FBI Seized Megaupload!

[sendo75]

Now I am curious, if racketeering and money laundering was not involved, would the FBI have sufficient grounds for seizure? Was this the main reason why Megaupload went down the way it did?

[Fewrfreyut]

honestly, there's a good chance nothing would have happened. But, because it was not just piracy, but profitable piracy, it had to shut down.

[Arthmoor]

@ Arthmoor:

 

True as that may be (the most expensive land in NZ? Really...?), that is not grounds for arrest though.

Flaunting wealth isn't grounds for arrest, no, but the manner in which you acquire said wealth certainly is. And criminal copyright infringement on the scale they were conducting *IS* by itself alone ground for arrest.

 

What it does show is that SOPA, PIPA and other such laws are not really needed at all because we already have plenty of laws that can do what they are supposed to do.

No, what it shows is that racketeering and money laundering laws function perfectly well when those activities are being conducted. SOPA and PIPA type legislation is required though when the sole offense is piracy not on a scale to reach the criminal threshold. The idea behind these bills isn't to be able to make more Megaupload raids. It's to enable rights holders to take action on their own without having to wait for things to get so out of hand they can't stop it.

[Marxist ßastard]

For those keeping track at home, a coalition of book publishers has shut down a book-piracy website, and they're trying to shut down hosting service ifile.it in connection to it.

[Aurielius]

@ Arthmoor:

 

True as that may be (the most expensive land in NZ? Really...?), that is not grounds for arrest though.

Flaunting wealth isn't grounds for arrest, no, but the manner in which you acquire said wealth certainly is. And criminal copyright infringement on the scale they were conducting *IS* by itself alone ground for arrest.

 

What it does show is that SOPA, PIPA and other such laws are not really needed at all because we already have plenty of laws that can do what they are supposed to do.

No, what it shows is that racketeering and money laundering laws function perfectly well when those activities are being conducted. SOPA and PIPA type legislation is required though when the sole offense is piracy not on a scale to reach the criminal threshold. The idea behind these bills isn't to be able to make more Megaupload raids. It's to enable rights holders to take action on their own without having to wait for things to get so out of hand they can't stop it.

Couldn't agree more, there have been so many posts declaring these acts where the end of the world as we know it rather than a reasonable response to piracy and copyright infringement. If this form of legislation is not enacted then what on earth are the actual owners of intellectual property supposed to do? Hold their breath and hope for voluntary compensation from the pirates?

[HeyYou]

But isn't piracy by its very definition ALREADY a criminal act? How does making it even more so (is that even possible?) going to help matters at all?

[marharth]

But isn't piracy by its very definition ALREADY a criminal act? How does making it even more so (is that even possible?) going to help matters at all?

My understanding is that it would speed up the process and just directly give the copyright holders to take down a site.

 

Which is extremely dangerous. Skipping due process and giving corporations complete control over it is a terrible idea for obvious reasons.

[HeyYou]

But isn't piracy by its very definition ALREADY a criminal act? How does making it even more so (is that even possible?) going to help matters at all?

My understanding is that it would speed up the process and just directly give the copyright holders to take down a site.

 

Which is extremely dangerous. Skipping due process and giving corporations complete control over it is a terrible idea for obvious reasons.

 

There is some company that has already managed to get that.... Ralph Lauren? Or some such. They filed a suit against counterfeiters, and managed to get it set up that instead of filing a NEW suit against folks they find subsequently, they can add them to the already existing suit, and get them shut down, with NO due process at all. Which to me, just STINKS of abuse of power.

[Lisnpuppy]

But isn't piracy by its very definition ALREADY a criminal act? How does making it even more so (is that even possible?) going to help matters at all?

My understanding is that it would speed up the process and just directly give the copyright holders to take down a site.

 

Which is extremely dangerous. Skipping due process and giving corporations complete control over it is a terrible idea for obvious reasons.

 

There is some company that has already managed to get that.... Ralph Lauren? Or some such. They filed a suit against counterfeiters, and managed to get it set up that instead of filing a NEW suit against folks they find subsequently, they can add them to the already existing suit, and get them shut down, with NO due process at all. Which to me, just STINKS of abuse of power.

 

It is Chanel (I believe I discussed it before in this same thread.), the perfume/handbags/makeup company. Any website they believe is selling knockoff Chanel things they cant take over the web address and shut the thing down. No warning, no due process. Mistakes are likely to be made but I guess folks are just screwed on that one. I do not think that is right. I have no issue with Chanel protecting their brand, but just to have a carte blanc....no.

[HeyYou]

But isn't piracy by its very definition ALREADY a criminal act? How does making it even more so (is that even possible?) going to help matters at all?

My understanding is that it would speed up the process and just directly give the copyright holders to take down a site.

 

Which is extremely dangerous. Skipping due process and giving corporations complete control over it is a terrible idea for obvious reasons.

 

There is some company that has already managed to get that.... Ralph Lauren? Or some such. They filed a suit against counterfeiters, and managed to get it set up that instead of filing a NEW suit against folks they find subsequently, they can add them to the already existing suit, and get them shut down, with NO due process at all. Which to me, just STINKS of abuse of power.

 

It is Chanel (I believe I discussed it before in this same thread.), the perfume/handbags/makeup company. Any website they believe is selling knockoff Chanel things they cant take over the web address and shut the thing down. No warning, no due process. Mistakes are likely to be made but I guess folks are just screwed on that one. I do not think that is right. I have no issue with Chanel protecting their brand, but just to have a carte blanc....no.

 

That's it. Yep.

 

A shining example of the illusion of law. They don't even have to show proof..... They shut down 286 websites at one point, their 'investigators' had visited...... 3...... and called them all 'bad'.