1

Table of Content Rawls Versus Locke &Nozick 43

Abstract 3 The Copyright Holders 43
Summary in Danish 3 The Owners of Megaupload 44
Introduction 4 Legitimate Users of Megaupload 44
Problem Definition 4 All Potential Users 45
Delimitation 5 Harvey Versus Locke and Nozick 45
Methods 5 Rawls Versus Harvey 48
Motivation 6 The Four Perspectives from Rawls Standpoint 50
Dimensions 7 The Copyright Holders 50
What is ACTA, SOPA, PIPA and CISPA? 8 The Owners of Megaupload 51
History of Copyright Law 11 Legitimate Users of Megaupload 51
Famous Cases Concerning Copyright Infringement 14 All Potential Users 52
History of Megaupload & Kim Dotcom 16 Copyright Expiration, is it logical? 53
Why Was Megaupload Shut Down? 21 Criticism of Megaupload 56
Theories 22 The Sky is Rising 57
Locke 23 Kim Dotcom, Copyright Violator 66
Nozick 27 Future Internet Legislation and its Effects 67
Utilitarianism 30 Consequences of Shutting Down Megaupload 68
Rawls & Deontology 32 Conclusion 70
Harvey 38 Work Cited 76
Discussion 40
Four Perspectives on Megaupload 40
Megaupload & Other Services 42

2
Abstract Summary in Danish
This paper offers an insight into the history of
copyright law and the history of Megaupload and
Dette projekt omhandler Megaupload og arresteringen
further explains the proposed internet legislations
af Kim Dotcom. Dimensionerne er Historie og Kultur
ACTA, SOPA, PIPA and CISPA. This paper analyses
samt Filosofi og Videnskabsteori. For at analysere
the ethical aspects of the shutdown of Megaupload
de etiske aspekter af lukningen af Megaupload, har vi
and the arrest of Kim Dotcom. The project seeks to
brugt teorier af Locke, Nozick, Rawls og Harvey, for
shed light on the case by applying relevant theories
at f en forstelse af de forskellige parters rolle i
concerning property rights and ownership by Locke,
sagen om Megaupload. Ydermere bruger dette
Rawls, Nozick and Harvey. The case is discussed
projekt rapportenThe Sky Is Rising, hvilket giver
from four different perspectives. It further analyses
en indsigt vedrrende emnet ulovlig fildeling. Blandt
and interprets the report The Sky Is Rising in order
andre elementer der bliver udforsket er utilitarisme,
to gain insight on the subject of illegal file sharing.
deontologi samt teser hvor de forskellige filosoffer
The case study ventures into an interpretation of the
nvnt i denne opgave bliver sat op imod hinanden, for
Megaupload case with the use of concepts such as
bedre at give lseren nogle vrktjer til at kunne
utilitarianism and deontology.
fortolke sagen vedrrende Megaupload. Projektet
konkluderer ikke nogen definitive svar p de etiske
sprgsml vedrrende Kim Dotcoms arrestation og
lukningen af Megaupload. Dog giver teorierne et

