The Megaupload Indictment

The indictment is here.

The indictment tells the story of cyberlockers in a perfect narrative — how the owners of the site knew that their site was a massive clearinghouse of stolen content, they profited from it, and they did whatever they could to mask it.

The charges include Racketeering, conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, and money laundering.

It looks like the Department of Justice cooperated with foreign law enforcement to actually take the owners of the site into custody. (source)

12 Responses to The Megaupload Indictment

  1. Clint says:

    I love when my tax money goes to help corporations! This will all go to the artists, right?

  2. Gary says:

    Dear Clint – Help me understand your position. “[Our] tax money go[ing] to help corporations!”? It seems to me that, with the indictment of Megaupload, the royalties that would process through to the creators and artists will be increased because a portion of pirated material is no longer available. Theoretically, the creator/artist benefits. Of course, the publisher or label for which they work also profit. However, if Megaupload still existed, those royalties would be unavailable in toto. Am I missing something?

    Sites like Megaupload, to my mind, are an abomination. Perhaps you can help me understand the conter-argument.

    Thank you.

    • Clint is a fucking retard. Don’t encourage him.

      It is as if Megaupload is not a “corporation.” It is just a “little guy” who happened to make $175 million off the backs of other people’s work. But, you know, the DOJ is just holding down the little guy.

  3. dan says:

    I used that site weekly to deliver proofs and final content to my photography clients. so do most photographers I know. simple enough counter-argument?

    The other counter-argument is that no one has ever demonstrated that removing illegal content induces patrons to purchase it.

    It is quite possible to be against piracy and still think this indictment is B.S.

    • The fact that you can use a lock pick to also remove food from between your teeth does not make it any less of the instrumentality of a crime. Read the indictment.

  4. Good.

    They profited immensely off other people’s labor, illegally, and then claimed to not have any responsibility. Fuck them.

    This isn’t about “protecting corporations.” This is about a big corporation that made $175m (all the while enjoying yachts, Mercedes, etc. according to the indictment) by, at best, sticking their head in the sand when it came to illegal activity. (At worst, they were openly promoting criminal activity because it was profitable.)

    This is about a company that tried to profit off crime and got burned for it.


  5. dan says:

    I read the indictment. Do I believe half of it? Do I believe1/4 of it?
    it doesn’t even make sense on the surface. by the pleadings themselves, they should have shut it down in 2007 at the latest. but somehow they waited till today?

    the indictments against some of the grannies the RIAA went after looked more plausible.

    • I’m not sure what part of it doesn’t make sense on the surface. But, if you don’t believe it, I suppose that’s nothing that can be argued with. We’ll see what facts the government can prove and what facts they can’t prove.

      If you are looking for an alternative way to share your legitimate files, try Dropbox. Dropbox is easier to use, doesn’t delete your files if you don’t pay them, and while it might have some illegitimate uses, it does not provide a profit incentive for those illegitimate uses.

    • Can you link me to an indictment against a granny?

  6. Mike says:

    My band’s CD was downloaded illegally more than 7000 times on that website, I never received a penny. I live in a little 3 bedroom 1 bath house while they live lavish lives, profiting off of others. Fuck them all, I hope they rot in jail…

%d bloggers like this: