MegaUpload Has Been Taken Offline

Forums › Off topic › MegaUpload Has Been Taken Offline

1 | ... | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40

79 posts

Master Geek

#589422 2-Mar-2012 14:38

marmel:
If a business over here is distributing copyright material the max penalty is 5 years in prison and a whopping fine, can't imagine it would be any less in the US.

Snap! ;-)

It's just interesting though given that the alledged offending was worldwide where should the tx have been paid?

Well, it's a Hong Kong company, so...

There are things called double taxation agreements, which tax authorities sign with each other so you can decide which jurisdiction you pay your tax in, if you earn in multiple jurisdictions. NZ has one with the USA and with Hong Kong, but the US does not have one with HK as far as I can see.

I know the Inland Revenue used to accept tax from anyone regardless of how the income was derived, legal or otherwise.

I believe that this is still true.

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#589429 2-Mar-2012 14:55

nzlemming:
marmel:?
If a business over here is distributing copyright material the max penalty is 5 years in prison and a whopping fine, can't imagine it would be any less in the US.

Snap! ?;-)

It's just interesting though given that the alledged offending was worldwide where should the tx have been paid?

Well, it's a Hong Kong company, so...

There are things called double taxation agreements, which tax authorities sign with each other so you can decide which jurisdiction you pay your tax in, if you earn in multiple jurisdictions. NZ has one with the USA and with Hong Kong, but the US does not have one with HK?as far as I can see.

I know the Inland Revenue used to accept tax from anyone regardless of how the income was derived, legal or otherwise.

I believe that this is still true.?

I think what has changed with the Inland Revenue and the police and a lot of governement departments is the information sharing.

Once upon a time it used to be a bit of a joke that you could declare your income as being derived from drug dealing and the information wouldn't go any further. I don't think this is the case any longer.

Kaos36

709 posts

Ultimate Geek

#589446 2-Mar-2012 15:19

If the FBI said to our police force Kiss my butt our police force would kiss their butt. We should of told the FBI that's yur problem. The US forces told our NZ forces where to go ever since we have been anti nuke our arm forces training is limited compared to AUS <3 USA. Up yours America!

Support Dotcom 100% get this man his freedom back!

Worst Response To A Crisis:
From a readers' Q and A column in TV GUIDE: "If we get involved in a nuclear war, would the electromagnetic pulses from exploding bombs damage my videotapes?"

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#589452 2-Mar-2012 15:31

Kaos36: If the FBI said to our police force Kiss my butt our police force would kiss their butt. We should of told the FBI that's yur problem. The US forces told our NZ forces where to go ever since we have been anti nuke our arm forces training is limited compared to AUS <3 USA. Up yours America!

Support Dotcom 100% get this man his freedom back!

So where is your evidence of this???

Because our governement has co-operated with the US government by complying with previously agreed extradition agreements that somehow relates to the police sucking up to the FBI?

The NZ government make the laws, not the police. The police operate within the laws already in place, they don't just do things willy nilly because the FBI told them to.

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#589453 2-Mar-2012 15:34

Kaos36: If the FBI said to our police force Kiss my butt our police force would kiss their butt. We should of told the FBI that's yur problem. The US forces told our NZ forces where to go ever since we have been anti nuke our arm forces training is limited compared to AUS
Support Dotcom 100% get this man his freedom back!

I think its now the right time to add this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M

Kaos, is that you at 0.22Secs in?

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#589525 2-Mar-2012 18:30

djrm: This is nothing to do with this subject but worth highlighting. One of the conditions that the US have with a free trade agreement is getting rid of PHARMAC. This is said to be because the the big US Pharma industry want to destroy organisations like PHARMAC so they can ultimately make more money from selling many variations on drugs.

They are also demanding we outlaw parallel importing of copyrighted goods (so no more Blurays, Books and DVDs from Amazon, gotta pay our Small Impotent Nation Tax!)

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#589533 2-Mar-2012 18:54

marmel:
djrm: NZ needs to stop helping, and needs to stop chasing a free trade agreement with the USA. While there may be some economic benefits of doing so, it is very clear that NZ would be at the (ongoing) mercy of the USA on all kinds of policy.

