An advertisement for copyright and patent preparation services from 1906, when copyright registration formalities were still required in the US.

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's "exclusive rights", such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, spread the information contained within copyrighted works, or to make derivative works. It often refers to copying "intellectual property" without written permission from the copyright holder, which is typically a publisher or other business representing or assigned by the work's creator.

Colloquial terminology[link]

Copyright infringement is often associated with the terms piracy and theft. Although piracy connotes brazen high-seas robbery and kidnapping, it has a long history of use as a synonym for certain acts which were later codified as types of copyright infringement. Theft is more strongly hyperbolic, emphasizing or exaggerating the perceived harm of infringement to copyright holders who choose to utilize their copyrights for profit; it connotes a kind of loss which infringement may not actually effect, and the U.S. Supreme Court has even ruled that infringement does not "easily" equate with theft.^[1]

"Piracy"[link]

The practice of labelling the infringement of exclusive rights in creative works as "piracy" predates statutory copyright law. Prior to the Statute of Anne 1709, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labelled pirates as early as 1603.^[2] The term "piracy" has been used to refer to the unauthorized manufacturing and selling of works in copyright.^[3] Article 12 of the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works uses the term "piracy" in relation to copyright infringement, stating "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection."^[4] Article 61 of the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requires criminal procedures and penalties in cases of "willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale."^[5] Piracy traditionally refers to acts intentionally committed for financial gain, though more recently, copyright holders have described online copyright infringement, particularly in relation to peer-to-peer file sharing networks, as "piracy."^[3]

Theft[link]

Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.^[6] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.^[1]

Enforcement responsibility[link]

The enforcement of copyright is the responsibility of the copyright holder.^[7] Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requires that signatory countries enable courts to remedy copyright infringement with injunctions and the destruction of infringing products, and award damages.^[5] Copyright holders have started to demand through the ACTA trade agreement that states act to defend copyright holders' rights and enforce copyright law through active policing of copyright infringement.^[8] It has also been demanded that states provide criminal sanctions for all types of copyright infringement and pursue copyright infringement through administrative procedures, rather than the judicial due process required by TRIPs.^[7]

Hollywood learned their lesson from rampant videocassette piracy and tried to have legal action taken against the new digital threat. MGM Studios filed suit against Grokster and Streamcast, for P2P file sharing services that contributed to copyright infringement.^[9] In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of MGM, others could be held liable for copyright infringement since they functioned, and indeed willfully marketed themselves, as sites for illegal downloads. The MGM v. Grokster case did not overturn the earlier Sony decision, but rather clouded the legal waters. Future designers of copyright infringement software were warned. ^[10] In addition to legal maneuvers to curb copyright infringement the industry tried different ways of distribution. Instead of waiting months after the debut of a movie to release it on DVD or video-on-demand, movies like Bubble (2005), were released on all formats at the same time. This signaled the rise of the new distribution windows for the Industry. With new changes in distribution operations comes less chance of copyright infringement upon intellectual material, but with the internet being a global entity, it will take a combination of worldwide legal agreements, an agency tasked with enforcing the crimes, and new ways of selling products to reduce copyright infringement.

Criminal liability[link]

Article 61 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requires that signatory countries establish criminal procedures and penalties in cases of "willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale".^[5] Copyright holders have demanded that states provide criminal sanctions for all types of copyright infringement.^[7]

Online intermediary liability[link]

Whether Internet intermediaries are liable for copyright infringement by their users is a subject of debate and court cases in a number of countries.^[11]

Definition of intermediary[link]

Internet intermediaries were formerly understood to be internet service providers (ISPs). However, questions of liability have also emerged in relation to other Internet infrastructure intermediaries, including Internet backbone providers, cable companies and mobile communications providers.^[12]

In addition, intermediaries are now also generally understood to include Internet portals, software and games providers, those providing virtual information such as interactive forums and comment facilities with or without a moderation system, aggregators, universities, libraries and archives, web search engines, chat rooms, web blogs, mailing lists, and any website which provides access to third party content through, for example, hyperlinks, a crucial element of the World Wide Web.

Litigation and legislation[link]

Early court cases focused on the liability of Internet service providers (ISPs) for hosting, transmitting or publishing user-supplied content that could be actioned under civil or criminal law, such as libel, defamation, or pornography.^[13] As different content was considered in different legal systems, and in the absence of common definitions for "ISPs," "bulletin boards" or "online publishers," early law on online intermediaries' liability varies widely from country to country. The first laws on online intermediaries' liability were passed from the mid 1990s onwards.^{[citation needed]}

The debate has shifted away from questions about liability for specific content, including that which may infringe copyright, towards whether online intermediaries should be generally responsible for content accessible through their services or infrastructure.^[14]

The U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998) and the European E-Commerce Directive (2000) provide online intermediaries with limited statutory immunity from liability for copyright infringement. Online intermediaries hosting content that infringes copyright are not liable, so long as they do not know about it and take actions once the infringing content is brought to their attention. In U.S. law this is characterized as "safe harbor" provisions, and in European law as the "mere conduit" principle.