3
indblik i sagernes etiske aspekter.
Introduction
On the 19th of January, 2011 the file sharing website
Megaupload.com was shut down by the U.S
department of justice for allegedly allowing users to
access copyrighted material for free (Megaupload
Shut Down). The websites shutdown and the arrest of
its founder Kim Dotcom, created a storm of
controversy and started a worldwide debate about
copyright law on the Internet and governments rights
to enforce them (Laurenti). At the same time, new
pieces of government legislation such as ACTA and
SOPA were being discussed which would radically
change how freely information could be shared on the
web (1TheRevolutionIsNow).
This project will discuss the ethical nature of sharing
media and information on the Internet by using
philosophical theories on ownership rights. The
project will also discuss the legal background of the
arrest of Kim Dotcom and the shutdown of
Megaupload.com. We will also explore
various pieces of legislation governments are
attempting to pass and what consequences they could
have for the exchange of information on the Internet.
Problem Definition
What are the ethics of ownership concerning media on
the Internet, which is commonly available yet has
legal restrictions on its accessibility?
4
 I. How can the ethical theories concerning
ownership by John Locke, Robert
Nozick, John Rawls, and David Harvey
be applied to the case of Megaupload,
and what insights do they bring forth.
II. What were the ethical and legal aspects
of the arrest of Kim Dotcom?
III. How has the Internet affected the
market for music and film and how have
major corporations responded
Delimitation
The purpose of this section is to outline what the
reader may assume will address in this project, but
have chosen not to. The Megaupload case and the
copyright issues behind it are interesting to explore
from a legal perspective, but because of the massive,
multinational scale of the case coupled with our
inexperience with law, we decided not to explore this
in depth. Also we did not explore the value of the free
sharing of music from a perspective related to cultural
theory, though this is somewhat explored in our
writings on utilitarianism. We also chose not to do our
own original empirical/qualitative research such as
interviews for example. We chose to do this to reduce
subjectivity and we felt that by researching a variety
of articles we gained a comprehensive understanding
of the situation at hand.
Methods
In order to explore intellectual property rights,
together with the legal case against Megaupload and
its founder Kim Dotcom, we have read articles from a
variety of websites/publications about the case.
5
Furthermore we will use theories by John Locke,
Robert Nozick, John Rawls and David Harvey in
order to analyze the case from a philosophical and
ethical standpoint. These theorists will be presented
individually and compared later in the project. We
will also use these philosophers to discuss the nature
of intellectual property, specifically in the context of
the music and film industry. Furthermore we will look
at the ethical and legal aspects of the arrest of Kim
Dotcom using the same theories. Our main source for
researching these philosophical theories was the
online version of the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, as well as original texts from respective
philosophers.
Motivation
This project primarily analyzes the ethical and legal
aspects concerning the shutdown of the file sharing
website Megaupload.com. As humanities students we
believed this offered us an excellent opportunity to
apply humanistic theories and investigative methods
to a pertinent and controversial issue. We were
fascinated with exploring this because we ourselves
grew up alongside the Internet and the opportunities it
supplied for the spread of information. It interested us
greatly to discuss the increasing criminalization of
activities that many people our age see as universal
and non harmful such as the free sharing of film and
music. Besides from the immediate ramifications of
the shutdown of the website, we also believed that this
case could be generalized to offer an understanding of
how information is spread online in future and what
legal circumstances surround this.
The changes in the legal system that are supposed to
occur might radically change our world, so it is
6
crucial that we are aware of the situation at hand. We
are the ones who have to take a stand if this legislation
violates our basic rights. Since we face different
ethical approaches to the Internet content in the
developing world, we find it both important and
fascinating to research and discuss the ethical and
legal aspects of the case along with the philosophical
theories of ownership in order to find the best possible
outcome for these dramatic changes.
Dimensions
This project will focus on two dimensions, Philosophy
& Science and History & Culture. While certain
elements of other dimensions will inevitably be
present, we will focus on the knowledge and theories
related to these two.
The first dimension, Philosophy & Science will be
explored through the legal and ethical aspects
surrounding the shutdown of Megaupload and the
arrest of Kim Dotcom. More specifically we will
address various theories of property ownership such
as that of Locke, Nozick, Rawl and Harvey. The
philosophical fields of Utilitarianism and Deontology
will be featured in this project. Since law is largely
based on abstract ethical concepts it is fascinating to
explore what could be described as a grey zone for
this, since the legal and ethical circumstances of
Megauploads shutdown were convoluted and
questionable.
Our second dimension is History & Culture. This will
be explored through the history of copyright law and
popular social concepts of ownership. We will also be
discussing the development of technology in modern
society and how this relates to and influences
7
arguably outdated notions of ownership concerning
media. Megaupload will serve as a primary case study
for this.
What is ACTA, SOPA, PIPA & CISPA?
In recent years as information has become more easily
shared on the Internet, the issue of information
ownership has risen in a new and unpredictable
medium. Four important pieces of legislation related
to this have been SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and CISPA.
All were proposed alterations to law which attempted
to radically change how governments could deal with
information on the Internet, while the pieces of
legislation specifically mentioned copyright
infringement issues. These laws were widely
discussed by the public as threats to freedom and tools
of censorship for governments. This section aims to
educate the reader on the current political situation
concerning copyright law on the Internet.
The first of these proposed pieces of legislation was
PIPA (Protect IP Act), which would allow the U.S
government to take down "rogue websites dedicated
to infringing or counterfeit goods" (Musil).
Unsurprisingly, supporters of the bill included
companies such as Universal and Sony who felt that
the availability of their media content on the Internet
was damaging to their business (Spence). While it was
clear that traditional copyright laws were rampantly
being disregarded on the web, the public at large still
had issues with this bill. One major aspect of this was
its drafting process. While the public was largely
unaware of the bill during its creation, many
corporations had direct ties to individuals in the
government who were writing it. This was seen as a
compromise in the relationship a government would
ideally have with its people, working transparently to
8
insure their rights are upheld and creating the best
possible environment for their happiness and success
(Greek).
Companies such as Google were also opposed to this
legislation, as it potentially threatened the future of
their businesses (The Undersigned). Wikipedia
notably blacked out their website for twenty four
hours to show dissent towards the legislation (Musil).
Megauploads case serves as an example of what the
future could look like for websites, which
governments and companies dislike. While the
takedown of Megaupload had a questionable legal
basis and garnered much criticism from the public,
with legislation like PIPA it would be far easier for
governments to arrest and suspend rights for
individuals, who they believe are connected to these
malicious websites. Some individuals see this as a
violation of both freedom of speech and due court
process (1TheRevolutionIsNow).
SOPA was essentially a rewrite of PIPA, which was
more extreme in its plans for copyright infringement
on the Internet. For example it would have given the
United States government the ability to take down any
website, which they believed to be infringing
copyright material and arrest those responsible (PC
World). Critics of the bill argued that this was a
ridiculous notion considering the nature of how
information is spread on the web. Given that someone
were o upload a picture of a cartoon character on their
Facebook, that person would under SOPA could be
deemed a criminal and face a fine and prison time.
ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement,
which was extremely similar in nature to the two
previous pieces of legislation, was originally proposed
9
by USA and Japan in 2008 (Walsh). In 2011 the
agreement was signed by Australia, Canada, Japan,
Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and
the United States. In January 2012 it was signed by
the European Union and 22 out of the 27 membership
countries. But while many countries have signed the
bill, none have ratified it, which would bring it into
actual law (Solon).
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement or ACTA
is a multinational treaty with the purpose to establish
international standards for intellectual property rights.
The agreement also aims to establish international
rules concerning counterfeit goods, generic medicines
and copyright infringements. This will create a new
governing forum outside the existing ones, such as the
World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual
Property Rights and the United Nation. If ACTA
passes, it will bring about stricter laws for
international cooperation, in order to combat
trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy
(Europa).
The most recent of these bills is CISPA or Cyber
Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act
(CISPA) While this bill is focused more on cyber
security, it still contains many facets of the previous
pieces of proposed law, which would give the
government much more control over online content.
Almost as soon as the proposed bill was formulated,
it was criticized for threatening civil rights by giving
the U.S government the right to access private
browsing data (Masnick). The bill passed on the 26th
of April, 2012 but has been criticized by president
Obama for threatening civil liberties.
10
The History of Copyright Law
Since the projects main focus is on intellectual
property, this section will introduce the reader to the
history of government legislation, to help them
understand the current situation at hand. The ethical
concept of copyright is an idea that stretches back to
the beginnings of human civilization. The notion that
an idea or product belongs to the person, who created
it has a well documented prevalence in Western
culture first exemplified in Greece long before the
birth of Christ (Plowman). For the purpose of brevity
and remaining concise, this section will outline the
history of copyright from roughly the 16th century
onwards, when it first became an issue for national
governments/organizations, as well as being written
into common law in some countries.
The first recorded cases of protected copyright belong
to various works in early renaissance Italy. For
example, a book outlining the history of Venice was
granted protection from copying in the city
(Armstrong). Starting at about the same time, England
and France, whose legal systems would become
hugely influential abroad, began granting copyrights
on certain products. These legal protections differed
from our modern concept, because they protected
large commodity industries such as oil and leather
from competition within their nations borders
(Deazley 6).
The first somewhat universal copyright law was
passed in England in 1709, which gave authors rights
over their books for a period of fourteen years after
the books were first written. The law intended
to develop a reading public and encourage progress in
the sciences by protecting authors. The law also
officially created the public domain, in which works
11
can be used freely after a certain period of time, rather
than belonging to publishers or authors forever. The
issue with this was it only gave protection to works
within England, which technically allowed books to
be copied by anyone in other British regions. This
sparked a long standing debate between book
publishers, who wanted revenue, and the British
government, who wanted cheap books to circulate
within the country. In 1774 this was ultimately
resolved by Parliament instating a truly common
copyright law, which was to be enforced universally
and instated that copyright could only be claimed for a
limited time, rather than the publishers demand for
infinite copyright (Deazley 14). This conflict of
interest between those who believe that limited
copyright aids public education and those who wish to
extend it, to protect artists and authors livelihoods
has continued into the present day. Parallels can be
drawn to the controversies surrounding websites such
as Megaupload.com.
The United States has also heavily contributed to the
modern concepts of copyright law. Because the
country was founded with enlightenment principles in
mind, many early influential thinkers and politicians
gave the subject much thought. The Articles of the
Federation (a precursor to the constitution) stated
"that nothing is more properly a man's own than the
fruit of his study, and that the protection and security
of literary property would greatly tend to encourage
genius and to promote useful discoveries."And later in
the Constitution "To promote the progress of science
