The problem with any law (including copyright laws) is that they are only valid in the country they were put up as law. If I infringe against that law in a different country, which doesn't have the same law (or no such law at all), why should I be liable to a law of a country I don't even live in? Why can the USA incriminate someone for a law that doesn't exist in that form in the country where the crime (viewed from the angle of the USA) happened?

In my eyes that is the main question here, not if Megaupload distributes illegally any content.

As I understand it, the servers hosting the content were physically located in the United States, and therefore they fall under US jurisdiction. The arrests in New Zealand were due to an extradition request by the US.

So they arraigned the servers?

no, but they seized the servers. Extradition of the MU operators from NZ is still pending, last I read.

Not like megauplaod was the only player, or the biggest....that would be rapidshare. There is still (partial list AFAIK)-

Rapidshare
Hotfile
Wupload
Uploaded
Letitbit
Extabit
Mediafire
Depositfiles
Netload
Crocko
Filefactory
Badongo
4shared
Przeklej
Dump
Uploading
Storage
Megashares
Furk
4FastFile
GoldFile
GigaSize
TurboBit
Diglo
HitFile
Oron
Kickload
ZippyShare
SoundCloud
BitShare
FreakShare
SpeedyShare
Fyels

IMO the reason why this has happened is not as simple as 'they were making money from people downloading copyrighted media'. You've got to view this in light of the PIPA/SOPA opposition, the Chris Dodd 'bribery' incident, even the UMG (Universal Music Group) takedown of the "The Mega Song" from youtube.

AFAIK 'personal use' is poorly defined, and varies from country to country. I believe that inviting friends around to watch a DVD, or listen to a CD would count as personal use in all the legisation I've heard about or seen. It can get a bit blurry, for example you have a party.

For what wouild 100% not be 'personal use', you dont have to look that far. Remember the classic 'this video is not for use on clubs, coaches, oil rigs, etc. etc.' that was on a lot of VHS/BETAmax videos and DVDs. For example-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x-cFoCpFrk

Mind you, I'm not sure about how legally binding those restrictions are. I dont think that the media companies have a right to limit what you do with your property, like they have tried with the 'this DVD is not to be exported, distributed, or sold by way of trade outside the EU without a proper licence from 20th C fox' wording in the youtube video above.

I've bought (from stores!) DVDs with the same 'not outside the EU' wording here in australia....Then again, I've also bought CDs/LPs/Singles with 'promotional use ony, not for sale, must be returned to XXXX' stickers as well. *shruggs*

Yeah, IANAL.

*tin foil hat mode...or maybe its not*

IMO what the mdeia companies want is to limit 'personal use' to just your person, not friends or family. If you wanted to legally watch/listen to media in company, all people who watch/listen must have paid.

I have the feeling they will never be satisfied, I mean if they had the possibility to control who you invited, what movie you watched (sounds like 1984 novel) and force them to pay the fee, they will invent newer right extensions, like limited time use of DVD with expiration date etc

Attached Images

477px-Copyrightpirates.jpg (95.9 KB, 10 views)

EDIT
Don't read this post without also reading sundialsvcs's responses. Keep in mind that I don't claim any expertise in this area, and my opinions on this subject are only opinions.

It's even worse than that. They already want to control how, when, and where you can access the content you have licensed.

Digital copies with expiration dates is one example. Interactive web content only available while connected to the Internet, and only until the service is dropped, is another. You pay for those things, yet there is no guarantee that the content you paid for will still be available in ten years. Even repurchasing a new copy of the media at full price won't help, because the content disappears forever once the service is discontinued.

It has always been a violation of copyright to copy an LP or CD to play in your automobile or portable music player. They just never bothered enforcing it.

Does your school or church group want to share a Disney film at a gathering? I remember such functions from my childhood. Do you think those organizations actually had license to present the films in such a setting?

Pay-per-view events: how many friends can you invite to your home before you're in trouble?

Does your favorite pub have a television? Does the owner pay for a license to present in that setting?

Not true. You bought a licensed copy of the material and you can do with it whatever you see fit for your personal enjoyment. What you can't do is to share the song with your friends, unless you give your (only) copy to them, because to do so is infringing upon the copyright owner's right to insist that your friends must buy a copy of their own.

This falls into the area of what is called, "fair use." (See: http://www.copyright.gov for United States law.) The school or church group, if it does not charge admission to the event and it is not open to the general public, would be able to say quite truthfully that it is not a "public performance" or "exhibition." Furthermore, it is possible to rent a copy of a film for this purpose, in which case you pay a royalty fee as part of the rental.

Once again, don't charge admission.

Yes, they do! Yes, they must.

The thing is ... 99.9% of copyright law is common sense: "I made it, I busted my asterisk to make it and to perfect it and to finance it and yada-yada-yada, and I did all this be-cause I own it and of course I want to sell it or rent it. I want to recoup all the money that I've spent and, if I am very lucky, make a profit besides." You would not have anything to steal if copyright law didn't exist, because no one in their right mind would make anything of value.

You can listen to a song that cost, say, $95,000.00 to produce, for just a quarter, because you have to drop that quarter into that jukebox slot. Your pro rata share is twenty-five cents. (And by the way, that would be a fairly low-cost song.)

(Incidentally ... copyrights are what pays for computer programmer salaries, too!!)

Well, thanks for debunking my bs, sundialsvcs. I probably should have thought longer before posting that screed, but I honestly don't regret it. The dark corners of my own ignorance could always use more light.

BTW, in case anyone missed it ... I am not a lawyer.

For the record, I don't advocate stealing. To me the MU bust looks heavy handed, and unjustified. The idea that the govt. of any single nation (even my own) can arbitrarily shut down any web site they don't like and imprison the operators is unacceptable to me. Looks like the near future will be absolutely terrifying.