Peer-to-peer issues[link]

Peer-to-peer file sharing intermediaries have been denied access to safe harbor provisions in relation to copyright infringement. Legal action against such intermediaries, such as Napster, are generally brought in relation to principles of secondary liability for copyright infringement, such as contributory liability and vicarious liability.^[15]

The BitTorrent protocol: In this animation, the colored bars beneath all of the 7 clients in the upper region above represent the file, with each color representing an individual piece of the file. After the initial pieces transfer from the seed (large system at the bottom), the pieces are individually transferred from client to client. The original seeder only needs to send out one copy of the file for all the clients to receive a copy. To stop animation, click browser's Stop or hit ESC key.

These types of intermediaries do not host or transmit infringing content, themselves, but may be regarded in some courts as encouraging, enabling or facilitating infringement by users. These intermediaries may include the author, publishers and marketers of peer-to-peer networking software, and the websites that allow users to download such software. In the case of the BitTorrent protocol, intermediaries may include the torrent tracker and any websites or search engines which facilitate access to torrent files. Torrent files don't contain copyrighted content, but they may make reference to files that do, and they may point to trackers which coordinate the sharing of those files. Some torrent indexing and search sites, such as The Pirate Bay, now encourage the use of magnet links, instead of direct links to torrent files, creating another layer of indirection; using such links, torrent files are obtained from other peers, rather than from a particular website.

Since the late 1990s, copyright holders have taken legal actions against a number of peer-to-peer intermediaries, such as Napster, Grokster, eMule, SoulSeek, BitTorrent and Limewire, and case law on the liability of Internet service providers (ISPs) in relation to copyright infringement has emerged primarily in relation to these cases.^[16]

Nevertheless, whether and to what degree any of these types of intermediaries have secondary liability is the subject of ongoing litigation. The decentralised structure of peer-to-peer networks, in particular, does not sit easily with existing laws on online intermediaries' liability. The BitTorrent protocol established an entirely decentralised network architecture in order to distribute large files effectively, and recent developments in peer-to-peer technology towards more complex network configurations are said to have been driven by a desire to avoid liability as intermediaries under existing laws.^[17]

Countries where sharing files without profit is legal[link]

Downloading copied music is legal in some countries in the context of the copyright, such as Canada,^[18] The Netherlands,^[19] Spain,^[20] and Panama, provided that the songs are not sold. In Canada it is legal to download any copyrighted file as long as it is for noncommercial use, but it is illegal to distribute the copyrighted files (e.g. by uploading them to a P2P network).^[21]

Russian law[link]

Downloading music and films for home use is legal due to exception provided by section 1273 of Russian Federation Civil Code. A special 1% compensatory levy intended for copyright holders is collected from the price of certain goods (like computers or clean CD-RW disks).^{[citation needed]} The compensation mechanism is unclear, though, and left entirely in the hands of the collecting agency established at the same time, with Nikita Mikhalkov, a prominent film director and political figure, at its helm.^{[citation needed]}

See also[link]

This "see also" section may contain an excessive number of suggestions. Please ensure that only the most relevant suggestions are given and that they are not red links, and consider integrating suggestions into the article itself. (November 2011)

For a substantial discussion of copyright infringement in the domain of computer programs, see copyright infringement of software.

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Johns, Adrian: Piracy. The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates. The University of Chicago Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-226-40118-8
• Rosen, Ronald (2008). Music and Copyright. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-533836-7. 
• Joe Karaganis, ed. (2011). Media Piracy in Emerging Economies. Social Science Research Council. ISBN 978-0-9841257-4-6. 

External links[link]

• A 2000 Salon.com article by Courtney Love addressing copyright infringement of music
• A 2001 reprint of two speeches given by Thomas Macaulay in Parliament in 1841, when the issue of copyright was being hammered out.
• A 2003 article on CD Piracy in China from the music webzine www.CLUAS.com
• A 2008 article illustrating the effect of piracy on video games
• An article for students explaining the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement
• How Corporate Law Inhibits Social Responsibility
• Movie and Record Industry Piracy Figures Incendiary, But Not Fact. – June 2006 MP3 Newswire article challenges inflated copyright infringement claims by media companies
• US Copyright Office

v t e Copyright law by country Copyright Acts by country · Copyright case law by country · Copyright terms by country · International copyright agreements (by country) · Rule of the shorter term Africa Egypt · South Africa Americas Argentina · Canada · Chile · United States Asia Afghanistan · Azerbaijan · China (Hong Kong) · India · Iran · Japan · Jordan · Malaysia · Pakistan · Philippines · Tajikistan · Thailand Europe European Union France · Germany · Greece · Ireland · Italy · Netherlands · Poland · Spain · United Kingdom Other countries Russia (USSR · Russian Federation) · Serbia · Switzerland · Turkey Oceania Australia · New Zealand Category:Copyright law by country · Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights

