I love this shit. I understand that what he is doing is important, but I think its all gone to his head a bit.

Embed CodePlays: 628 (Embed: 0)

ALLEGED internet pirate Kim Dotcom has released a music video on the
internet attacking US president Barack Obama and comparing himself to
Martin Luther King.

The song, titled "Mr President", racked up more than 200,000 views in the first day it was online.

In
lyrics and vocals by "Kim Dotcom and friends", the Megaupload founder
raps that "The war for the internet has begun", his German accent
complemented by Kraftwerk-style beats.

"Hollywood is in control
of politics," he sings. "I have a dream like Dr (Martin Luther) King,
this is the time to stand up and fight."

For the boppy chorus,
the lyrics turn on president Obama. "What about free speech, Mr
President? What happened to change, Mr President?"

The visuals
mash up futuristic images of Mr Dotcom with icons of American freedom,
Occupy Wall Street protests, young people at the beach and dancing at a
disco, fireworks, the New Zealand flag, and police brutality. President
Obama is portrayed as a marionette puppet, presumably controlled by
Hollywood moguls.

In May a New Zealand judge ordered that Mr Dotcom's bail conditions
be relaxed so he could record music at Auckland's Roundhead Studios,
owned by Crowded House singer Neil Finn.

Mr Dotcom, along with
three co-accused, is facing extradition to the US with the
Megaupload.com file-sharing website he founded at the heart of a global
internet piracy case.

Mr Dotcom, a German national and a New
Zealand resident, was arrested at his mansion and his assets seized in
January at the request of the US government.

news.com.au

July 22, 2012
12:32AM

10 Facts Facts About The Megaupload Scandal

1. What is Megaupload?

Megaupload is a provider of cloud storage services. The company’s
primary website, Megaupload.com, offered a popular Internet-based
storage platform for customers, who ranged from large businesses to
individuals. This storage platform allowed its users to store files in
the Internet “cloud” and to use, if needed, online storage space and
bandwidth.
Through Megaupload, users were able to upload and store data
securely, and to access data from any location via the Internet.
Megaupload and cloud services of this kind have important and
substantial non-infringing uses.


For example, an individual user may use cloud storage for personal
data storage and backup. Through a cloud storage service, the user’s
files—whether pictures, documents, music, or video—are available for his
use from any location.
The user can send files to friends, business associates, and family
via a unique link that are too large to transmit via email and has
access to his files at any time. Businesses benefit from cloud storage
by offloading data storage responsibility to a cloud service provider,
allowing the organization to collaborate over the Internet.
Megaupload databases revealed that nearly every large
corporation, organization and government used Megaupload – from the US
Congress to folks in Hollywood. Of course, millions of individual users
used Megaupload as well.


2. How did Megaupload use Technology to Maximize Storage Efficiency?

Megaupload, similar to other large cloud storage providers that rely
on efficient data storage like Dropbox, was designed to store a single
useable copy of each unique file uploaded to its servers. If multiple
users uploaded identical files, Megaupload would retain one instance of
the file, and generate a unique link for each individual user, called a
Uniform Resource Locator (“URL”). One user might choose to keep his
unique link private; another user might wish to share his link with
others via email or by embedding it in a webpage such as a blog post.


3. What in Summary is the Criminal Claim and Defenses?

The Government’s case against Megaupload Limited (“Megaupload”) rests
on a host of novel theories of criminal liability for copyright
infringement.
These theories extend U.S. copyright laws well beyond their intended
reach, their territorial scope and the limits of the Constitution.


The Government, at its core, wants to hold Megaupload criminally
responsible for the acts of third party cloud storage users and such
mass secondary copyright infringement cannot be found in any federal
criminal statute.
In essence the Government is attempting to use “civil law” claims in a criminal prosecution context which is not permitted.


The Government turns a blind eye to the laws which provide immunity
for dual use technologies that are capable of substantial non infringing
uses (Sony doctrine) as well as safe harbors for such things as
“caching” and efforts to remove infringing material in response to take
down notices.


In instructing the Government to provide discovery supporting its
charges, the New Zealand court handling Kim Dotcom’s extradition
proceedings in that country elucidated the flaw at the center of the
Government’s case: “[T]he United States is attempting to utilize
concepts from the civil copyright context as a basis for the application
of criminal copyright liability which necessitates a consideration of
principles such as dual use of technology or . . . significant
non-infringing uses.” See Decision of His Honor Judge David J. Harvey
on Application for Disclosure, 244 (May 29, 2012) (“[T]he United States
is attempting to utilise concepts from the civil copyright context as a
basis for the application of criminal copyright liability . . .”)


