[briandear]

You really want a source for the fact that his site was a piracy haven? Are you that naïve? The man has a history of criminality, including embezzlement plus the people that are defending him are the same people who complain about Hollywood and the RIAA. If he wasn't facilitating global piracy then Hollywood and the RiAA are irrelevant in any arguments about this case. If he's innocent, he'll have his day in court.

[wooter]

> If he's innocent, he'll have his day in court.

Are you really that naive? I don't want to be dramatic, but take current events into account (Julian Assange, the NDAA, Guantanamo). There is plenty of abuse.

The question is not whether people used Mega Upload for piracy, its whether or not their service complied with the law (DMCA). For example: if I mail narcotics, is the Post Office breaking the law? If I Drop Box a pirated movie to a friend, is Drop Box breaking the law? Plenty of people email files around, do you think Google checks for/blocks any pirated attachments? Youtube? Come on, what song can't you find on youtube uploaded by some random person who added the lyrics. I'd be willing to bet that much more "pirated content" is streamed through youtube than ever was through MU.

What would you think if China extradited Sergey because people are uploading Chinese artists' music to youtube?

The fact that so many used it for pirated content is only a testament to how easy and scalable his file sharing/transferring service was and their effort to protect their user's privacy. Privacy means a lot to quite a bit of people, me included.

[briandear]

If the post office is aware that you are mailing drugs, then yes, they are liable.

[dekz]

You argue as if MU just ignored DMCA requests, they did not.

[res0nat0r]

You obviously haven't read the indictment. They weren't totally ignoring the takedown requests yes, but they were knowingly assisting and profiting off content they knew was copyrighted.

[NonEUCitizen]

ALLEGEDLY

[danielweber]

If you are saying the government has not yet proved it in a court of law -- as it is required to do -- you are correct.

If you are saying that Dotcom wasn't explicitly aware of copyrighted materials being uploaded, didn't know people were uploading copyright materials, and didn't set up reward programs for people who uploaded the most pirated materials, then you are very naive.

[jlgreco]

Innocent until accused it seems.

[ttt_]

>> You really want a source for the fact that his site was a piracy haven? Are you that naïve?

IANAL but I figure that for the law to be upheld in an unbiased manner it must be considered naive for all intents and purposes. Simply because that's really not an argument at all, no part in the process can just come up and say "you are being naive not to believe my allegations".

Naivete, common sense, good judgment... those are really just "recourse to infinity" type arguments that only serve the speaker and have no objective meaning whatsoever. They must have no place in applying the law.