and useful arts." (Yu)
The next major trend in copyright law was its
internationalization. The Berne Conference(s), were
held in 1886, 1908, 1928, 1948, 1967, and 1971 in
various European cities. The major points raised
12
during the conferences was the establishment of the
author's life plus fifty years before works entered the
public domain, that all governments have to give
equal copyright protection to foreign citizens as they
give their own, and introducing the concept of moral
right into legislation, which allocated authors legal
protection over defamation of their works (McQueen).
In recent times as the Internet has become a more
prominent medium for the exchange of information,
specific legislation has been passed concerning the
content which circulates on it. This is most notably
shown by the adoption of the World Intellectual
Property Organization Copyright Treaty in 1996.
Though this bill addressed information technology, it
was far too broad and general to create meaningful
change in the flow of copyright data and information
(Drathos & Brithewait).
Naturally often governments do not concern
themselves much with copyright infringement unless
encouraged by private companies. A notable and early
example of this was Napster, which was shut down in
2002, because of pressure from various music labels
for sharing music without their consent (US).
These types of trials have become more common in
recent years, one notable example being Viacom
filing a lawsuit against Youtube over infringed
material on their website. What ultimately ties all
these trials together is the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, specifically DMCA Title II, which
protects online services from being punished for their
users uploading copyrighted materials. Services such
as Youtube and Megaupload also allow companies to
claim ownership over content that should be taken
down, as outlined in their terms of service. While this
technicality allowed Youtube to win its case against
13
Viacom, the circumstances surrounding Megaupload
have not allowed for a proper trial to take place amd
the future will tell whether this occurs (Copyright
Infringement).
More recently legislation such as the Stop Online
Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act have called for
radically increased government intervention online
and aimed to make it far easier for government to
potentially censor the Internet. While these types of
legislation continue to receive much resistance, they
demonstrate an increasing trend of attempted
government control of Internet content. Therefore,
certain examples of cases, where the copyright laws
were being broken, are given below in order to take a
closer look into their results.
Famous Cases concerning copyright-infringement
Until the present, highly controversial case against
Megaupload, several cases have earlier hit the
spotlight in the 20th century, revolving around
copyright infringement. One of the more high profile
cases in recent history was the dispute surrounding
Beatles member and music icon George Harrison.
Harrisons single entitled My Sweet Lord was
released in January of 1971 as his first solo-single.
However a song called Hes So Fine recorded by
the Chiffons in 1962 happened to be extremely similar,
with only minor details distinguishing them.
Therefore, on February 10th, 1971, Bright Tunes filed
a lawsuit against George Harrison including his
English and American companies. The lawsuit also
included Apple Records, BMI and Hansen
Publications.
In February of 1976, Harrisons attorneys tried to
14
determine the difference between the two songs, and
they did not succeed. In the end, the judge handling
the case convicted Harrison of copyright infringement,
even though he did not believe that he plagiarized The
Chiffon's song on purpose. Therefore he was found
guilty of subconscious plagiarism and he was
sentenced to pay a fine of 587,000.00 dollars.
Harrison then paid the full amount in 1981 and the
case was closed (Famous Copyright Infringement).
This case displays an interesting parallel between
lawsuits filed in more modern times, and those filed
before the Internet revolutionized the entire
entertainment industry. The allegations towards
Megaupload and Kim Dotcom contain a variety of
aspects, which must be taken into consideration, such
as the element of responsibility regarding the alleged
wrongdoings of Megaupload and its founder Kim
Dotcom. The case against Harrison on paper seemed
to be easier to resolve. The reason for that was that
Harrisons song was a simple case of copying another
song, which others before him already had created,
and therefore their copyrights were violated . It was
easy to identify the infringer and the infringed. Now,
in the case of Megaupload, one could argue that at
least some of the users hold a clear amount of
responsibility with their copyright-violating actions,
which in essence is the trademark service Megaupload
provides (quick file sharing of rather sizeable amounts
of data), should one choose to use it in that way.
Another high profile case was the one against Vanilla
Ice in 1990, when he was a household name, known
to many because of his hit titled Ice Ice Baby. He
sampled music from Queen and David Bowie's song
Under Pressure without their consent or license.
However, one could argue he needed some outside
inspiration in the process of creating hits, considering
15
the fact that he did so in a very sloppy manner, only
slightly changing the rhythm of the bassline. The case
never went to court, and Vanilla Ice settled with
Queen and David Bowie for an undisclosed amount of
money (Famous Copyright Cases).
These two cases, one more recent than the other, share
certain similarities with each other. Perhaps, one
could argue that they are diametric opposites to one
another. Harrison was only found guilty of
subconscious plagiarism, and Vanilla Ice apparently
acted very consciously. Furthermore, in both cases the
victims were given compensation.
Regardless of the outcome of the mentioned cases, the
common denominator seems to be that the people
offended by those who are found guilty, in one way or
another, are always given compensation. Therefore,
money is a highly crucial element of justice, and a
mean in which to enforce the principles and various
laws concerning copyright-infringement.
History of Megaupload & Kim Dotcom
The aim of this section is to provide a brief history of
Megaupload.com and the legal case that ultimately led
to its shutdown in January of 2012 and the arrest of its
founder, Kim Dotcom. While not providing much
analysis, this part of the project should help the reader
grasp the complicated legal circumstances
surrounding the website, which this project is based
on.
When Megaupload was shut down, the Internet lost 2
to 3 percent of its total volume, and at the time of its
shutdown, Megaupload accounted for up to 40 percent
of all file downloads on the Internet (Brodkin). The
16
company is currently accused of costing copyright
holders more than 500 million USD in lost revenue
(Hodson).
Megaupload was first founded on the 17th of July,
2005 in Hong Kong and included a variety of web
services such as image, video, and music hosting.
Like most websites it took Megaupload some time to
rise to prominence on the Internet, as a tool for the
easy sharing of information (Domain Tools).
The website became unavailable to Hong Kong based
users in 2009, while the United States did not become
directly involved in website until 2010. The reason for
this has never been disclosed by any employee of
Megaupload, but it has been suggested by Hong Kong
customs officials that the intent behind this was to
hinder investigation by the Hong Kong government.
(GovHK).
The point at which Megaupload officially became
an issue with the United States government was in
October of 2011, when it was included on a list of
Piracy sites created by the Motion Picture Association
of America and submitted to the Office of the US
Trade Representative. This list included a variety of
websites which allowed users to share potentially
copyright material and requested the government to
prosecute these sites using existing legislation and
create new laws which would make the process easier
in the future (Ernesto, 28 Oct 2011).
Megauploads response to this was rather unorthodox,
it released a music video for an original song in
December of 2011, featuring mainstream artists such
as Will.I.Am and Kanye West. Both of whom
supported the website and its goal of making
information and media easier to share than ever before.
17
P.Diddy was quoted as saying When Im sending my
hits out I use Megaupload, cos its fast. I can receive
hits and I can send em out,(MrKimDotCom). While
this was an audacious move on Megauploads part
that raised much discussion, it did not necessarily do
much to hinder its legal troubles. The day after the
video was released it was pulled from Youtube
because of pressure from Universal Music on
copyright grounds. These actions were highly
questionable; Megaupload had signed contracts with
all the featured artists in the Music Video and had not
sampled any music belonging to Universal. Kim
Dotcoms response was UMG did something illegal
and unfair by reporting Megas content to be
infringing. They had no right to do that. We reserve
our rights to take legal action. But wed like to give
them the opportunity to apologize.Later the video
was unblocked again only to be taken down minutes
later (Enigmax, 10 Dec 2011).
As a result of this Megaupload threatened to sue
Universal Music Group for wrongfully taking down
their music video and pledged to combat emerging
government legislation such as SOPA and PIPA,
which would vastly increase the governments power
to control content on the Internet. UMGs response to
this was to outline their contract with Youtube, which
technically gave them the right to take down any
video they desired. After a short private legal battle
the Megaupload song was again made available on
Youtube and is available for viewing today (Michaels).
Only five days after the Megaupload song was made
available again on Youtube. Megaupload was placed
on a list created by the United States Trade
Representative, which named sites under scrutiny by
the U.S government for violating international
copyright agreements. Many organizations and
18
individuals took issue with this list, as it was created
largely through the lobbying and input of
organizations such as the MPAA (Motion Picture
Association of America) and RIAA (Recording
Industry Association of America). The report stated
These are marketplaces that have been the subject of
enforcement action or that may merit further
investigation for possible intellectual property rights
infringements. The scale and popularity of these
markets can cause economic harm to U.S. and other
IP right holders, This signaled the United States
governments official entry into the case (Enigmax,
10 Dec 2012).
Megauploads response to this was to investigate the
legal circumstances that allowed their song to be
removed from Youtube and how organizations like
the MPAA influenced the United States governments
decision to include them on the United States Trade
Representative list of rogue websites (Enigmax, 12
Dec 2012).
Before Megauploads investigation could yield results,
the website was shut down by the FBI in late January
of 2012. Three datacenters around the world, which
hosted their servers were raided by the authorities and
Kim Dotcom and the other founders were arrested in
New Zealand. Kim stated Mega has nothing to fear.
Our business is legitimate and protected by the
DMCA and similar laws around the world. We work
with the best lawyers and play by the rules .We take
our legal obligations seriously. Megas war chest is
full and we have strong supporters backing us,
(Enigmax, 18 Dec 2011).
The arrest garnered large amounts of debate and
caused some pro-Megaupload groups, such as
Anonymous to digitally attack various government
19
and entertainment industry websites (Albanesius).
Immediately after the shutdown of Megaupload the
Hacker - or hacktivist group Anonymous launched
its largest attack ever, dubbed Operation Payback.
The attack took down several high profile websites
including ones representing the United States
Department of Justice, the Recording Industry of
America, the Motion picture Association, Universal
Music Group and many others (Anonymous Downs).
Anonymous stated several reasons for their attacks
and operative Barrett Brown stated: "The
raid on Megaupload Thursday proved that the feds
dont need SOPA or its sister
legislation, PIPA, in order to pose a blow to the Web,"
(IT Networks). The hacker group also encouraged
others to react against Megauploads shutdown and
tweeted: "Megaupload
was taken down w/out SOPA being law. Now
imagine what will happen if it passes.
The Internet as we know it will end. FIGHT BACK."
(Wilcox)
On February 22nd, 2012 Kim Dotcom was released
on bail. Though he still faced charges related to the
shutdown of Megaupload (Ernesto, 22 Feb, 2012).
On March 18th, 2012 New Zealand judge Judith
Potter declared that Kim Dotcoms arrest and the
shutdown of Megaupload was null and void because
the court order the police used in the arrest should not
have been granted. Because of this Kim Dotcom could
potentially have his money and property returned to
him (Enigmax, March 18th, 2012).
In late April of 2012 Kim Dotcom was granted access
to $750,000 that was seized from him as well as his
Mercedes-Benz G55AMG. While the case was still
20
playing out this demonstrated a continuing trend of Megaupload could eventually have been the top
the Courts favoring Kim Dotcom (Ernesto, April 28th, website listed, if it wasnt shut down on January 19.
2012). Nevertheless, it is interesting to discuss, why the
American government decided to shut down
Kim Dotcom and his associates are still facing Megaupload, instead of the other websites.
prosecution as of May, 2012, and the U.S government
has attempted to pass legislation; which aims to make
it easier for them to take down sites such as
Megaupload. Currently, many special interest groups
are fighting for either more or less government control
of the Internet.

