DOJ Didn't Need SOPA to Shutdown "rogue site" MegaUpload

http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/20/department-of-justice-doj-dept-of-justice-megaupload-piracy-sopa-pipa/

by bproper • 15 years ago

131 34 15 years ago

That's because it had servers in the U.S. SOPA is aimed at companies that keep their ops outside the U.S.

bproper• 15 years ago

I see. But the company was based in Hong Kong and the founders in New Zealand. Dutch, German and Slovakians citizens were arrested.

So as long as there are some operations based in U.S., they can get to all these folks?

MegaUpload was cited a number of times during the Judiciary Committee Hearing. But they mispoke more often than not.

lomegor• 15 years ago

Yes, if they have operations in the US they can be prosecuted, I believe. What's even worse for Megaupload in this case is that they had started legal proceedings themselves in the US. If they can use the US law, they have to abide them.

jonhendry• 15 years ago

"So as long as there are some operations based in U.S., they can get to all these folks?"

If there are extradition agreements, sure.

iamandrus• 15 years ago

The US had jurisdiction since MU rented about 500 (?) servers in Virginia. If all of their servers were outside the US, they couldn't have done much about it.

tzs2• 15 years ago

> I see. But the company was based in Hong Kong and the founders in New Zealand. Dutch, German and Slovakians citizens were arrested.

If the allegations in the indictment are true, then MegaUpload was likely violating the law in those countries to.

Contrary to widespread belief, the US is not the only country with copyright laws that criminalize commercial piracy.

andyakb2• 15 years ago

This isnt entirely true. In the case of megaupload, I am pretty sure I read they had servers seized in the Netherlands and most [all?] of the arrests were done in foreign countries.

Further, I know it was definitely not the case with the online pokersites [PokerStars, FullTilt, and UltimateBet/Absolute] being shut down in April. AFAIK, ICANN is based in the US and oversees .com [among other] address. Because of this, with a court order, the US gov't can seize a domain name, with or without SOPA and they have already done this with online poker sites that have no physical presence in the United States.

Megaupload is in the same spot as those sites; they violated US law, a case was filed against them, and the US gov't seized their domain, servers, etc. Due process was followed. It is a little far-reaching the the US can so easily seize .com domains, and that is why you now will see very few online poker sites that serve the US use a .com [instead they use .eu or .ag, primarily]. If a company break US laws, the US gov't can pursue them, regardless of where they are. Whether or not they should be able to do that so easily is another question.

SoftwareMaven• 15 years ago

"""If a company break US laws, the US gov't can pursue them, regardless of where they are."""

Do you really mean that as broadly as it's written? Shouldn't it be "If a company break US laws on US soil, the US gov't can pursue them, regardless of where they are." while the Internet has made the world smaller, nations are still sovereign and should be treated as such. Frankly, I'm really tired of my government feeling like it has to police the world.

gcb• 15 years ago

Did youtube founders ever get arrested?

kermitthehermit• 15 years ago

This further proves that laws against this exact kind of thing have to be created, simply abolishing PIPA / SOPA is NOT by any means enough.

It's not OK to do this. This kind of thing has to stop.

tzs2• 15 years ago

> It's not OK to do this. This kind of thing has to stop.

What kind of thing? If even half the things in the indictment are true, MegaUpload was designed and operated specifically to make money off of massive copyright infringement.

greenyoda3• 15 years ago

It's up to a jury to decide whether the prosecution has proven its accusations beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not up to the government or a judge or the media or the readers of HN to decide this.

If the government alleged that your web site (lets assume you have one) was a criminal enterprise designed specifically to make money off copyright infringement, wouldn't you want them to have to prove their case to a jury before shutting you down? If so, you should demand the same right of due process for everyone else.

a94• 15 years ago

Megaupload used servers in the USA at Carpathia Hosting. That makes them subject to US law. SOPA/PIPA was for foreign sites that have no servers in the USA.

marshray2• 15 years ago

So all I have to do to be exempt from SOPA/PIPA is to host a single server in the US?

a94• 15 years ago

If you host server in the US, you are not a foreign website. You are a local one. In that situation, a SOPA/PIPA makes little difference. They can shut you down easily with existing laws. Do you understand?

Jach• 15 years ago

I don't think it's an outright error to relate this to SOPA. These latest sets of laws (such as NDAA) seem to be more about legitimizing the recent actions of the Executive Branch (Bradley Manning) than about giving them a significantly larger amount of more power.

aqme28• 15 years ago

They didn't need SOPA because they took the time and effort needed to get a warrant.

The argument against SOPA is not that sites could be shut down, but that there needs to be a very demonstrable reason for it--with warrants and evidence and judges signatures. With SOPA, the site can be shut down based on accusation alone, and THAT is the problem.

greenyoda3• 15 years ago

Well, to be precise, this site was indeed shut down based on accusation alone. The operators of the site have been charged with criminal offenses, but until they're actually convicted in a court of law, they're presumed by U.S. law to be innocent. So what's the justification for shutting down the site before the jury renders a verdict? And if the jury acquits them (we don't know how strong the government's case really is, so it's certainly possible), will the government compensate them for their lost earnings?

aplusbi• 15 years ago

It was shutdown based on a warrant that was issued based on an accusation (and probably at least some evidence), which makes all the difference.

InclinedPlane• 15 years ago

Precisely. When the government shuts down a website that is a punishment. Our laws are designed such that for any punishment meted out by authority there must be due process. The accused have a right to a trial, to counsel, to face their accusers, to see and rebut the evidence against them. The authorities have limits on the way they can gather evidence. The accused enjoy the assumption of innocence and the requirement to prove guilt. Even if one trial finds the accused guilty of a crime there are multiple stages of appeals to higher courts available.

Fully half of the bill of rights concerns freedom of expression or due process. SOPA was an attempt to rip that away, to stamp the internet as a constitution free zone. Considering that the internet will soon be the primary backbone of industry, personal and business communication, and the dissemination of news, that is a very dangerous development if we wish to preserve individual liberty.

joejohnson• 15 years ago

I like how they quote Hacker News user Kermit the Hermit.

DOJ Didn't Need SOPA to Shutdown "rogue site" MegaUpload

Related Stories