Richard O'Dwyer is a 24-year-old in Sheffield, England,^[1] whom the US Justice Department has been seeking to extradite from the UK since May 2011 in relation to alleged copyright infringement on his website TVShack.net. The Southern District Court in New York has charged O'Dwyer with conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and criminal infringement of copyright. Each charge carries a maximum sentence of five years. Richard O'Dwyer's lawyers opposed extradition and argued that any criminal prosecution should be brought in the UK, as TVShack was not hosted on American servers. On 13 January 2012, a UK Magistrate ruled that O'Dwyer can be extradited to US to face copyright infringement allegations.^[2][3] The extradition order has been approved by UK Home Secretary Theresa May.^[4] O'Dwyer has appealed against the extradition.^[5]

Personal life[link]

O’Dwyer is a student of Interactive Media with Animation at Sheffield Hallam University.^[6]

TVShack[link]

O'Dwyer established the website TVShack at the domain name TVShack.net in December 2007.^[7][8] The site, which had the categories Movies, Television, Anime, Music and Documentaries, included the disclaimer 'TV Shack is a simple resource site. All content visible on this site is located at 3rd party websites. TV Shack is not responsible for any content linked to or referred from these pages.'^[9] The site stated that it was governed under the law of 'Sweden, the country in which this site is based and from which all services are provided.'^[10]

Domain seizure[link]

On 30 June 2010 US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials seized seven domains for "violations of Federal criminal copyright infringement laws". This action was authorized by the warrant issued by the Manhattan Federal Court following a request by the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The Manhattan US Attorney Office alleged that the seven websites engaged in "criminal copyright infringement" and were "involved in the illegal distribution of copyrighted movies and television programs over the Internet".

Besides O'Dwyer's TVShack.net, the other domains involved were Movies-Links.tv, FilesPump.com, Now-Movies.com, PlanetMoviez.com, ThePirateCity.org and ZML.com. TVShack was, along with five other websites, described as a "linking website", providing "access or links to other websites where pirated movies and television programs are stored". The seventh website, ZML.COM was described as a "cyberlocker".

The domain seizures was undertaken by the Complex Frauds and Asset Forfeiture Unit of the ICE in partnership with the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center. Assistant United States Attorneys Thomas G.A. Brown, Rebecca Rohr, Joseph Facciponti, Jason Hernandez, and Michael Ferrara, were in charge of the investigation.^[11][12] At the time Kevin Suh, Vice President of Content Protection for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) said the domain seizure was the “largest takedown of illegal movie and television websites in a single action by the federal government.”^[13]

Move to TVShack.cc domain[link]

Within a few days of the TVShack.net domain seizure, TVShack was moved to the TVShack.cc domain.^[14]

Filesharing website Zeropaid noted 'Whether or not one agrees with the methods of the sites that were raided, it does start to call in to question the effectiveness of the raids conducted by ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement from the US). If these raids only serve to be little more than a minor inconvenience to some of these sites, would this effort to stop these sites be a waste?'^[15]

November seizure[link]

In late November 2010, roughly five months after the initial seizure, a second operation saw a total of at least 82 domains seized by the ICE. This included TVShack.cc.^[16]

O'Dwyer was visited by UK and US police at this time, and some computer equipment was seized.^[17] O'Dwyer's mother stated that he shut down the website the next day.^[18]

US charges and extradition request[link]

In May 2011 the US Justice Department, through the London US embassy, asked for Richard O'Dwyer to be extradited to the US under the Extradition Act 2003.^[19] The extradition request follows the Southern District Court in New York bringing two charges against Richard O'Dwyer for criminal copyright infringement in relation to TVShack.net. The two charges, conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and criminal infringement of copyright, each carry a maximum sentence of five years.^[20]

When the extradition request was made in May 2011, O'Dwyer spent one night in Wandsworth prison before arrangements were made for bail. On 14 June 2011, he then appeared before the Westminster magistrates court for a preliminary hearing regarding the extradition request.^[18] O'Dwyer's barrister opposed extradition and argued that any criminal prosecution should be brought in the UK, as TVShack was not hosted on American servers.^[21] The hearing for the extradition was scheduled for 12 September.^[20] On 13 January 2012, a judge ruled that O'Dwyer can be extradited to US to face copyright infringement allegations.^[2][3]

In February 2012, businessman Alki David undertook to fund O'Dwyer's defence, in the event of him standing trial in the USA.^[6] David Cook of Pannone Solicitors, who successfully represented defendants in some of the UK's leading cybercrime cases, also undertook to assist in the O'Dwyer case on a pro bono basis.

