On top of that, other, legitimate, sites have similar policies. If anything, the fact that files are deleted after they’re done being shared highlights a key legal function of the site: it was used by people to exchange large files once or twice, since they’re too big to share via email attachment. The service could (and is) used to just distribute large files in a directed, short-term effort. Of course, that falsely assumes that long-term backup is the only legitimate use of a cyberlocker. The indictment presents this as evidence that the service is mainly for infringement, because it potentially precludes the idea that the site is used for long-term backup. There is, for example, the fact that if certain files aren’t downloaded in a certain amount of time, then they are deleted. Separately, the indictment lists various feature choices as part of making its case.To use the lack of a feature, that previously was shown to be a problem, as evidence of a conspiracy is crazy. Other copyright cases have specifically found that having a search engine is part of an inducement claim - so there’s an argument that the idea not to have a search engine wasn’t so much “conspiracy,” as it was an attempt to follow the guidance of the court and to stay legal. That’s interesting, but it seems like an odd piece of information in making the case. For example, the indictment points out that Megaupload did not have a site search, by which users could find material.But, I still worry that some of the specific actions used to paint this picture are (1) potentially taken out of context, (2) are presented in a way that likely misrepresents the actual situation and (3) could come back to haunt other online services who are providing perfectly legitimate services. So the allegations in the indictment don’t necessarily mean that any individual action is, by itself, illegal. To be clear, in a case like this, the issue is the evidence as a whole, combined to show intent and a general pattern to actions. Where my concerns come in is in some of the “evidence” that’s used to add to the overall indictment. I would say that I would not be at all surprised if he’s found guilty. Whether or not the violations amount to racketeering & conspiracy is beyond any analysis that we’re going to be able to do here. On top of that, there are certain claims in the indictment that, if true, mean it’s quite likely that he broke the law. That makes him quite unsympathetic in a court. Having spent some more time going through the indictment in much greater detail, I have some more thoughts and concerns.įirst, it’s important to acknowledge that the founder of Megaupload, who goes by Kim Dotcom, has a long history of flaunting flouting the law in a variety of ways. Yesterday I wrote up a first reaction to the Megaupload case. Fri, Jan 20th 2012 01:49pm - Mike Masnick
0 kommentar(er)
