I think it's pretty accurate to characterize this as "FBI pretends SOPA already passed."
Worse yet, I see just in the comments here alone why oppression is allowed to exist: because people are foolish, and believe fabrications easily. This is a VERY far-fetched case the DA has on his hands.
[citation][nom]IzzyCraft[/nom]you're an idiot,[/citation]
You're hardly civil.
[citation][nom]IzzyCraft[/nom]You act like SOPA and PIPA would make piracy illegal, it's always been illegal the problem of a DA is proving wrong doing in compliance usually with DCMA,[/citation]
Coincidentally, there's no presented proof of DMCA Title II (nice to know you can't spell) violation here. If you're familiar with the law at all, you'd know that it requires that copyright holders assume that content hosts are acting in good faith, and that if they do, the hosts are NOT liable for the illegal transfers.
The ENTIRE case here is going to require that it be PROVEN that MegaUpload did NOT act in good faith in responding to DMCA takedown notices. This gets a lot harder becaus
the Justice Department & FBI admitted MegaUpload responded to said notices. So it's not as clear a case as a host that REFUSED to take down content on a notice: instead, it's being claimed that they
didn't go far enough. So getting a conviction means that the court will have to both find that the actions were insufficient to satisfy the DMCA, AND that MegaUpload knew this.
I'd put odds of this point alone being proven in court at under 1%; the OCILLA (a.k.a. Act II of the DMCA, the part that deals with the "safe harbor" clause, etc.) isn't very harsh in terms of what qualifies as what the online service provider (OSP) knows, so MegaUpload has a LOT of plausible deniability here, whether or not they actually knew.
As for the racketeering case? That is just another "on top" for the laundering charge. And the laundering charge is perhaps even flimsier: for one, if the infringement charge falls through, it has absolutely zero base. Secondly, even if it does, I doubt it'd go through anyway:
Ellison v. Robertson ruled in 2004 that simply hosting content for money does NOT qualify as a "direct financial benefit" from hosting infringing conent: MegaUpload would have to be SELLING it, or directly, openly advertising it to promote their business. In other words,
the established legal precedent disagrees with the prosecution.
I'm pretty sure that the FBI was hoping that this'd be a well-timed act to "make an example" and make people afraid of "pirates" to get SOPA to pass. It has probably a better-than-50% chance of backfiring, making them, in fact, afraid of government censorship.
[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]go ahead and give me your sorry thumbs down now
🙂[/citation]
Done; you're a pretty gullible sheep for just taking their claim at face value. As I explaind above, unless the RIAA/MPAA decides to bribe the judge, (which is flagrantly illegal, even moreso than money laundering BTW) I don't see any real chance of the court finding ANY merit to this charge: it's basically just a fabrication on the FBI's part.