This is nothing to do with this subject but worth highlighting. One of the conditions that the US have with a free trade agreement is getting rid of PHARMAC. This is said to be because the the big US Pharma industry want to destroy organisations like PHARMAC so they can ultimately make more money from selling many variations on drugs.

The fact is that PHARMAC do a very good job in keeping the price of drugs low, which means more effective treament at a better price. PHARMAC reviews all evidence for drugs and picks the most effective. If we lose PHARMAC it will lead to an increase in the price spent on drugs and possibly the end of the public health service as we know it. Please voice concerns at every opportunity and prevent this free trade agreement.

This is a good point in relation to the FTA.

I wouldn't want Pharmac to be scrapped, I think they do a reasonable job of keeping prescription costs down.

There would have to be some huge benefits from any FTA to outweigh this.

Off hand I can't think of any as the Australians are finding out. It's all a one way thing..

Regards,

Old3eyes

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#589874 3-Mar-2012 15:43

Just watched the KimDotCom interview on Campbell Live.

It seems a lot of what he thinks his defense is that he is not responsible for what third parties do or did not do with the product/service he provided with Megaupload.

Plenty of things which are sold legally are used for illegal purposes, guns being the best example I can think of.

I am guessing that there is a well established legal difference between the responsibility of gun manufactures and internet service providers.

But what is it?

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#589935 3-Mar-2012 17:27

The DMCA law is what protects him from the actions of his customers. To me, the issue is intent. Did he take reasonable steps to help minimse those customers actions, or did he knowingly let it happen to grow his business.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#589936 3-Mar-2012 17:30

tdgeek: The DMCA law is what protects him from the actions of his customers. To me, the issue is intent. Did he take reasonable steps to help minimse those customers actions, or did he knowingly let it happen to grow his business.

Isn't part of the DMCA law that there is a DMCA officer (Employed by the US Govt) who works directly with (or is installed into) the organisation?

Twitter: ajobbins

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#589937 3-Mar-2012 17:31

If what he said about companies having direct delete access is true, the case is pretty much dead in the water.

tdgeek

29749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#589940 3-Mar-2012 17:41

ajobbins:
tdgeek: The DMCA law is what protects him from the actions of his customers. To me, the issue is intent. Did he take reasonable steps to help minimse those customers actions, or did he knowingly let it happen to grow his business.

Isn't part of the DMCA law that there is a DMCA officer (Employed by the US Govt) who works directly with (or is installed into) the organisation?

Unsure. he, as the next posts mentions, gave direct delete access. I've read that files tended to be renamed, or that files/links wren't clearly removed. To me, if the servers were in the US, and if he cooperated with the authorities to keep his files clean that is the difference to YouTube ad Google that KDC mentioned. You can't possibly keep his files all clean, too many, too many users, so what was his intention and actions? In time we will get info I guess, and stats.

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#589941 3-Mar-2012 17:42

depends on what they could delete, if it was a the ability to delete a link as opposed to the ability to delete an entire file then deleting a link is a waste of time, if the file, then agreed

gzt

17139 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#589942 3-Mar-2012 17:46

The indictment says that DCMA parties were able to delete links (ie; the 'share') but were not able to delete original files. I have no real idea if that above is true, but if it is, then Mega Upload is likely to assert that this action complied with the DCMA in every way, the user is notified, and the original file is preserved under the control of the user. If the DCMA claimant is still concerned, then they should take it up with the user. MU has complied as required.

MU and similar services are very different to something like YouTube where everything is shared to the world and the only way to stop sharing of DCMA claimed content is to delete the file.

The key question if you want a sound conviction is - did MegaUpload comply with the law or not?

You can be certain that MU will claim all their policy and actions in this regard were fully in compliance with the DCMA.

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#589943 3-Mar-2012 17:49

sen8or: depends on what they could delete, if it was a the ability to delete a link as opposed to the ability to delete an entire file then deleting a link is a waste of time, if the file, then agreed

Hmm I disagree. If KDC were the one deleting the link, maybe, but allowing 3d parties free access to delete the original file with no due process sounds insane. Rival companies would be deleting anything they could find on it.. I don't think giving them link delete access, followed by an investigation then original file deletion by admin, is inherently unreasonable.

Edit: For spelling & also agree with the above post.

1 | ... | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40