On 9 March 2012, Theresa May approved the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer to the United States.^[4] On 21 March 2012, an appeal against the extradition was lodged on Richard O'Dwyer's behalf.^[5]

Legal objections[link]

US and UK copyright offences[link]

According to the Open Rights Group UK citizens should not be subject to US legal standards on copyright infringement.^[22] Iain Connor from Pinsent Masons said "It appears that US copyright owners are seeking to rely on the Extradition Act and the US case law to secure a prosecution for the authorisation of copyright infringement by the provision of links to infringing content." He observed that "US companies are likely to try and secure a conviction in the US where they know that they could succeed on the basis of an offence of authorising copyright infringement," and that in the UK "the only case where this was looked at was the 'TV Links' case" where it had proved unsuccessful."^[18][22]

Despite these protestations, during O'Dwyer's extradition hearing, it was held by the Judge that the offences alleged were also illegal under UK law. Whereas TV-Links was able to successfully argue it was a 'mere conduit' under the EU Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002, aggregating content 'they did not select or modify', O'Dwyer had exerted considerable control over the content hosted on TV-Shack, and therefore the allegations, if true, constituted a crime in the UK.^[14]

Jurisdiction[link]

In June 2011 Richard O'Dwyer's mother said she is "baffled" why a case with no direct links to the US should be heard in the US.^[18] Mrs O’Dwyer argued that “if Richard has done something wrong it is right it is dealt with,” but that "it doesn’t seem right that Richard, who hasn’t been to America since he was five years old, should be taken there. No one would be able to visit him and he could be waiting in prison for a couple of years before his case is even heard. He should be tried here.”^[21] At the preliminary hearing for the extradition request Richard O'Dwyer's barrister Ben Cooper argued that "the server was not based in the US at all", and that "Mr O'Dwyer did not have copyrighted material on his website; he simply provided a link. The essential contention is that the correct forum for this trial is in fact here in Britain, where he was at all times."^[18]

Calling the extradition request for Richard O'Dwyer "absurd", the Open Rights Group warned that lacking certainty about jurisdiction is "potentially opening an individual to dozens of prosecutions" for copyright infringement.^[22]

2003 US–UK Extradition Treaty[link]

There has been criticism of the Extradition Act 2003 in the UK in respect of the cases of Gary McKinnon and the NatWest Three.^[21] In particular, the Act has been criticised for reducing the level of evidence required for extradition from the UK to US from prima facie evidence to 'reasonable suspicion', and for allowing extradition to proceed on the basis of offences in US, rather than UK law. In addition, the standard of proof required for extradition from the US to UK is different, in accordance with the Fourth Amendment – the standard of 'probable cause'.

When in opposition the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats criticised the Extradition Act 2003 and in September 2010 Home Secretary Theresa May an independent review of all extradition arrangements was begun.^[18] The review, completed in September 2011, concluded that the 'reasonable suspicion' and 'probable cause' tests had 'no significant difference', and that there was no imbalance in this respect. Moreover, the UK extradition procedure was found to be more elaborate, and more difficult to achieve, than that from the US. In respect of the NatWest Three, the report noted that the extradition evidence had been prepared according to the standards of the pre-2003 Treaty, and that was therefore no grounds to criticise the 2003 Treaty in respect of this case.^[23]

A forum bar amendment to the Extradition Act was included in the Police and Justice Act 2006, but has not been brought into effect. The unimplemented bar provision indicates that extradition would be barred if 'a significant part of the conduct alleged to constitute the extradition offence is conduct in the United Kingdom' and 'in view of that and all the other circumstances, it would not be in the interests of justice for the person to be tried for the offence in the requesting territory.' taking into account 'whether the relevant prosecution authorities in the United Kingdom have decided not to take proceedings against the person in respect of the conduct in question'.