4. How about Alleged Money Laundering and the Rest of the Criminal Claims?

The alleged money laundering charge and the rest of the criminal
claims are devoid of merit because Megaupload’s and the rest of the
defendants’ earnings were from businesses providing lawful cloud storage
services and not from criminal copyright infringement.
These claims appear to be concocted as flimsy support to freeze
defendants’ assets, to try to support DOJ public relations in taking
down the entire Megaupload site (which resulted in unprecedented harm to
consumers), and to improperly pile on additional arguments for
extradition.


5. How is Megaupload Funding it’s Legal Defense?

The Megaupload site was taken down and Defendants’ assets have been
frozen pursuant to these suspect charges, leaving no funds to defend a
hugely complex case involving petabytes of potential evidence, an untold
number of witnesses and a business that spanned the globe.
The Government’s extreme tactics have wiped out Megaupload without
the benefit of even the most basic guarantees of due process such as
service of a summons.
Innocent consumers lost access to their cloud files from wedding
photos to spreadsheet files. Consumer data access issues are currently
being heard by the US Court.
Notwithstanding the basic civil rights axiom that one is innocent
until proven guilty, the Government has impaired Megaupload’s and
Defendants’ defense by freezing all of its worldwide assets, then
refusing to agree to unfreeze one penny to fund defense efforts – not
even funds to preserve or analyze the digital evidence. The Government,
in short, has destroyed Megaupload without bothering even to serve the
company and is now bent on preserving its advantage by disabling efforts
to challenge the lawfulness of its actions.


6. Did Megaupload Honor Takedown Notices?

Megaupload processed takedown notices swiftly and efficiently.
Megaupload went beyond the ordinary and used technology to speed up the
take down process. For example trusted parties including major Hollywood
entities received access to an innovative real-time direct takedown web
tool.
Megaupload negotiated with major copyright holders or their
agents—including the Recording Industry Association of America, Disney,
Warner Brothers, NBC, and Microsoft—to allow them access to take down
directly, in an automated manner, an active link to material they
believed infringed their copyrights. Megaupload was commended by
Hollywood organizations for its take down processes.


7. Wait a Second – What if One Megaupload Cloud User was
Allowed to Maintain a Specific File in their Storage Area while Another
wasn’t?

While Megaupload made efforts to curb abuse of its service, it
recognized a competing obligation to its users who legitimately use[d]
the service to store their own copies of copyrighted material. For
example, a music file that was purchased or covered by fair use and
uploaded by a user for the purpose of “space shifting” (where media
files stored on one device are accessed by the owner from another
device) would look the same to Megaupload’s automated processes as a
music file to which the user had no legal right.
This obligation to its users who had a legal right to the files they
stored presented an ongoing problem because the company was committed to
ensuring that there was a proper and legitimate basis to require a data
file to be removed. As a result, where a user was subject to a proper
and specific take down notice for their unique link or URL, that user’s
link to the file in question was taken down or broken.
The DMCA recognizes such complexities when it declares that Service
providers (such as Megaupload) are not required to “monitor its service
or affirmatively seek out facts indicating infringing activity,” 17
U.S.C. § 512(m)(1).


8. Why did Megaupload need Take down Notices to remove Infringing Works?

Whether a specific instance of a file is infringing or not depends on
the context such as license status, fair use, and what local laws
apply. For example, a news organization may be permitted to use a photo
in an article under the fair use doctrine while a commercial entity may
not. Copyright owners are in the best position to allege who and what is
authorized and who and what isn’t.
Taking down all links pointing to the same file is neither pragmatic
nor required by the law, nor would it be justified – another example one
person’s licensed music mp3 file is potentially another person’s
infringing file.
Megaupload had a copyright agnostic user rewards program limited to,
amongst other things, small files under 100 MB – to help introduce users
to the cloud storage service.
The rewards program did not promote copyright infringement and the
small file size limit was a strong deterrent against program misuse. The
amounts paid out were small and when the program was discontinued many
months before the US action, it had no material effect on site traffic
or revenue.


9. Did Megaupload really Offer No Long-Term Storage of Data?

Megaupload used a freemium model which made it affordable for
individuals and small businesses to use and “try out” the Internet cloud
technology and only pay if they desired faster bandwidth and more
robust storage.
Megaupload’s free cloud storage services were innovative, robust, and generous.


Allegations made by the US that Megaupload did not have significant capabilities to store private content long term are false.


Allegations made by the US that free user files were deleted if not
downloaded within 21 days (or 90 days for those who were registered) are
false. At the time of the shutdown, free user files had not been purged
for multiple years.
The US apparently wants to delete Megaupload server data evidence
that will demonstrate the falsity of the Government allegations above.


10. Who are the Only Entities the New Zealnd Court has Found to have Violated the Law?

The New Zealand court found that the New Zealand police used an
illegal search warrant to confiscate hard drives and other materials
from Kim Dotcom and further found that the FBI violated the law when
they took hard drive data outside of New Zealand without authorization.

http://simpylab.org/kimdotcoms-war-against-the-government-affects-us-all/

View comments (18)