Why was Megaupload shut down?

There are a few theories explaining why it was

Internet piracy and free file sharing are common Megaupload, and not the other services that was shut

practices, which are encouraged by many websites. down, this is discussed on a variety of websites;

The top websites for this (based on unique visitors) however the viewpoint, which most often is repeated

are listed in the chart below. As clearly shown, is that of a new, completely legal, internet service
Megaupload is in the third position. Its not certain, if created by Kim Dotcom, called Megabox was about to

21
be launched. This had to be stopped, in order to
protect the existing media corporations. This service
was supposed to allow artists to sell their music
directly to the consumers, so they could keep up to
90% of their earnings. Furthermore, another new
service called Megakey, was supposed to be started,
in order to pay the artists, for the songs which are
available for free (Thier).
By signing the contracts with the popular and
legitimate partners, such as Rovi, Amazon, Gracenote
and 7digital. Megabox was about to become an
enormous threat to all the record labels. Even though
the transformation of how music labels functioned
started shifting some time ago, Megabox would be the
point of no return for the music labels. Before, record
labels were the ones allowing the artists to use their
equipment to produce and record music, as well as
influencing the art these musicians produce.
Musicians had to fit into the labels standards.
Nowadays, it is becoming more common for
musicians, to have more freedom and use the record
labels for the skills and creativity of their employees.
This could have been furthered even more with these
new services.
Therefore, Kim Dotcom claims that shutting down
Megaupload, was a conspiracy on the highest political
level, plotted by the copyright holders who felt
threatened by his services (Ernesto, April 20, 2012).
Theories
This section will outline the philosophical theories we
will use in order to explore the ethical nature of the
Megaupload service. The relevant philosophical
22
work(s) of John Locke, Robert Nozick, John Rawls
and David Harvey will be addressed. As well as the
fields of Utilitarianism and Deontology.
Locke
This section will explain John Lockes ethical and
philosophical views on property, as laid out in his
1689 work Two Treatises of Government.
Afterwards, these views will be applied to the
circumstances surrounding the functioning and
shutdown of Megaupload.
John Locke was born in 1632 near Bristol England,
and attended Oxford University. Throughout his life
he wrote a variety of hugely influential texts, within a
variety of fields, notably philosophy and civics. He
lived in England, during his early life and later moved
to what would become the United States, which
influenced his views on ownership and the role of
government (Uzgalis).
John Lockes primary theory of ownership is one
based on the idea of natural rights, often referred to as
the Labor theory of property. According to Locke,
who lived in the 17th century, the human concept of
ownership, is derived from the bible, which states that
God created earth for human beings to inhabit and
share. He aims to solve the dilemma this assumption
creates, that if humanity as a whole are meant to share
the earth and all of its bounty, how can a single person
claim to own anything?
His answer to this, is that human beings claim
ownership of things, from nature through labor. This
argument begins with the assumption, that a person
owns their own body and by extension of that the
23
products of the work they perform, with their body
becomes their property. This in Lockes view, is what
separates something from common ownership, which
he claims is when things are in a state of nature
(Locke, 116).
Whatsoever, then, he removes out of
the state that Nature hath provided and
left it in, he hath mixed his labor with
it, and joined to it something that is his
own, and thereby makes it his
property- John Locke (Locke, 116)
A simple example of this, is a farmer owning land and
the fruit it bears because he is the one who plants
seeds, waters them, harvests the crops on it. The
example that Locke gives, is going out and picking an
apple from a wild tree, by picking it, you have
removed it from the commons and made it yours.
Another important and relevant aspect of Lockes
theory, is that he believes the rights of the individual
with respect to ownership, supersede those of the
government. He states that the government cannot
"dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily. He
also claims that any government or organization that
violates these rules is prone to be overthrown (Locke,
138).
After this Locke states that it is an obligation for
individuals to take what they themselves can
responsibly use, in order to not create waste. He
claims, though that this is often remedied by simple
economics, as a person will normally trade excess
items for something more desirable. This according to
Lockes theory, is the root human economy, as
individuals will seek to maximize their own comfort
by mixing their labor, with the environment to create
products to trade, creating desirable commodities for
24
everyone else (Locke, 121).
Since John Locke mentions mostly simple
commodities such as food and animals, for example
he goes into great detail about taking an apple in order
to feed oneself is a natural right which should be
fulfilled. Applying his theories to artistic endeavors is
challenging. Since production of media requires
multiple parties to participate, such as record labels,
the music artists, the distributors and the purchasing
public for example, it can be difficult to say who
exactly picked the apple, originally thereby
definitively owning the rights to a cultural product.
If one is to say that the artists are the ones who
created the cultural product, according to Lockes
labor theory of value, they are the ones who
definitively own it and have the right to sell it and
make personal gain. Thereby services such as
Megaupload, deprive them of the money they deserve
for their labor of creating art. The problem with this
understanding though is that in a digital age, where a
song can be infinitely reproduced as it is downloaded,
and how much it is reproduced is simply a question of
how many people want to listen to it.
A notable example of this is his concept of waste, it
makes sense with perishable commodities such as
apples, if one picks too many and they rot, you lose
potential money and people lose potential apples they
could have bought, thereby everybody loses. But the
same principle does not directly apply to media on the
Internet, which is non-perishable. One could say that
the quality of life the stars achieve is a more
appropriate form of waste, in the context of file
sharing. Locke states that people should only acquire
what they can reasonably use to their advantage, and
acquiring more so is an offense against nature. If for
25
example an artist makes a good living recording
music and playing it live, they do not live in excess,
regardless of whether or not some people download
their material for free. They can be said to fit this
description. But both fabulously successful as well as
struggling artists were shared on Megauploads
servers, which makes it difficult to support or
condemn this service, as a whole based on this
principle.
Locke also stated that governments should not
"dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily
(Locke, 138). This can be applied to the United States
shutdown of Megaupload. Kim Dotcom had his
business and many human rights taken away from him,
when he was arrested. And so far the United States
and New Zealand court system has not produced
definitive justification, to support their actions against
him. So according to Lockes theory he had the result
of his own labor, (Megaupload) taken away from him
unjustly. He is even more innocent, in the whole
affair according to Locke if one views the illegal
sharing on Megaupload not as Kims fault, but that of
irresponsible users. Regardless though he was
notorious for his lavish lifestyle, (again an example of
waste) which means he is not without fault in the
case in according to Locke.
Another interesting point to explore is the concept of
the common in Lockes book this is nature, where
anything can be taken without consequence. In
modern times though has the Internet become a kind
of cultural common? Everything is available to
everyone and almost always without consequence. In
this sense does a piece of media become yours just
because you apply the labor of bothering to download
it? Whether or not this is legally and ethically sound,
it has clearly become our present reality.
26