Civil liberties groups have called on the government to effect the forum clause into UK law in relation to the extradition request for Richard O'Dwyer, amid concerns over whether the US courts are the appropriate legal forum. According to Liberty "Enacting the forum amendment would have been quite simple. It's not that we're arguing that in every case where activity has taken place here we shouldn't allow people to be extradited. But we should at least be leaving our judges some discretion to look at the circumstances."^[18] According to Liberty the forum clause would allow UK courts to "bar extradition in the interests of justice where conduct leading to an alleged offence has quite clearly taken place on British soil."^[22]

The 2011 Extradition review however concluded that the forum bar clause 'would require the judge to consider the evidence available to the requesting State and the evidence available to the domestic prosecution authorities. It would also require scrutiny of the prosecution decision making process.', and that to do this would be 'time consuming, costly and undermine the efficient and effective operation' of the Act.^[23]

See also[link]

• Gary McKinnon
• Hew Raymond Griffiths

References[link]

External links[link]

• TVShack.net
• Blog of Julia O'Dwyer (Richard O'Dwyer's mother)

Kim Dotcom
Kim Dotcom in 1996
Born	Kim Schmitz (1974-01-21) January 21, 1974 (age 38) Kiel, Germany
Residence	New Zealand; Hong Kong
Nationality	German
Other names	Kimble, Kim Tim Jim Vestor
Citizenship	Germany, Finland
Education	secondary modern school / junior high school[1]
Occupation	CIO CEO (2005–2011)
Years active	2005–2012
Organization	Megaupload Ltd.
Known for	Founder of Megaupload.com and sister websites
Home town	Kiel, Germany
Height	6 feet 6 inches (1.98 m)
Weight	285 pounds (129 kg)[2]
Criminal charge	Computer fraud; insider trading; embezzlement; possession of stolen goods; abuse of titles
Criminal penalty	Multiple suspended detentions
Criminal status	Convicted, probation served
Spouse	Mona
Children	5[3][4][5]

Kim Dotcom, born Kim Schmitz^[6] on January 21, 1974,^[7] also known as Kimble^[8] and Kim Tim Jim Vestor,^[9] is a German-Finnish^[10] businessman who rose to prominence during the dot-com bubble and was convicted of insider trading and embezzlement in its aftermath.^[11] He is also known as the founder of Megaupload and its associated websites.^[11][12][13] He legally changed his surname to Dotcom circa 2005.^[14] On January 20, 2012, the New Zealand Police placed him in custody under the charges of criminal copyright infringement in relation to his Megaupload Web site.

Early career[link]

As a teenager, Dotcom became known in his native Germany for claims to have cracked corporate PBX systems in the United States, and tried to parlay it into a career in data security.^[15] That effort led to his arrest on charges of using and selling stolen calling card numbers.^[16][17] In 1994, Dotcom founded a computer security company called DataProtect.^[18] In 1999, DataProtect and IVM engineering presented the "Megacar", a Brabus-tuned Mercedes-Benz S-Class W220 which, among other features, had a Windows NT server, a 17.3" SGI flat panel display and combined 16 GSM modules to provide mobile broadband Internet access.^[19]

In 1998, Dotcom was convicted of computer fraud and handling stolen goods, and sentenced to two years of prison on probation.^[20] According to a report by News & Record, he had traded stolen calling card numbers he bought from hackers in the United States.^[21] He achieved early notoriety by being the subject of an advanced-for-its-time flash animation video called Kimble Special Agent.^[22] The name is a reference to Richard Kimble, the main character of the television series The Fugitive.^[23]

Dotcom later sold 80% of the shares of DataProtect to TÜV Rheinland in 2000, during the dot-com bubble. The former went bankrupt at the time of the subsequent market crash in 2001.^[24][25]

He is known for his large frame, as he is 2 metres (6.6 ft) tall and weighs more than 130 kilograms (290 lb).^[26]

Insider trading and embezzlement[link]

In 2001, Dotcom purchased €375,000 worth of shares of the nearly bankrupt company LetsBuyIt.com and subsequently announced his intention to invest €50 million in the company.^[27] Unknown to others, Dotcom did not have the funds available to invest, although the announcement caused the share value of LetsBuyIt.com to jump by nearly 300%.^[28] Dotcom sold his shares a few days later for €1.568 million.^[27]

Dotcom had also arranged and obtained an unsecured loan of €280,000 from Monkey AG, a company for which Dotcom had served as Chairman of the Board. The funds were to be paid to Kimvestor AG. As a result, both Monkey and Kimvestor went bankrupt. Dotcom expressed remorse, stating that he had been "dazzled" and had not recognized that he would be unable to repay the loans.^[29]

In January 2002, Dotcom was arrested in Bangkok, Thailand, deported to Germany, and subsequently sentenced to a probationary sentence of one year and eight months, and a €100,000 fine, the largest insider-trading case in Germany at the time.^[30] Dotcom also pleaded guilty to embezzlement in November 2003 and received a two-year probation sentence.^[31]

Megaupload and related companies[link]

Megaupload.com

Megaupload Limited businesses[link]

On March 21, 2005, Dotcom founded Megaupload Limited, a Hong Kong-based file hosting and sharing business that eventually became the 13th most popular site on the internet^[32] with over 150 employees, US$175 million revenues,^[33] 50 million visitors daily,^[32] and estimated to be responsible at its peak for 4% of all internet traffic.^[32][34]

