but if i remember right millions of people here thought it was wrong
i also believe that all the light is being shined on the american government as a scapegoat for all of this when it is the MPAA who is the ones who are filing for piracy now please do not get me wrong i am not defending my country for the hell of it i am a american citizen and well aware of the crap my country has done to others i just believe there is something more going on here then we all know and Mr dotcom is just the tip of it i think the truth is it is easier for the MPAA to get suits passed in a american court then it is in other courts thats why they use us so much
idk though i could be wrong all i know is what i can find on the web i have looked on tv on CNN and other news channels and oddly enough none of this has seemed to make anything but a footnote its like here no one cares about piracy but like i said before i believe there is more to this then we will ever know Mr Dotcom came close to doing something and they silenced him best they could or so they think i for one hope he fights and i hope he wins
@openMinder "we are now in control of the horizontal and the vertical"
|raven1618 - It all depends who is twisting those knobs that control your Boob Tube..|
OpenMinder - True there is allot of running around behind the scenes and maybe allot of CYA going on now.
I have seen things work themselves out most of the time; but in the mean time there is allot of yelling and screaming going on. In this instance they I believe picked on the wrong person and I hope and pray Mr. Dotcom drops a legal nuke on these POS...
This has been the first most constructive postings on a subject I have seen so far; except the occasional trolls.
|posted by (2012-03-25 06:43:52)|
|Raven1618 Yes this is true. The new business model is about allowing the artist to directly distribute their music to the consumer. In other words removing the need for corporate entities. The artist gets to see actual sales numbers and takes over 90% of the earnings. Unlike for example a distributor like itunes store who could say you've sold around 100 copies when in actual fact they've sold 1000. Just an example not a fact. What this means also is that the artist is in control of their craft and not manipulated by a production company that wants a more teeny bopper sound to sell to a selective audience. This I feel means the artist will get to make their own music on their own terms and reap the benifts of profits, because there's no greedy corporation taking the larger percent. At one stage I heard the musician only sees around about 10% of the profits. Don't know if that's true i've only just read it somewhere.|
|Here is an article that some what explains how these ARTISTS always are getting screwed by the RIAA and others. It also may shed light on why they are doing what they are doing - foaming at the mouth and going after everyone even with out any legal documented proof of any infringing..|
Who Really Profits from Your iTunes Downloads?
By Brian Reed
November 11, 2011
Who Really Profits from Your iTunes Downloads?
Pete Townshend, The Who's legendary guitarist, made headlines recently when he called iTunes a "digital vampire" that profits from artists without providing them much support.
Townsend wants Apple to do more to support musicians, who are the backbone of their music sales.
It could be easy to brush off Townshend as a cranky old timer, but does he have a point?
Truth is, not every artist spends their free time lounging next to a pool and ordering drinks from girls in bikinis.
If you look past the musician stereotypes you’ll see that most musicians receive only a fraction of a song’s purchase price.
There’s no doubt that making music can still pay off big-time, but you might be surprised to see whose really making the most money out of each track.
Online CD Sales -- Who Wins?
Thanks to the Internet, anyone can have an audience for their music. Justin Bieber was first discovered by a talent manager that happened to look at the young artist's YouTube videos – Bieber has since blown up to super stardom.
In the music industry's basic form, an artist simply records his/her own music, reproduces it and sells it to others.
If they want to go the more old-fashioned route, an artist can burn their recorded tracks on compact discs and sell the CDs themselves at performances or on the band's own website. Or they can put it on an online retail site like CDBaby, which doesn't require musicians to have a record company to sell music.
If they sell the physical CD themselves for $9.99, they keep 100% of the profits, which is obviously the most profit-per-album a musician can hope for. But it's also not the best way to reach the widest audience. Selling that same full $9.99 album online through CDBaby means the website gets a cut to the tune of $2.49, while artists get to keep the other $7.50 for a cool 75% profit. Unfortunately for new musicians, expensive record labels are often the key to getting an artist's brand out.
The Record Label's Slice of the Pie
Record companies get a cut of absolutely everything a musician produces.
That's not too surprising, considering artists are a risky investment the record company is taking a chance on. They pay advances to the artists for recording costs and other expenses, but they expect a return on that investment.
So just how much of a cut does the artist get for an album sale under a record label?
Every contract is different, but the average high-end royalty deal with a record company will pay musicians $1 for every $10 retail album sale.
And it can be a lot worse than that; a low-end royalty deal only pays 30 cents per album sale -- amazingly small for a CD purchase, especially considering that bands may have to divide that among several members.
iTunes and Napster
In the popular digital realm, a $9.99 download on a program like iTunes nets artists a modest 94 cents -- less than a 10% cut. The record company takes $5.35 and Apple keeps the remaining $3.70.
Artists get nine cents for each individual song downloaded on Napster and iTunes. To put that into perspective, musicians need to sell 12,399 songs a month to earn a salary equal to a McDonald’s employee.
Perhaps that is why many popular artists have yet to cave to Apple and Napster, preferring to sell through other venues instead.
Enjoy listening to streaming music online? Online streaming services like Last.fm, Rhapsody and Spotify pay each time users click play, but the numbers are a pittance.
Listeners have to stream an artist’s songs 849,817 times on Rhapsody, 1,546,667 times on last.fm and 4,053,110 times on Spotify respectively to earn a monthly salary equal to minimum wage.
The Investing Answer: So how do artists survive in this industry? While music sales are part of the equation, they aren’t the only ways these artists are paid for their songs.
The real money for musicians lies in touring. Many musicians put up with the exhausting pace of life on the road because touring can be much more profitable than music sales.
Publishing royalties are also one of the most fruitful moneymakers for artists who are songwriters, but not every performer is a songwriter.
After becoming famous and obtaining a loyal following, it often makes the most sense for artists to dump their record company and go at it alone. The most successful, entrepreneurial artists often start their own record companies, going on to find their own up-and-coming artists to profit from. Thus the cycle continues…
|posted by (2012-03-25 22:21:47)|
|He will get his money back, he dosnt own the house but its some bodgy deal 1million rent and he pays 600000 maintainence aswell as having a lots of staff and security.|
The case is falling apart he wont be going anywhere near the U.S.
Shame on our government... bunch of clowns
|Megaupload is like a gun|
neither was made to do illegal things but are used as such
do we shutdown Colt, Smith and Wesson, or Glock when their weapons are used for illegal purposes? No
How then can a case be made agains Dotcom? he only created a business that let's people store their files that some use it to store illegal stuff isn't his fault
Shit I had lots of my personal stuff on MU that I can't access anymore
Most Popular Stories