Founder of megauopload sentenced to 50 YEARS

**WSMassiv** · 01-26-2012, 06:54 AM

meanwhile, Casey Anthony walks free

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/26/...-call-of-duty/

This seems pretty extreme to me. He made a website that supported illegal activity, yes. He wasn't advertising it as a place to come share copyrighted files.

**ZapBulletRider** · 01-26-2012, 06:57 AM

can't say I've ever heard of megauopload

**Klaustrophobia** · 01-26-2012, 06:57 AM

wait, how the HELL have they already gone through the full trial and got to sentencing? and now that it's done, i want to see what evidence they had for their more outlandish claims.

this whole thing REEKS.

**Fuji** · 01-26-2012, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Klaustrophobia

wait, how the HELL have they already gone through the full trial and got to sentencing? and now that it's done, i want to see what evidence they had for their more outlandish claims.

this whole thing REEKS.

You truly think Megaupload wasn't a giant cesspool or illegal activity?

**Klaustrophobia** · 01-26-2012, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Fuji

You truly think Megaupload wasn't a giant cesspool or illegal activity?

of course there was shitloads of copyrighted material hosted there, but that's not what i'm talking about. racketeering? really? and all the "oh, they really WANTED copyrighted material on the site, and secretly encouraged it" type of rhetoric. it's definitely possible, but the FBI either has evidence of this, or they are talking out of their asses on some kind of "that's how we might run a filesharing scheme" thought line. until i know what evidence they have, i got the impression of the latter.

**SkimNate** · 01-26-2012, 06:59 AM

justice?

**hondarider525** · 01-26-2012, 07:06 AM

His link is not to anything about a trial.

**WSMassiv** · 01-26-2012, 07:08 AM

Yeah I posted in haste. He hasn't been sentenced. He hasn't even been extradited to the US yet. But he DID lose his top spot in MW3. Which is worse??

**waddsworth** · 01-26-2012, 07:15 AM

Oh you!

**WSMassiv** · 01-26-2012, 07:16 AM

yeah this is what happens when you dont check your sources

**SkimNate** · 01-26-2012, 07:20 AM

I bet you anything he camps like a little faggot.

**Utah** · 01-26-2012, 07:56 AM

Anyone see the photos of his estate? Dude was living large. Worth somewhere around 170 million... Last year alone he made over 40 mil...

**waddsworth** · 01-26-2012, 08:00 AM

1%.

**oatmeal** · 01-26-2012, 08:11 AM

his car license plates are hilarious

look em up

**samcollett** · 01-26-2012, 08:46 AM

No way will he get 50 years. That's nuts.

"And now some photographic proof of the fact that the seized cars carried license plates that said things like ‘MAFIA’, ‘HACKER’, ‘STONED’, ‘V’ (for Vendetta?), ‘KIM COM’, ‘CEO’ and ‘POLICE’."

http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/20/dow...etting-seized/

edit: WTF GIRAFFE??? Top left.

**Shea Benton** · 01-26-2012, 08:57 AM

what kind of baller rolls around without tinted windows??

just saying...

**Skeezin'** · 01-26-2012, 09:17 AM

So sick. He shoulda Baez'd.

**samcollett** · 01-26-2012, 09:30 AM

Okay okay okay but seriously...what the frack is up with that giraffe?

**Chrith** · 01-26-2012, 09:43 AM

you dont expect him to go to gross africa when he can hunt from his own home

**Chev** · 01-26-2012, 11:48 AM

Where did this guy live? He owns a fracking plantation.

**GnipGnop** · 01-26-2012, 12:11 PM

This thread is a huge let down.

**samcollett** · 01-26-2012, 01:31 PM

New Zealand.

**Teddy Parker** · 01-26-2012, 03:36 PM

MW3 sucks...

**Shea Benton** · 01-26-2012, 05:45 PM

read through the comments a bit....it seems that those are 2 giraffe statues. apparently he has a statue of Predator that was also seized. this is awesome.

**Teddy Parker** · 01-26-2012, 06:15 PM

Hah. It's like what a child would do with a million dollars.

**a_pla5tic_bag** · 01-27-2012, 09:35 PM

he's not gonna get 50. someone is gonna get payed and he'll be a good boy and he'll be out soon.

**Chrith** · 01-27-2012, 10:18 PM

do they even have jails in NZ

**thewelsh** · 01-28-2012, 12:11 AM

They arrest this guy, but they do not arrest the owner of a hardware store when someone uses a crowbar to break into places and steal things.