In conclusion, Lockes theory does not provide any
definitive answers to this case, but does provide some
valuable insights into the case, such as providing a
base for exploring who owns media on the Internet.
His theory also inspired many other philosophers,
which we will use to explore the issues surrounding
Megaupload in this project.
Nozick
Robert Nozick, born Novermber 16, 1938, died
January 23, 2002, was an American political
philosopher often referred to as the philosophical
father of libertarianism. In his philosophical
centerpiece, Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974),
Nozick argues for the minimal state, and that people
have rights so essential that it raises the question if the
state has any rights to interfere in our lives (Nozick).
Nozicks Entitlement Theory, inspired by the work of
John Locke (Duignan), maintains the idea that people
are to be treated as ends rather than means. For
Nozick, only free market exchanges treat and respects
people as equals and therefore as ends. To him it is
not relevant whether or not a society produces the
overall greatest well being amongst its citizens. The
Entitlement Theory itself is historical and
unpatterned. It claims that we can tell if the
distribution of things is justified by looking into the
history of the distribution. The theory furthermore
claims, that it does not demand that the distribution of
any just acquisitions or transfers to be correlated with
anything (Nozick) . His theory holds three principles:
The justification principle of how things may be
acquired: If a persons initial acquisition of a given
27
holding was just, then the acquisition is just.
The principle of justice in transfer: Things may be
acquired from others, who themselves acquired them
in a just way.
The rectification principle: Is to rectify violations of
either of the first two principles and redistributing
things to their rightful owners. (Kilcullen)
Nozick believes that these principles are maintained if
peoples current possessions were acquired in a just
way, then the transfer principle were to determine if,
subsequently, any distribution was just. For example.
a consequence of this being that any taxes paid over
the cost to preserve institutions of just transfer, are
unjust.
Nozick uses a famous and clever example of getting
his point through also known as The Wilt
Chamberlain argument. The example is meant to
show that no patterned theory of just distribution is
actually just itself, and that patterned distribution is
not compatible with freedom and is therefore
unjustified. All free exchanges of things that have
been acquired justly should be distributed as the
people, in possession of them, see fit.
The Wilt Chamberlain argument: One must
imagine a given society in which there is a particular
pattern of equal distribution: D1. In this society Wilt
Chamberlain is one of the best basketball players
around and many teams seek to capture his signature.
Chamberlain chooses to play for a specific team
though on the condition that at each game every
spectator puts 25 cents in a box at the gate that goes to
him. Over the course of a season one million people
will have contributed to this box and so Chamberlain
28
now has 250.000 dollars more than everyone else. A
distribution that is not compatible with D1. Then,
does Chamberlain have the right to keep the money,
and is D2 just? In Nozicks opinion it is a clear yes. responsibility what material his users put up for others
All the spectators that put money in the box did it
voluntarily, and the ones that did not want to pay or
see Chamberlain still have their money. So no one has
any reasons to feel unjustly done: thus there is not any
injustice in his earnings. (Feser)
Looking at the case of Megaupload and Kim Dotcom
though Robert Nozicks eyes and applying the
entitlement theory to it, one could argue that there are
both reasons to sympathize with Kim Dotcom but also
with the authorities that want to prosecute him. If we
agree with the fact that a song or a movie is an actual
thing, or a holding as Nozick would call it, that one
can claim ownership over, then one would look with
skepticism at Kim Dotcoms Megaupload, as it
provides, and has provided, for these things to be
transferred unjustly. It is however, as is also evident in
the DMCA agreement, not Kim Dotcoms
to download for free, and since he himself doesnt
share, or transfer, the copyrighted material directly, he
cant be held responsible. While Nozick is mainly
concerned with the material world, we have accepted
that a non-material thing such as a song or a movie
is considered as an actual thing that should be
respected by the Entitlement Theorys three principles.
Therefore, there is no problem in the idea of the
governments aim to protect the owners of the
illegally shared copyrighted material.
29
Utilitarianism
In this chapter a description and discussion of the
above term will be given in order to analyze
Megauploads case, by questioning and considering
its relevance and relation to the ethical features of
Megaupload.
As the name indicates, the philosophical theory of
utilitarianism relates to the principle that the well-
being of the people is of high priority. If one is able to
make the society happy, actions should be taken in
order to do so. Even if it is bad for an individual,
actions should still be taken if the outcome is better
for society as a whole. The exact opposite of
utilitarianism is deontology, which stands for overall
legality of actions and prioritizes rules and order.
Another example of opposite thinking is ethical
egoism, which stands for the well being of the unit.
However, even though it seems to be pretty similar to
hedonism, which is all about pleasure. The main
utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill distinguished
two kinds of hedonism an ethical one, which is
combined with egoism, and altruistic hedonism,
which is more similar to utilitarianism.
There is an example of a study, where the neurology
scientists from Iowa tested a couple of people with
destroyed prefrontal cortices, which is responsible for
emotions by asking them a question: would you
quietly strangle your child if it started cry, while you
and a couple of other people were hiding from the
soldiers in the basement, and that was the only way to
survive?. In most of the cases the answer was yes,
and therefore it was counted as a extreme utilitarian
solution. This example shows how ethically and
emotionally inadequate the idea that is utilitarianism.
(Koenig)
30

