You should read the indictment, and become aware of the actual charges being raised and the evidence on which those charges are based. A lot of people have already gone into protest mode without even taking the basic step of reading the actual indictment. What they did with money turns out to be far more significant than the "piracy" components. Some of the things they did would be crimes even if there was no question of the legality or the controversial nature of the business.

Okay, a useful business that stands accused of institutional copyright infringement, for which there is actual evidence.

MegaUpload apparently needed servers in Virginia, banks in the US, Paypal, etc. Read the indictment. If you read the actual charges and understand the evidence it might change your opinion on the case.

They didn't just want to shut down the site! They wanted to prove that the operators knew that what they were doing was illegal, and that they were taking deliberate steps to hide the money! That is central to the indictment, that they knew (because they were told!) that they hosted infringing content, and that they did not comply with removing (very specific) items from a (very specific) server. There's a lot more to the indictment, which I encourage everyone to read before they take an activist position.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204616504577171180266957116.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

A central piece of evidence is the storage of a significant number of full-length feature films on a server in Virginia. There is other evidence that the accused utilized US banks for money laundering.

Read the indictment. They are accused of violating US law in the US, whether they were physically in the US or not.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204616504577171180266957116.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

"What law was MegaUpload breaking?"

The indictment is quite specific, and not a difficult read. I wonder how many of the people who are already in full protest mode have read it?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204616504577171180266957116.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

"They were arrested in NZ."

By New Zealand authorities, in accordance with New Zealand laws.

For me (a mere coyote who has his own ethos and feeds on chaos), their crimes were (1.) being identifiable targets, and (2.) trading in currency instead of barter.

"I am absolutely pissed that the U.S. government has the audacity to do something like this."

So how do you feel about the New Zealand government, which actually did the arresting?

"It" is the beginning of a precedent whereby Sony, Universal, or Disney, when caught violating a Creative Commons license, can expect to have its assets seized, its operations shut down, and its executives arrested, jailed and charged with "piracy."

"It" is also a precedent whereby you can claim $500 million in losses that you don't have to report to shareholders, insurers, or the IRS.

This could lead to seriously awesome unintended consequences of chaos.

Did we skip ATM PIN sharing and go straight to social media passwords, or have we not gotten to that stage yet?

Is their prohibition lawful or not?

In any case, I cannot think of two cities more different than NYC vs. Tucson AZ.

>They're moving onto public streets in some places.

They are, after all, civilians, and have a right to be there. They are not police officers and don't actually have any rights that you don't also have.

I'm hoping for unintended consequences that come from the fact that the *vast* majority of copyrighted work is not owned or produced by corporations, but by individuals. If a law like SOPA is a powerful weapon, it's being placed into unintended hands. If you want to suggest that individuals and small producers won't be able to wield it, I will assert that the law would fail on Equal Protection grounds.

I still don't see very much awareness of how much of SOPA is a new drug law.