DOJ Releases Some Megaupload Evidence; Actually Shows Difficulty Of Running ...

[Mike]

Following the reports of how the DOJ was sharing Megaupload evidence with private companies, the DOJ has now unsealed details of some of the evidence it has against Megaupload. Looking through the details, it's not surprising that much of it simply repeats things that were in the Megaupload indictment. And, as we noted about the indictment, that seems to include taking a bunch of things out of context, and trying to paint them in the worst possible light, when put back into the context, much of what's discussed doesn't seem that bad at all.

For example, the DOJ discusses Skype chats and emails in which Megaupload employees discuss ways in which they might prevent some infringement from happening, and at other times say things like "I have the feeling that Kim tolerates a certain amount of copyright infringement." While the DOJ seems to think these are damning, it seems like the opposite. It seems clear from a statement like the one quoted that "enabling infringement" wasn't a focus of the operation. After all, if the company was so focused on profiting from infringement, wouldn't it be clearly known and wouldn't it be openly discussed as such? Saying that you think the boss "tolerates a certain amount of copyright infringement" suggests, without any direct evidence, that the company recognizes it needs to deal with the infringement effort, but that there are tradeoffs there. IF the company was really a "piracy conspiracy" as the DOJ and the MPAA like to claim, then you'd think the comments would be much more along the lines of direct quotes about figuring out ways to enable much more infringement. Instead, you get discussions of ways to possibly stop more infringement:

“Maybe we should automatically delete videos on Megavideo that are longer than 30 minutes and have more than XXX views or something because I still see so much piracy that is being embedded.”;

That doesn't sound like something coming from a company that is interested in building a business around infringement. It sounds like a cloud storage provider struggling with the best way to provide the best service possible, while thinking through ways to limit infringement.

As far as I can tell from these snippets, the DOJ seems to be arguing "well, they knew the service was used for infringement, thus they're guilty for not stopping it." But that's not (at all) how the law works. As was found in the Viacom/YouTube case, company officials need to be aware of specific cases of infringement (such as via a clear and complying takedown notice) rather than general knowledge that the platform is used (even widely) for infringement.

Once again, while you never know how a judge might read these statements out of context when presented in the worst possible light by a DOJ that's in-bed with the MPAA, the striking thing to me is that the evidence is so weak. Given just how much the MPAA made Kim Dotcom out to be pure evil, I honestly expected real evidence of an operation built around infringement. The DOJ's case is stunningly weak here. If I were working at the DOJ, honestly, I'd be hoping that the extradition attempt fails, because actually pursuing this case in court runs a very serious risk of a huge embarrassment for the government, bringing a highly questionable case on the weakest of evidence, presented entirely out of context.



source

[ddoking007]

once again the people doing to attacks are blowing out of proportion like any other case they do to make the jury think they are guilty (no surprise really) just look at the case against the founder of Best gore on trial to sum up what the courts does is this as Mark Marek puts it in his response to the "1 Lunatic 1 Icepick" video question "Do you regret posting it now?":

From its inception in 2008, Best Gore has been saving lives and has a track record to prove it. Content posted on Best Gore is real and as such, leaves a deep imprint on the viewer. Over the years, I’ve received countless testimonies from the readers who told me how material on Best Gore changed their lives for the better. Many drivers who used to routinely speed each time they drove in their car found themselves sticking with the posted speed limit after seeing a few images of mangled traffic accident victims. Motorcyclists who used to enjoy cutting in front of cars at excessive speeds no longer do that after seeing images of other motorcyclists ripped in half or decapitated by a guardrail. Operators of heavy machinery don’t horse around a workplace like they used to after seeing the video of a man crushed by a cargo container.

There even was a man who seriously contemplated suicide by hanging but was put off by grossly deformed necks of hanging victims, and despite how shitty his life was, after seeing on Best Gore what happens to others, he realized that he really didn’t have it all that bad and has not had suicide on his mind since. He’s been a regular ever since, using Best Gore as the only therapist that ever succeeded in curing his depression and used it as a daily reminder of how amazing his life really was.

There are literally thousands of testimonies similar to those that I’ve received over the years of running Best Gore. Depictions of real life simply work better as deterrents than even years of counseling. There is a reason why even governments themselves often resort to using these “obscene” images – because nothing simply works quite as effectively. You can find them on cigarette boxes, available in full view to the minors, or in public service announcements encouraging drivers to drive responsibly, refrain from texting whole driving or refrain from driving impaired.

Ironically, the prosecutors, masters of hypocrisy, who are after me for showing graphic images to the public do the same as part of their work routine. When dealing with accused murderers, they always make sure the jury gets a clear, vivid view of the gruesome, graphic images of the victim, because they know exposing the jury to reality without censorship will leave an impact. Funny how selective the prosecutors as well as the public are about whom they condemn.

to sum that up he basically said they find the worst photos and use them in court to make them look like they are the doing it for the good of the people

I personal am agreeing with Mark's statement they are nuts plain and simple.
more hypocrites in the courts then anywhere IMO but the shit they doing now IS BULL SHIT....

but that's my 2 cents worth of thought