The Megaupload business' domain names were seized and the sites shut down by the U.S. Justice Department on January 19, 2012, following their indictment and arrests of the owners for allegedly operating as an organization dedicated to copyright infringement.^[35]

Civil litigation and controversies[link]

He was sued for copyright infringement as owner of Megaupload.^[36] A settlement was later filed.^[37]

In December 2011, Dotcom's Megaworld (owner of Megaupload, Megavideo, Megalive and more) released its "Megaupload Song" promotional music video, which featured Kanye West, will.i.am, Jamie Foxx, Sean "Diddy" Combs, Alicia Keys, Chris Brown and more lauding the service. Universal Music Group (UMG) responded by using the DMCA takedown process to have the clip removed from YouTube and other sites. Dotcom accused UMG of sending "illegitimate takedown notices", since UMG did not own the song in question, and Megaupload went on to file a lawsuit against UMG.^[13][38][39] A statement released by UMG claimed that a special arrangement exists between UMG and YouTube which allows UMG to take down any videos featuring their artists, regardless of copyright status.^[40] This claim was later explicitly denied by YouTube,^[41] which has since reinstated the video.^[42]

2012 arrest in New Zealand and seizure of Megaupload's websites[link]

On January 5, 2012,^[43] indictments were filed in the United States against Dotcom on criminal copyright infringement charges along with Július Benčko and 5 other associates. On January 20, 2012, Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk were arrested in Coatesville, Auckland, New Zealand, by New Zealand Police, following an armed raid on Dotcom's house. New Zealand authorities were cooperating with the United States' FBI and Justice Department, Hong Kong Customs and the Hong Kong Department of Justice, the Netherlands Police Agency and the Public Prosecutor's Office for Serious Fraud and Environmental Crime in Rotterdam, London's Metropolitan Police Service, Germany’s Bundeskriminalamt and the German Public Prosecutors, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Department of Justice in the investigation preceding the arrests.^[44][45]

According to Dotcom's defense, the police operation against Megaupload was unnecessarily grandiose: "... armed officers arrived in helicopters and dropped into the Dotcom mansion courtyard."^[46]

On January 25, 2012 (NZ local time) Dotcom was initially refused bail due to alleged risks of fleeing to Germany,^[47][48] but was granted bail on February 22.^[49]

On February 6, Dotcom invited New Zealand journalist John Campbell of Campbell Live to visit his Coatesville property and inspect the damage done by police. According to head of security, Wayne Tempero "... the force was incredible ... Had they simply asked us we would have opened the door to any room they wanted to enter." He said Mr. Dotcom seemed shocked by the police action. "I remember him saying "copyright infringement" and shook his head, like he's going "what the hell?". We weren't building bombs in the cellar, we didn't have a meth lab bigger than the South Island here. This was a normal family house.".^[50]

On February 22, Kim Dotcom was released on bail under the condition that he remain within 80 km of his Coatesville residence and is barred from Internet access. Bail was granted after considering his flight risk and seizure of assets. Judge Dawson stated Dotcom has “every reason to stay to be with his family and fight to keep his assets.” The condition of bail came with a successful additional measure brought by the US Government to prevent Kim Dotcom's access to the Internet. Despite concerns about the interaction between Kim Dotcom and his legal team, Judge Dawson sided with the US government because Kim Dotcom "(has) the ability to use it for wrong purposes."^[51]

On March 1, Kim Dotcom gave his first interview to New Zealand media after his arrest to John Campbell of Campbell Live.^[52] He explained the close ties of his case to that of Viacom vs. YouTube; in which the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) shielded YouTube from the infringement of its users and described his surprise when he was arrested without trial or a hearing.^[53] Kim Dotcom also provided some of the aspects of his defense. Dotcom explains that the Megaupload was responsible for 800 files being transferred every second and that it would be impossible to police all that traffic. In addition, the US has privacy laws, such as Electronic Communication Privacy Act, which prohibits the administrators from looking into the accounts of the users.

On March 4, he released his diary detailing his first week since being out of prison and expressed his concerns that wife, Mona Dotcom, may be targeted by the US Authorities.^[54]

Other activities[link]

Dotcom has taken part in the Gumball 3000 international road rally on several occasions, winning in 2001 in his Mercedes Brabus SV12 Megacar. He also competed in 2004. In a 2004 interview on Belgian Television, he claimed that in Morocco a car was blocking him and "he had to bump him off the road. Nothing happened to him". He claims he subsequently found out it was the Chief of Police in a "civil" car.^[55]

Before his arrest, Dotcom was the world's number one-ranked Modern Warfare 3 player. The game has more than 15 million online players.^[56] On January 23, 2012 he lost the position and dropped to number two.^[57]

