Indicted Megaupload founder plans site reboot

Oct 11, 2012 by Nick Perry
In this Feb. 22, 2012 file photo, Kim Dotcom, the founder of the file-sharing website Megaupload, comments after he was granted bail and released in Auckland, New Zealand. In a move bound to provoke U.S. prosecutors and entertainment executives, indicted Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom is planning to offer a new online music service and a replacement of his shuttered website by year's end. (AP Photo/New Zealand Herald, Brett Phibbs, File)

In a move bound to provoke U.S. prosecutors and entertainment executives, indicted Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom is planning to launch a replacement of his shuttered website and a new online music service by year's end.

The file-sharing site that started in 2005 was one of the most popular online sites before U.S. prosecutors shut it down and filed racketeering charges against Dotcom and six other Megaupload principals in January.

U.S. authorities are now trying to extradite Dotcom from New Zealand, where he's a resident, claiming he facilitated massive copyright through his site. Prosecutors say Dotcom pocketed tens of millions of dollars while and lost some $500 million in copyright revenue.

Dotcom says he can't be held responsible for users who acted illegally and that Megaupload complied with copyrights by removing links to pirated material when asked. Some say proving Dotcom's conduct amounted to criminal conspiracy will be difficult, and he has gained some high-profile support, including from Apple co-founder .

The flamboyant Dotcom confirmed in a brief telephone interview this week that he's almost completed work on "new Mega" and "Megabox" but said he doesn't want to divulge details ahead of a major press launch. However, statements he's made on and a promotional video paint a picture of what he's planning.

In recent tweets, Dotcom says his new version of Megaupload is nearly complete. "Quick update on the new Mega: Code 90% done. Servers on the way. Lawyers, Partners & Investors ready. Be patient. It's coming," he wrote. He said the new version will feature a one-click encryption option for data transfers and that the service would be hosted on servers outside the U.S.

Asked by one Twitter user if he was nervous that "what happened to Megaupload could happen to New Mega?" Dotcom replied: "That will be IMPOSSIBLE. Trust me!"

Dotcom says his planned Megabox will enable users to download music for free in exchange for accepting some advertisements. He says 90 percent of the revenue will go to the artists and that the service will be a legitimate way of "unchaining artists and fans" to do business with each other with a minimal need for middlemen.

A promotional video posted by Dotcom on YouTube indicates Megabox will take advantage of social media tools to show trends and will allow users to upload their own music.

U.S. prosecutors won't comment on the case while it's being litigated. The Motion Picture Association of America, which filed complaints about alleged copyright infringement by Megaupload, this week also declined to comment on Dotcom's plans.

Asked on the phone if U.S. prosecutors might see his plans as a poke in the eye, Dotcom said "probably."

Dotcom's case has fascinated people in New Zealand at the same time as it has moved like a wrecking ball through the judicial system here, exposing embarrassing mistakes made by police, politicians, judges and spies. Prime Minister John Key even publicly apologized to "Mr. Dotcom" last month after acknowledging spies had carried out unlawful surveillance on him before his January arrest.

A judge here also found that police executed an unlawful search warrant when they seized digital material from Dotcom, evidence which was later passed on to the F.B.I. A lawmaker was forced to explain why he listed a campaign donation from Dotcom as "anonymous" (he maintains he didn't know who the donor was) while another judge was forced to step down from the case after making an anti-U.S. remark.

The missteps likely won't have much impact on the criminal case unless Dotcom's defense lawyers can prove that U.S. authorities were complicit in gaining evidence by unlawful means. But Dotcom's latest plans could raise further questions of New Zealand's judiciary, which decided to allow Dotcom access to the Internet and millions of dollars of his frozen funds while on bail.

Jennifer Granick, the director of civil liberties at the Stanford University law school's Center for Internet and Society, said Dotcom's case marks the first time the U.S. has attempted to hold somebody criminally liable for copyright infringement committed by others. She said are pushing at the boundaries of the law.