Megaupload was designed to share anything people
wanted. Books, music and movies were the most
commonly shared forms of media. Each of them can
be a source of entertainment, knowledge, culture
and/or ideology. They are powerful tools in order to
create a viewpoint to stand up for newly adopted
values and change one's way of life. By giving out
these forms of knowledge for free the gates to
education and other societal goods became open to
anyone with an internet connection. Therefore, an
extremely useful service was provided. People are
happy when they get things for free, and its exactly
what Megaupload allowed them to do.
It could be considered that creative artists might be
furious that their hard work is being distributed for
free, without any benefits for them. However, as Kim
Dotcom stated in an exclusive interview given to John
Campbell in New Zealand in the beginning of January,
the business is seven years old. We have been sued
only once, never by any, you know, movie company
or big content company and we have spent millions of
dollars on legal advice over the last few years and our
legal advisers have always told us that we are secure
and that we are protected by the DMCA which is a
law in the US that is protecting online service
providers of liability for the actions of their users, so it
came completely unexpected. (3news).
Therefore, it becomes clear that the only party
disapproving the idea of sharing goods for free is the
government to which all the taxes from the sold goods
go to. It is obvious that the government prefers
deontological values, and wants people to obey the
rules to reduce chaos and help provide financial
resources for them. Kim Dotcom followed the rules
outlined in the DMCA and he didnt break any laws.
He found a loophole in the legislation system and
31
formed Megauploads user policy along this legal
grey zone. As technology improves and changes,
rights and legal systems should be updated, and
changed in order to cover changes brought on by
technology. Its a great example of how the value of
knowledge and logical thinking gives a great defense
to any desired actions. (Masnick)
However, by comparing to what Kim Dotcom said in
an interview and whats written in the section
Criticism of Megaupload, its clear to see that
Dotcom is avoiding the part on the less fair features of
Megaupload. He gives the rights to the copyrights
holders to remove the copyrighted file, but he knows
it isnt gone until no one needs it anymore.
Was Megaupload an example of an utilitarian tool?
As the discussion indicates this statement might be
considered too strong to apply to Megauploads ethics.
However, some of the aspects of utilitarianism, such
as the almost overall happiness and focus on the
outcome more than the means, match to the values
represented by Megaupload. Megaupload is an
example of a collision between ethics and the
principle of the maximum utility, in terms of
balancing on the edge of whats legal and illegal.
Rawls and Deontology
In this section we have chosen to focus on deontology,
since this field of philosophy can be used to
investigate if free file sharing on the internet is an
immoral act. Furthermore, we have chosen to use
Rawls concept of the veil of ignorance to
understand why illegal file sharing is so prevalent
around the globe. Rawls two principles will be used
to see if and how these principles are being respected,
concerning copyrighted intellectual property and the
32
Megaupload case.
John Rawls was an American political philosopher in
the liberal tradition. He studied at Princeton and
Oxford University. In 1962 Rawls joined the faculty
at Harvard, where he taught for more than thirty years.
Rawls work is mainly inspired by Immanuel Kant
and his most important work is titled A Theory of
Justice (Wenar).
This section aims to provide a general view of what
deontology is. This is relevant since Rawls theory is
a deontological one.
An action is considered morally correct if it is in
accordance with duties and obligations in a given
society. The duty for example is to put your family
and friends before others. A deontologist would claim
that it is a parent's duty or obligation to save their
child from drowning, even though the parents could
have saved two children who were not theirs.
Deontologists would say that some actions cannot be
justified by their effect no matter how morally good
the consequences will be. A deontologist would argue
that some actions are morally forbidden, for example
killing or torturing a person, since this action would
not respect the rights of the individual. According to
Rawls agents cannot make wrong choices, even if
they minimize the number of the subsequent wrong
outcomes. A persons rights must never be violated,
no matter how much good is created (Alexander,
Larry, & Moore).
An example given is that: A must not violate Xs
rights, in order to apprehend B and C, who are
violating Y and Zs rights. One could argue that
violation of two citizens rights, is worse than that of
one citizens rights. But a deontologist will argue that
33
one cannot violate one citizens rights in order to
secure others. Therefore A is not allowed to violate
Xs rights in order to apprehend B and C from
violating Y and Zs rights (Alexander, Larry, and
Moore).
A deontologist believes that every individual has the
right to do whatever they want, as long as they do not
violate the rights of other individuals in the given
society. (Alexander, Larry and Moore)
John Rawls theory of justice as fairness is about how
liberty and equality should be distributed fairly among
citizens in society. Rawls has two principles of justice.
In the first he claims that every citizen should have
the same basic rights and liberties. Such as free
speech, property rights, together with other
fundamental civil rights, as well as freedom from
psychological oppression, physical assault and
dismemberment (Rawls 1999:53). Furthermore, the
first principle can never be compromised, so
economic advantages can be earned by certain groups
in society (Rawls 1999:54). In the second principle of
justice, Rawls claims that every individual with the
same talents should have the same opportunities
regardless of their social class. Furthermore, the
difference principle claims that material wealth should
be distributed fairly among citizens, but inequalities
are acceptable if their advantages are in favor of the
lowest class in society, this means a greater total
product can be achieved by making inequalities in
salary and wages, but only if the lowest class will
benefit from it by e.g. better institutions (Wenar).
Rawls uses the concept, the original position. This
concept is a thought experiment, where each citizen
has a representative, and all these representatives have
to come to an agreement on which principles of
34
justice should order the political institutions of the
real citizens. In the original position Rawls uses
another concept called the veil of ignorance, which
prevents representatives from being influenced by
arbitrary facts about the citizens. This means that race,
gender, ethnicity, age, income etc. is not known by the
representatives, since these facts are not supposed to
make the representatives favor or disfavor one group
in society. The veil of ignorance screens out specific
information about citizens society. That is irrelevant
in getting a clear view of the permanent just social
system. The purpose of the veil of ignorance is that
no party can pursue an agreement on principles that
will be in favor of group which they represent, since
no party knows who they represent. Therefore, every
one of the representatives has to make an agreement
that they all can agree upon. Therefore, justice is
fairly distributed since every representative has think
about each social class, accepting the agreement, so
there will be no do-overs, when the veil of ignorance
is repealed and the representatives will see, which
group of citizens they represented. (Wenar)
In the following section, we will apply Rawls
concepts of the veil of ignorance and his two
principles of justice together with the general view of
a deontologist to discuss the four perspectives of
Megaupload.
Rawls or a deontologist would say that the property
right is a fundamental right that each citizen has.
Therefore, he would argue that it is wrong to infringe
on the copyright or intellectual property which artists
hold. Uploading copyrighted material of artists music,
movies, art etc. would be considered an immoral act
by Rawls and a deontologist. Therefore, a
deontologist would determine that uploading
intellectual property is an immoral action and can
35
therefore not be accepted. An action can only be
accepted if it is made by a duty or obligation or
because it is your right to do so (e.g. free speech). But
by uploading a music file, and thereby violating an
artists (an individual) copyright, to ensure
satisfaction in the public sphere, it is not acceptable,
since it is not ones duty, obligation or right to violate
others property.
Rawls concept of the veil of ignorance is not used
to make the agreement between the record/movie
companies, the artists and the consumers, since justice
is not fairly distributed against the three parts in this
agreement. The record company has the advantages of
deciding the market price of the music album or the
movie etc. and how big of a percentage of the income
the artists get. Therefore, the consumer might not
believe that the price is fair. This may result in the
consumers searching the Internet to find the product,
they want at an online file sharing site, where they can
get the product for free, or a onetime fee, instead of
paying the full price for the physical product. In this
section we will try to establish the how a deontologist
would see the arrest and shutdown of Megaupload.
The expanding use of file sharing services by the
consumers might be because of the unjust distribution
of fairness between the parts. Rawls might argue that
the agreement is unjust because it is made by
representatives who knew which group they
represented and therefore the record/movie companies
representatives might have favored their group to gain
the most privileges. Another interesting thing that
could have made the distributing of fairness unjust, is
that the record/movie companies themselves has made
this agreement and wants the artists to accept it in
order to get the music distributed out to the consumers,
and the record companies expects the consumers to
pay the price that is imposed on each product. But
36
Rawls might also argue that the people who use file
sharing are compromising the first principle, which
states that each citizen has the right to private property.
Then the people who use file sharing services are
violating the artists copyrights to save their own
money. Rawls might argue that they are
compromising the first principle, to ensure an
economic advantage towards themselves, the first
principle is not being respected since the illegal
downloading of copyrighted files are not in favor of
everyone.
A deontologist would argue that Megaupload is Kim
Dotcoms property.Therefore, the FBI does not have
any obligation, duty or right to violate Kim Dotcoms
property rights, to ensure that the clients interests are
maintained. Because it is violating Kim Dotcoms
right to own a company. A deontologist would
consider the FBIs actions towards Megaupload
immoral, since they are crushing Kim Dotcoms
possibilities to fulfill his duty and obligation towards
his family. Even though one could argue that Kim
Dotcom was using the artists work to earn money and
therefore, he himself is violating the rights of the
artists. Why should his rights not be violated to ensure
that the copyright holders rights are not being
violated?
A deontologist would argue using the example from
the first section, which states that As (Kim Dotcom)
rights, should not be violated in order to keep B and
Cs (copyright holders/entertainment industry) rights
intact. Therefore, a deontologist might argue that Kim
Dotcoms rights should not be violated in order to
ensure the rights of the copyright holders. Therefore,
Rawls first principle is not respected by the FBI, since
they violate Kim Dotcom rights to own property (his
company Megaupload). Therefore, a deontologist
37
would argue that the FBI is compromising Kim
Dotcoms rights in order to ensure the economic
advantages for the entertainment industry. By shutting
down Megaupload, the FBI did not just violate Kim
Dotcoms rights, but also the rights of the users who
used it for legal purposes. Rawls might argue that the
FBI, tried to compromise the first principle in order to
secure a larger economic advantages for the
entertainment industry and copyright holders, which
according to Rawls views is an immoral act.
Harvey
This section will focus on theories by David Harvey.
It seeks to explain the works of Harvey, together with
how they are relevant to our case study concerning
Megaupload. Furthermore, it will be discussed how
Harvey's thoughts on neo-liberalism, and to some
extent Marxism, can be applied in a viable context
when referring to Kim Dotcom and the case revolving
around him and Megaupload.
David Harvey is a distinguished professor of
anthropology at the graduate center of the City
University of New York, who was born on October
31st, 1935 in Kent, England. He received his PhD in
Geography from the University of Cambridge in 1961
(David Harvey). He is an internationally recognized
social theorist. He is in the top 20 most cited authors
in the humanities. As well as the world's most cited
geographer (Bodman, Andrew R 1991). Harvey
mentions in his book A Brief History of Neo-
Liberalism that: Neo-liberalism is a theory of
political economic practices that proposes that human
well-being can best be advanced by liberating
individual entrepenual freedoms and skills within an
institutional framework characterized by strong
38
private property rights, free markets and free trade!
Therefore, one could say that Harvey defines what the
world of trading, and what the nature of copyright-law
is today. This is further elaborated on by Michael
Thompson , who interprets Harveys work
(Thompson Michael J, 2005, 22-25). Harveys idea is
that we are witnessing, through the process of neo-
liberalisation, a deepening penetration of capitalism
into political and social institutions, as well as cultural
consciousness in itself. Harvey's theories can
therefore be argued as a description of the power that
international copyright-holders possess. A power
displayed in the arrest of Kim Dotcom, following
what the corporations found to be copyright infringing
acts by Kim Dotcom and Megaupload. One could
argue that many western societies live by liberal
standards, and therefore liberal values must be
preserved by any legal means possible.
Michael J. Thompson continues to interpret Harvey
by saying: Neoliberalism is the intensification of the
influence and dominance of capital; it is the elevation
of capitalism, as a mode of production. This could be
argued to entail the essence of the entire matter of the
case surrounding the website Megaupload and its
founder. Megaupload threatened the previously
mentioned process of capitalist production which
consequently cheated the offended companies
economically. This is a process Michael J. Thompson
elaborates on in the following quote by Karl Marx in
Harvey's book, Marx explicitly argued that capital is
a process that puts into motion all of the other
dimensions of modern economic, political, social, and
cultural life. It creates the wage system, influences
values, goals, and the ethics of individuals, transforms
our relation to nature, to ourselves, and to our
community, and constantly seeks to mold state
imperatives until they are in harmony with its own
39
(Thompson Michael J, 2005, 22-25).
It can be argued as it is also mentioned in Michael J.
Thompsons interpretations of Harvey that the essence
of neoliberalism (for Harvey) is a rightward shift in
Marxist class struggle. Neoliberalism is not a new turn
in the history of capitalism. It is more simply, and
more insidiously, an intensification of it.
According to Santa Clara University School of Law,
law professor Eric Goldman, the prosecution and
launch of a criminal case against Megaupload is a
depressing display of abuse of government authority,
that ignores basic constitutional rights in order to
protect private commercial interests (Ernesto, 2 May,
2012). Furthermore, he claims that the shutdown of
the worlds most popular file sharing website was
desirable for the entertainment industry, which was in
line with the notions and statements mentioned earlier
in this section. Goldman says, The governments
prosecution of Megaupload demonstrates the
implications of the government acting as a proxy for
private commercial interests. The government is using
its enforcement powers to accomplish what most
copyright owners havent been willing to do in civil
court, (Ernesto, 2 May, 2012).
Discussion
Four Perspectives on Megaupload
Before entering the projects discussion part, it is
important to establish four important groups with
different interests in the case concerning the shutdown
of Megaupload.
Much has been mentioned previously in the project
about both the perspective of the copyright holders
40
and that of Megaupload, but it is also important to
cover the perspective of the users of Megaupload.
No exact figure is known on the subject of what
percentage of Megauploads uploaded material was
legitimate and not copyright infringing, but some
users did actually use the online service for legal
purposes such as sharing photos and videos with
friends, or collaborating with others on music tracks.
(Brodkin) This issue and these people are often
overlooked when the media discusses the shutdown of
Megaupload. The premium users paid money for an
account and have not received any compensation, nor
have they been able to gain access to their legally
uploaded material that is still on Megauploads
confiscated servers (Burns).
It is interesting to look at the morale and the principle
of sharing art for free, and therefore the project will
cover the perspective of all Megauploads potential
users. This though is more relevantly discussed on a
non-specific theoretical level concerning the ethics in
sharing art freely.
While applying relevant theories, the discussion part
will seek to cover and discuss the ethical issues
concerning the shutdown from four perspectives:
- The copyright holders, represented by the U.S.
justice department and corporation such as Universal
Music, that want Megaupload convicted of illegally
sharing copyrighted material.
- The owners of Megaupload who claim protection
from such a conviction under the DMCA
- The legitimate users of Megaupload who could
claim a loss of private material.
- All potential users of Megaupload (especially
concerning the opinion that art should be shared
freely.)
41
Megaupload and Other Services
Megaupload and their entire system of usage politics
could very well be hypothetically applied to that of
the e.g danish postal service to explore two similar
service policies on privacy, however in a reverse kind
of way. Post Danmark are obligated to protect private
user information, they do so internally and in their
communication over the internet (Personlige
oplysninger). In an article by PC World, concerning
the shutdown of Megaupload in January of 2012,
there is a quote stating that - Megaupload's terms of
use agreement states users store their data with the
service "at their own risk" (Mello). Thereby they are
vaguely stating that they cannot be held accountable
for whatever content is uploaded to Megaupload.. One
could argue that Megaupload is designed to service
those with intentions to perform illegal actions, and
therefore has a somewhat vague policy concerning
that matter. After all, the premium subscribers have a
way faster up/download speed when transferring files,
which arguably is only something people would pay
for if it was among the best and superior ways of
sending and receiving media and information.
In the end, besides from the fact that the service
provides transferring packages, or files as it were; it is
hard to argue it being similar to any kind of traditional
postal service, a regular service like the one
mentioned above or UPS (United Parcel Service) for
example. Now UPS is arguably one of the most
recognizable brands within their field of work,
delivering packages all over the world in various ways.
UPS provides delivery by airplanes, trucks,
motorcycles, and other vehicles worldwide (UPS:
Globalt). Therefore it is nothing like Megaupload,
considering the fact that they only provide delivery of
software (files) online, by the means of the internet.
42
However this might be sufficient for those whom only
require software e.g music, movies or audio books,
but for those seeking hardware like machines, tools or
IT equipment, Megaupload is not the service theyre
looking for.
Megaupload's general advantage remains being able
to getting software without paying the fee for a DVD
or Blu-Ray disc in a store for example, and the vast
speed when uploading/downloading stuff, a speed the
UPS would have a hard time competing with! In the
end the only money changing hands in the process, is
between the premium subscribers and
Megaupload.
Rawls vs. Locke and Nozick
Nozick is against the very idea that Rawls Theory of
Justice stands for. Namely that liberty and equality
should be distributed fairly among citizens of a given
society. To Nozick, the only way for a society to treat
its citizens equally and have as much liberty as
possible is when the state interferes as little as
possible and only works as a nightwatcher. Nozick
was hugely influenced by Locke, but Lockes concept
of of waste is not not compatible with Nozicks
entitlement theory or his general view on peoples
obligations to society or the common good.
The copyright holders
Out of the four perspectives described above, Rawls
and Nozick conflict the most on the subject. When
applying Rawls veil of ignorance to the
Megaupload case, it could be argued that there is an
unjust distribution of fairness. To Nozick, such a
43
claim is irrelevant as he wasnt interested in any other
ideas of fairness other than fair or justly acquired
holdings.
The owners of Megaupload
Rawls, Nozick and Locke are all in agreement that
Kim Dotcom and the fellow owners of Megaupload
had their company taken away from them unjustly. It
is though, also apparent that the Megaupload service
was used to violate the rights of others, and therefore
the whole service in itself is in a grey zone, when
looking at it through these three philosophers eyes.
Legally the company according to Kim Dotcom is
protected under the DMCA but there have been
indications that it has indirectly encouraged the
uploading of copyright infringing material (Hart).
This encouragement is too speculative for them to be
held accountable for it. Most likely in both the eyes of
the law and those of the three philosophers.
If Lockes concept of waste is applied to the
Megaupload case or more specifically to Kim Dotcom,
it could be argued that he lived in excess of what is
considered a non-wasteful lifestyle and therefore is
not at least morally innocent.
Legitimate users of Megaupload
Nozick sees nothing wrong with the idea of a law
institution that seeks to make sure that unjustly
transferred holdings are given back to their rightful
owners. Therefore, in principle he wouldnt be against
an investigation of Megaupload. The problem though
with the U.S. justice departments investigation of
Megaupload is that it confiscated all their servers and
44
thereby, all of the companies material including
legally uploaded content. Because of the confiscation
of servers the legitimate users of Megaupload had
their legally uploaded material taken away. To Nozick
this would mean that these users had their holdings
transferred unjustly and that these holdings ought to
be returned to them. In that sense, Nozick is thus in
agreement with Rawls view that the legitimate users
of Megaupload have had their property rights violated.
All potential users
Nozick and Rawls both agree on the fact that
uploading and downloading copyright infringing
material is wrong. To Rawls, it is considered an
immoral act that violates the rights of others. To
Nozick, it is considered a violation of the Transfer
Principle. Both would therefore be against sharing art
freely on the internet if the copyright holders were not
given some sort of compensation for their unjustly
transferred holdings. Nozick, and the rectification
principle, would at least seek to have people with
illegally downloaded copyright infringing material to
delete it, as it is not a just acquisition. Locke would
agree with this as the art is the product of someones
labour and it is taken without payment.
Harvey vs. Locke and Nozick
This section will take a look at the various branches of
liberalism, as interpreted by Robert Nozick and David
Harvey. Nozick's entitlement theory concerning
libertarianism, states that the only thing or concept
which respects people as equals, is that of free market
exchange. This is a theory which consists of three
principles, as seen in the section below
45
(Libertarianism)
1. Transfer principle: Holdings (actually) freely
acquired from others who acquired them in a
just way are justly acquired.
2. Acquisition principle: Persons are entitled to
holdings initially acquired in a just way
(according to the Lockean Proviso).
3. Rectification principle: Rectify violations of 1
or 2 by restoring holdings to their rightful
owners, or a "one time" redistribution according
to the Difference Principle.
Nozick elaborates by saying that people in this system
are ends in themselves, so to him this is akin to
saying that free market exchange has a neutral and
therefore positive outcome. Furthermore, Nozick
argues that we as humans own ourselves completely
in every aspect, and whatever we produce, we are
entitled to, and should be our own property. One
could argue that what for Nozick would be unjust, if a
commodity belonging to someone was taken away
from that person without any sort of compensation.
David Harvey proposes another theory called neo-
liberalism (Harvey). Basically, it is the idea that
political and economic practices can be best advanced
by liberation of the individuals entrepreneurial
freedoms, characterized within an institutional
framework of strong property rights, free markets and
free trade. Therefore, it could be argued that Harvey's
interpretations rely on a foundation of thoughts
inspired by Nozick. To put it simply, it is a somewhat
similar interpretation of what Nozick argues, and what
follows, is basically the same thing, being the
blossoming of society. However, the idea outlined by
Harvey, remains a thesis which is in sharp contrast to
his own view and personal opinions.
46

