The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) demanded that Kim Dotcom and his constituents be extradited on the grounds of a racketeering and money laundering charge; all of which was effectively acquitted during the trial, by the way. The indictment statement also alleged that Megaupload offered no attempt in screening content for copyright protection. The fact that the site's revenue was based off of advertisement coupled with the download allocation and prioritization of popular uploads offered the prosecution cause to allege that Megaupload was deliberately hosting copyright protected material for profit. However, the defense was on relatively stable ground in the sense that they were not responsible for user activity, nor did they encourage such larceny outright. The decision regarding the foundation of his extradition has been continually appealed, but currently Kim Dotcom has run out of money to support his legal council. Currently, the appeal court ruled that the raids were legal, but the taking of evidence was clearly unauthorized. He is still to be extradited despite the unauthorized copying of data by the FBI, but is currently at home.
It was January 20th, 2012 on Kim Dotcom's birthday that the New Zealand Police force raided Dotcom's 30 million dollar compound. The founder of Megaupload was denied bail, deemed a flight risk as he had a helicopter in his front yard. Considering the rhetorical context of the raid security camera footage the arrest would have one thinking that Kim Dotcom was an international arms dealer. What with helicopters being flown around the compound, policemen armed with assault rifles, bullet proof vests, and canines, it is apparent that this massive action taken against an owner of a private firm was a bit overboard--almost anti-terrorist in nature.
To what end are we to hold service providers accountable for copyright infringement if it is the users that are the ultimate offenders? What legal discourse is appropriate to deal with situations? My answers to all of this come, within some capacity, in the final installment of this five-part series: stay tuned!
I understand how if there is an indictment out for someone to bring them in, but I don't think that this was warranted for using this type of force. I with they would use force like this in cases of inside trading and stock fraud and bring all of the crooked CEO's and Stock traders in like this.
I understand how if there is an indictment out for someone to bring them in, but I don't think that this was warranted for using this type of force. I with they would use force like this in cases of inside trading and stock fraud and bring all of the crooked CEO's and Stock traders in like this.
ReplyDelete