"It makes the substantive underpinnings of the case highly questionable, legally," Granick said. "It's a novel case."

Dotcom, 38, who changed his name from Kim Schmitz, has enjoyed a rollercoaster ride as a hacker turned playboy turned family man. He has faced legal trouble before, picking up convictions in Germany in 1998 for computer fraud and in 2002 for insider trading. In his latest legal battle, he has presented himself as an Internet freedom fighter and has gained many devoted fans on Twitter with whom he interacts regularly.

His extradition hearing is scheduled for March.

Explore further: Second apparent leak of hacked celebrity nude pictures: US media

3.7 /5 (3 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US prosecutors file for extradition of Kim Dotcom

Mar 05, 2012

(AP) -- Federal prosecutors in the United States have filed papers in New Zealand seeking the extradition of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom and three of his colleagues, whom they accuse of making a fortune by helping Internet ...

Megaupload boss wins right to see US evidence

Aug 16, 2012

The boss of file-sharing site Megaupload has the right to see US evidence against him so he can defend a bid to extradite him from New Zealand on online piracy charges, an Auckland court ruled Thursday.

Megaupload N. Zealand extradition case delayed

Jul 10, 2012

Megaupload boss Kim Dotcom's extradition case against US authorities has been delayed until next year amid legal wrangling in New Zealand over evidence disclosure, his lawyers said Tuesday.

Recommended for you

Facebook dressed down over 'real names' policy

Sep 17, 2014

Facebook says it temporarily restored hundreds of deleted profiles of self-described drag queens and others, but declined to change a policy requiring account holders to use their real names rather than drag names such as ...

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Aloken
1 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2012
"Dotcom's case marks the first time the U.S. has attempted to hold somebody criminally liable for copyright infringement committed by others"

Wikileaks anyone?
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2012
The US is officially trying to sue Dotcom since January 2012.

There is, as yet, no official indictment against Assange.
There is a secret indictment since 18.8.2012 (and talks of a secret grand jury) - both of which are legal but ethically highly iffy forms of going about prosecuting someone (Such a super-secret way of suing someone is only possible with these tools...and such a 'grand jury' system is almost exclusive to the US)
Deathclock
not rated yet Oct 11, 2012
Dotcom is analogous to the owner of a storage locker company, and the lawsuit is equivalent to suing the owner of a storage locker company because one of their customers had stolen goods in one of their lockers... it's completely ridiculous. Even if he knew about it, it's not illegal to NOT turn someone in to the police. I know someone who has stolen goods in their home, it is not illegal for me to not report them.

...and no, it is not aiding and abetting either:
http://en.wikiped...d_States

The criminals should be punished, not the person who happens to own the place where the criminals stored their stolen goods. The reason we are going after this guy is because it will have the largest impact, because that is what the big media companies want, NOT because it's the just thing to do.
JGHunter
not rated yet Oct 12, 2012
"Dotcom's case marks the first time the U.S. has attempted to hold somebody criminally liable for copyright infringement committed by others"

Wikileaks anyone?


Were they held responsible for copyright infringement? I thought it was only about national security..?
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2012
Dotcom is analogous to the owner of a storage locker company, and the lawsuit is equivalent to suing the owner of a storage

Not quite. The intent of a storage locker is mostly legal (most storage lockers worldwide are used for legal purposes). The intent of filesharing is mostly not. So while one can argue that someone putting drugs in a storage locker is a "use unforeseen by the owner" it isn't quite as clear cut with a file sharing service (especially in the light of previous file sharing services along the same lines. It's not like he could claim to be surprised that people would use it for overwhelmingly illegal activities)

Now from a legal standpoint that is problematic as 'intent' is very hard to quantify/prove. But prior knowledge of other shareing sites and their uses is easy to prove. So they may accuse him of negligence (failing to monitor/suppress illegal activities)

Not saying I think he should be prosecuted - just saying how it looks from a legal POV.