Harvey & The Four Dimensions
David Harvey would probably argue that the rights of
the copyright-holders, whom arerepresented by the
U.S. justice department and corporation such as
Universal Music that want Megaupload convicted of
illegally sharing copyrighted material. Being an
orthodox Marxist, and anti-capitalist, would be
ethically wrong to acquire something, which
essentially doesn't belong to you. Furthermore, it
could be seen as an immoral and imperialist act in the
eyes of Harvey (Thompson, Michael J, page 26).
Thompson states that Harveys position is explicitly
anti-capitalist, and his hope is that the rhetoric of neo-
liberalism will be unmasked by the various realities
most specifically, massive economic inequalities
that it spawns. Only then will social movements be
able to gain political traction, and move society
toward some form of social, economic and political
transformation. Harvey sees neo-liberalism, as an
intensification of liberalism, which is not what he
himself prefers. He wants everyone to get their fair
share of society and its goods. However, it is also
possible to argue that Harvey would want
Megaupload to continue their services, since it
provides a platform where everyone freely could have
access to art.
When considering the owners of Megaupload, Harvey
might dig deeper to the core of the discussion
surrounding Megauploads protection under the
DMCA ( Digital Millennium Copyright Act). His
marxist beliefs might compel him to side with
Megaupload, as he might like it more than siding with
the capitalist companies. Furthermore, he would
probably see the entire industry of entertainment as
ruthless and imperialistic.
47