Since 2001, Dotcom has received media coverage as a founder of a Hong Kong based investing company called Trendax. The company claimed to use artificial intelligence to maximize investment return and Dotcom tried to find investors for a hedge fund managed by the company.^[58] According to media reports Dotcom never had a proper license to start the fund, though no fraud was suspected.^[59]

In 2010, Dotcom leased a NZ$30M mansion at Coatesville, near Auckland, owned by Richard and Ruth Bradley, the British founders of Chrisco, and considered the most expensive house in the country. He had an arrangement to buy the mansion when the lease expired,^[60] but the New Zealand Government declined his application to buy the land on the basis that he did not meet the "good character" test.^[61] Dotcom was granted permanent residency in New Zealand in 2010.^[12][62]

An investigative piece found Dotcom in Hong Kong business records with the new name "Kim Tim Jim Vestor", allegedly bearing a Finnish passport, and acting as director of several "Mega-" companies, among them Megaupload Ltd. and Megarotic Ltd.^[11] According to Megaupload spokesperson B. Lam, Kim is one of many shareholders at Mega and not involved in most day-to-day business decisions.^[11]

Kim Dotcom has spoken out against his negative portrayal in the media, claiming to be a reformed character and a legitimate businessman who has been unfairly demonized by United States authorities and industry trade groups such as the RIAA and MPAA. He contends that the services offered by his Megaupload site were not significantly different from those of comparable services such as Rapidshare or YouTube, and he has just been used as a scapegoat because of his hacker past. Dotcom is also keen to point out his charitable works, including funding the fireworks display for New Year 2011 in Auckland,^[63] and donating large amounts of money to the relief fund following the devastating 2011 Christchurch earthquakes, and explains that his property purchases in New Zealand were approved by several other government Ministers before being vetoed at the last minute by Justice Minister Simon Power, after the United States Department of Justice secretly asked his department for help with their investigation of Dotcom.^[64][65]

References[link]

External links[link]

• The Register: Bin Laden hack-meister in defacement, financial debacles
• The Register: YIHAT founder Kimble/Schmitz arrested
• The Register: Kimble arrested for insider trading
• The Register: Hoaxster hacker discovers infinite-wealth algorithm
• Inside Megaupload's Megamind: Kim Dotcom's Playboy Bunnies, Russian Nuclear
• 3 News: Following the latest on Kim Dotcom / Schmitz
• TV3 On Demand: Kim Dotcom / Schmitz first exclusive TV interview after his arrest in New Zealand

Rémi Gaillard
Gaillard in 2011
Born	(1975-02-07) February 7, 1975 (age 37)
Occupation	Pranker, Humorist
Years active	1999–present
Home town	Montpellier, France
Internet information
Web alias(es)	Rémi Gaillard
Web hosting service(s)	YouTube
Website
nimportequi.com.

Rémi Gaillard (born 7 February 1975 in Montpellier, France) is a French humorist who uploads videos on YouTube. After losing his job at a shoe store, Rémi then began to use his free time to have fun and run some pranks on the public. He is the seventeenth most subscribed comedian on YouTube.^[1]

Gaillard gained attention in the French media after performing a well-documented series of pranks, including an appearance disguised as a Lorient soccer player in the 2002 Coupe de France final match, during which he took part in the winners' celebrations and was greeted by the then president of the French Republic, Jacques Chirac. He is also an extremely talented soccer player and has posted videos of his skills.

Gaillard has appeared in several sport events, TV game shows and political rallies.

Concept[link]

Rémi Gaillard became famous for his videos where he displays an "outrageous" style of humour, challenging public norms.^[2] Recurring themes include dressing up as and interpreting the behaviour of various animals in public, racing unsuspecting car-drivers whilst dressed up as Mario, and numerous provocative interactions with parking enforcement officers and the police.

Through his various stunts and pranks Rémi is involved in Culture jamming. In his videos, he is often found mocking the law and induces his viewers to think twice about the norms in today's society.

Gaillard's satirical motto is C'est en faisant n'importe quoi qu'on devient n'importe qui (literally, "It's by doing anything, that one becomes anybody").

Sketches[link]

The majority of Gaillard's sketches are of the hidden camera type, often disguising himself in outlandish costumes for his pranks. In some videos, Gaillard is accompanied by a crowd of friends, giving the action a flashmob-like nature.

Gaillard shot his first sketch in 1999^[2] with a friend in Montpellier, and in 2001, he launched his website nimportequi.com.^[2]

He gained notoriety in 2002 at the finals of the Coupe de France. Disguised as an FC Lorient player, he celebrated the team's victory with the players, shook the hand of the then French President Jacques Chirac and signed autographs, without anyone realizing that he was not a player on the team.