**Applesauce** · 01-28-2012, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by thewelsh

They arrest this guy, but they do not arrest the owner of a hardware store when someone uses a crowbar to break into places and steal things.

>flawed logic
>mfw
>mfw I'm too lazy to get green text

**tommygallagher** · 01-28-2012, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by Applesauce

>flawed logic
>mfw
>mfw I'm too lazy to get green text

>too lazy 4 green text
>early as frack on a saturday morning
>drunk

**Skeezin'** · 01-28-2012, 06:05 AM

>saw you guys do this
>hadn't done it
>done it.

**GnarKill1029** · 01-28-2012, 08:12 AM

idk if this is true, from one of the comments though,

"He's broken 10+ New Zealand laws including Money Laundering, New Zeland copyright, and suspected drug involvement. We would have taken this guy, the US just joined in. He had illegal weapons in the house, and hid away in a locked room with a sawn off shotgun as NZ police stormed the house."

i bet he has an outlandish gun rack.

**penguinofsleep** · 01-28-2012, 09:31 PM

correct me if im wrong, but i thought the founder was still awaiting extradition to the us for trail/sentencing.

anyways, if this is the final verdict, yet another illustration demonstrating that corporate america may have was too much sway over the legal system. really 50years? vs what does assault, rape, burglary, etc go for now days? 10-15years max? various white collar crime that can ruin the lives of hundreds - 1 to 5 years + a small portion of the money gained?

im all for people getting their dues and fair shares since piracy really is just stealing in a different form whether we like acknowledging it or not, but 50 years over something like this? that and the founder can't actually control what people upload or dont upload, its not his fault if people upload copyrighted content and share it with others. he is simply hosting online storage. ie i could just as easily loan someone a book or movie in person and while it may not spread out as much, its not different than sharing IF the person sharing doesn't do it for profit. also libraries - they spend a butt ton of money on books and resources and then allow the community to benefit.

**waddsworth** · 01-28-2012, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by penguinofsleep

i could just as easily loan someone a book or movie in person and while it may not spread out as much, its not different than sharing IF the person sharing doesn't do it for profit. also libraries - they spend a butt ton of money on books and resources and then allow the community to benefit.

The "spreading it out as much" is the whole point. Yeah, you can purchase a copy of something and loan it to a friend. That one, singular copy. Because when you loan it out to your friend, you don't have it. And if you don't want to be without it, then you tell your friend "frack you, buy your own." That's how its supposed to work. Like at the library - if you want to borrow a book (which they purchased) and its already been borrowed, they don't go into the back and reproduce another copy for you. You have to wait until that one copy is returned back to the library. Or go out and purchase your own copy. And there is a profit to copied material. The person receiving the copy has received something of value without paying for it. I'd say that's profiting. The person who created or assisted in creating that copy was simply aiding and abetting a theft.

This isn't some abstract theory.

**penguinofsleep** · 01-30-2012, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by waddsworth

The "spreading it out as much" is the whole point. Yeah, you can purchase a copy of something and loan it to a friend. That one, singular copy. Because when you loan it out to your friend, you don't have it. And if you don't want to be without it, then you tell your friend "frack you, buy your own." That's how its supposed to work. Like at the library - if you want to borrow a book (which they purchased) and its already been borrowed, they don't go into the back and reproduce another copy for you. You have to wait until that one copy is returned back to the library. Or go out and purchase your own copy. And there is a profit to copied material. The person receiving the copy has received something of value without paying for it. I'd say that's profiting. The person who created or assisted in creating that copy was simply aiding and abetting a theft.

This isn't some abstract theory.

i see. i think im the oddball out in this one + personal bias was in the way.

also what dzan said, a lot of these things are things i wouldn't have spent money on anyways, but now that its available "for free", i wouldn't mind seeing it once.
and while its still stealing, it may end up being worthwhile in some ways. ie if i were a musician and had some music "stolen", it could = more concert sales, etc. of course this depends on the individual though.

edit: for the record, although i think the punishment is a bit stiff for this guy, i will honestly say ive never "illegally downloaded" movies before and barely knew of the guys site, so no, im not really going to miss it that much. if i really do like a movie, book, or other creative art, i really dont mind paying for it as long as the price isn't outlandishly high for what it is.
for me it was more of the idea that this guy got screwed for simply hosting a filesharing site, which is in and of itself only a tool like almost anything else in life and its ultimately the end user who determines what they will do with it, ie to share data with clients mentioned above or use it to propagate a virus. removing the tools without removing the "human" aspect of it is harmful, but thats for another discussion.