He achieved further YouTube notoriety through his Rocky Balboa parodies, Pac Man costume prank, Mario Kart prank, and his soccer videos. His recent pranks often entail dressing up in large animal costumes; namely, a pig, dog, cat, turtle, snail, bee, shark, kangaroo, spider, beaver, fly, gorilla, chicken, penguin, giraffe, rabbit, butterfly, bat and a sheep.

He occasionally ran into some trouble while shooting his videos but never of the legal kind. He does not have a police record. ^[3]

In 2007, he gained the attention of journalists from Le Monde and made occasional television appearances.^{[citation needed]}. Gaillard also appeared in Orangina, Pepsi, Durex and LG commercials.^{[citation needed]}

On his official site, Gaillard claims over 1.35 billion views on his videos on the web.^[4]. As each of his videos claim at least 1,000,000 views. His most popular video, "Mario Kart", has over 47 million views alone.^[5]

References[link]

External links[link]

• Official website
• Gaillard's channel on YouTube
• Gaillard's Dailymotion channel

Pacha Man (born Călin Nicorici, 21 July 1976 in Timişoara, Romania) is a reggae musician. He is one of the first Romanian artists to pursue a career as a reggae artist and the first to release a professionally produced album in this genre. He is well known for his aggressive style and trademark Patois-Romanian mixture approach to songwriting.^[1]

Biography[link]

Pacha Man was born in 1976 in Timişoara, Romania, the city where he also spent most of his childhood. His father emigrated to Canada in 1980, leaving a young Pacha Man with a diminishing interest in education and an eager wish to earn his existence. He followed his father's footsteps at the age of 14, in 1990, when he left for Canada, a country that would become his home for the next seven years while he also spent various amounts of time in New York and Miami. He got his start in writing lyrics and making music while observing the African immigrants' habits in Canada and the United States. He returned to Romania in 1997, father of one with his first wife, a Colombian immigrant he met while living in Canada. He also studied law for 3 years in New York.^[2] While in the United States, Nicorici was incarcerated for 3 years for robbery and assault after which he was deported back to Romania in 1997.

Career[link]

In the 1990s Romania, a country that had just overthrown its communist dictatorship, witnessed an explosion of popular music from Western culture as the youth quickly gained its access to information. The hip hop industry was at an all time high by the time Pacha Man returned to Romania in 1997. He started emceeing in a club in his native Timişoara and quickly gained the public's attention for his innovative and refreshing style. One of his Timişoara friends was a club disk jockey going by the name of DJ Angelo. He suggested Pacha Man, derived from the Turkish military rank pasha, would be perfect as a stage name for the 21-year old Nicorici, as he drew a considerable female audience in his early years. He recorded and released his debut album, Globul De Cristal (The Crystal Globe) in 1998 and, although the album was an independent, self-produced material, it created enough buzz around Pacha Man, enabling him to set many contacts in the Romanian music industry. He collaborated with hip hop veterans B.U.G. Mafia on their 2000 album Întotdeauna pentru totdeauna and in 2002 signed with hip hop powerhouse Rebel Music. While on Rebel Music, he released his second album, Drumul Către Rastafari (The Road To Rastafari), one of the highest regarded reggae albums ever released in Romania. The album was supported by the hit single Acelaşi Sânge (One Blood), a reggae-style social protest that catapulted him to superstardom. In 2004 he left Rebel Music and released his third album, Contra Curentului (Against The Stream), in 2006 via Nova Music. Zale member and producer Jaques Yolo produced the supporting single of the album, Crazy, making his affiliation with the band's label, Chill Brothers Records, public. He signed with Chill Brothers Records in 2007, but has since left the label without releasing any new material.^[3] In 2010 Pacha Man collaborated with Romanian R&B artist Smiley for his solo album Plec Pe Marte (I'm Leaving For Mars) on a track named "Love Is For Free". He also recorded a verse for Romanian hip hop group Paraziţii's 2010 album Tot Ce E Bun Tre' Să Dispară (Everything That's Good Is Gotta Go) but the song did not make the album.

Discography[link]

• Globul De Cristal (The Crystal Globe) (1998)
• Drumul Către Rastafari (The Road To Rastafari) (2003)
• Contra Curentului (Against The Stream) (2006)
• Dragoste Sau Frica (2011)

See also[link]

• Romanian hip hop

References[link]

1. ^ Pacha Man – Hip – Hop – afterPARTY!. Afterparty.ro. Retrieved on 2012-06-01.
2. ^ Pacha Man are doi copii, pe doua continente | Jurnalul National. Jurnalul.ro (2005-06-07). Retrieved on 2012-06-01.
3. ^ Raluca Grintescu. Pacha Man este nebun de legat | Jurnalul National. Jurnalul.ro (2005-09-09). Retrieved on 2012-06-01.