Speaking of the legitimate users of Megaupload, who
could claim a loss of private material due to the
websites shutdown, Harvey might argue that they
will remain the losers in this ongoing struggle. He
might also state that their so called private material
should be released for everyone to enjoy. This leads to
the final perspective: all potential users of
Megaupload (especially concerning the opinion that
art should be shared freely.) Here Harvey would
almost undoubtedly argue that yes, as powerful of a
tool the internet happens to be, the Internet should be
used as a platform for sharing of information,
entertainment and knowledge etc.
Rawls vs. Harvey
This section will discuss Rawls and Harveys views
on society and property, furthermore a discussion
comparing the philosopher and the social scientists
different views and beliefs will be done. This
discussion can be difficult since Harvey is criticizing
the societys liberal practices and Rawls work is
theoretical. That being said, they share some similar
opinions.
Harvey claims that neo-liberalism is a modernization
of the old liberal thoughts. Harvey also states that
capital has become more than money, property etc.
capital has become the organizing principle of modern
society. Harvey argues that neoliberalism is not a new
way of thinking, but has been resurrected in
opposition to the welfare state.
Marx says in Thompson's work,
That capital is a process that puts into
motion all of the other dimensions of modern
48
economic, political, social, and cultural life. It creates
the wage system, influences values, goals, and the
ethics of individuals, transforms our relation to nature,
to ourselves, and to our community, and constantly
seeks to mold state imperatives until they are in
harmony with its own (Thompson Michael J, 2005,
23).
Harvey claims that, the corporate companies seek to
make the state or government create laws and
legislation, which are in favor of the corporations.
If Rawls was to comment on this sort of political
system, which Harvey criticizes, with use of his
theory of justice, He might argue that justice was not
distributed fairly. Since the corporate companies, who
makes the capital can make demands to the
government so that laws in the society are in favor of
the corporate companies. Rawls might argue that by
doing so, the corporate companies violate the first
principle, which states that every citizen should have
the same rights. Rawls might argue that if the
companies can influence the government, so the laws
would be made for their advantage, the lowest social
class might not receive any advantages. Therefore
Rawls might argue that it is made clear that, the
people who make the laws in a neo-liberalistic are not
being empathetic to the lowest class, since they know
that they do not belong there. Therefore Rawls would
argue that the laws are not made while being under
the veil of ignorance, therefore Rawls would argue
that the laws are made unjustly and therefore they
cannot be to the advantages of the people.
Harvey argues that the rhetoric of the neo-liberal
societies concerning individual freedom, equality and
promises of prosperity and growth, are beginning to
show themselves to be falsities. To support this
49
argument, Harvey argues that the economic elite are
being favored in the neo-liberal state, over the
population at large and the environment (Harvey
2005:70-71).
Harvey claims that the private property rights are an
important factor in the neo-liberal state; Harvey also
argues that corporate companies would do anything to
keep their property right. Rawls would argue that
property rights are a right every citizen in a society
should have. Rawls would also argue that no
individual or company should violate other
individuals rights in order to gain more from their
own property, company etc.
Rawls would say that a corporate company can earn
as much money as possible, as long as it is in
advantages of the lowest class in society and it does
not violate the first principle, each persons rights to
essential liberties. Therefore Rawls would not be in
favor of the neoliberal way of thinking. As Harvey
describes neo-liberalism, it is the opposite to what
Rawls states in his book, A Theory of Justice, that one
may not compromise the first principle in order to
make a greater profit in favor of one self. This is not
the case in a neo-liberal state since corporate
companies are the ones being favored over the public
and the environment; thereby many individuals are
being set aside in order to favor the economy.
The Four Perspectives From Rawls standpoint
The copyright holders
Rawls would argue that the individual has the right to
own property; Rawls also argues that no citizen within
50
the society should not compromise this right in order
to gain something that will favor him/her only. The
perspective of the copyright holders in this case, is
that they are against Megaupload, they claim that they
user of Megaupload are violating the
artist/entertainment industrys right to own property.
The owners of Megaupload
Again we address the same problem as before, since
Rawls would argue that Kim Dotcom and his
associate have the right to own Megaupload, since
legally Kim dotcom cannot be held accountable to
what content might be found on the companys server.
So from their perspectives their way to make a living
was taken from them which a deontologist would
argue were their duty, and thereby their property right
was violated by the FBI and the United States
government, to ensure that the copyright of artist and
the entertainment industry. Therefore Rawls would
argue that the FBI and the United States Government
are making an immoral act, in order to ensure that the
copyright of artists and the entertainment industry.
The legitimate users
The legitimate users of Megaupload, who have paid
for an account and only used the service to upload and
download material that they themselves have the
rights to, such as photos, videos and important
documents etc. When Megaupload was shut down by
the FBI and the United States government, these
legitimate users rights was violated because they
could not access their private files. There have been
many complaints by users who wanted to be able to
access their legal files. Rawls would argue that the
51
FBI and the United States government, had no right
to stop the accessibility to the legitimate users private
files, since the files does not violate other individuals
rights, and therefore have the FBI and the United
States violated the legitimate users property right, to
ensure that copyrights of the artist and the
entertainment industry.
All potential users
Rawls would argue that free file sharing is an immoral
act since no individual has the right to take another
individual's property, and use it without the approval
of the rightful owner. Therefore no individual has the
right to share other individuals property for free.
Rawls would argue that the individuals, who upload
copyrighted material, are making an immoral act,
since the first principle cannot be compromised in
order to gain something that only accommodates
ones own needs.
To end this part, we can conclude that Rawls view
leaves us with a paradox. Rawls would argue that it
was wrong of the FBI to shutdown Megaupload, since
it was Kim Dotcoms property. On the other hand
Rawls would also argue that the users of Megaupload
violate the copyrights holders rights, since they share
their material on the internet without the copyright
holders consent. So no matter what solution that had
been chosen Rawls would argue that at least one
party's rights is being violated and through a
deontologists view it will be considered an immoral
act.
52
Copyright Expiration, is it logical?

Now first of all it should be mentioned that in practice

an international law which applies worldwide does
not exist. However a huge amount of laws, treaties
and legislations exist though they are arguably
incoherent and ineffective.The following agreements
from the Berne Convention are arguably some of the
more significant legislations concerning international
copyright history. Some of which is displayed in the
figure beneath, which entails the details concerning
works published outside of the United States of
America.
Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978
(Copyright.Cornell.edu)
To see special cases look for the link below in
works cited.
Date of publication conditions Copyright Term

53
54
Now to argue whether or not the law displayed in the
figure above is logical might seem a bit futile,
considering that it is only valid within the Berne
Convention, and not in the United States. The figure
states that all works except that of photographic and
cinematographic content, shall be copyrighted for at
least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are
free to provide longer terms. For photography, the
Berne Convention sets a minimum term of 25 years
from the year the photograph was created, and for
cinematography the minimum is 50 years after first
showing, or 50 years after creation if it hasn't been
shown within 50 years after the creation. Countries
under the older revisions of the treaty may choose to
provide their own protection terms, and certain types
of works (such as phonorecords and motion pictures)
may be provided shorter terms (Wikipedia, see work
cited). Now according to the source of the figure
mentioned above, for works registered or first
published in the U.S after 2002 the author owns
copyright for 70 years after his passing. If it is a work
of corporate authorship then it is 95 years from
publication, or 120 years from creation, whichever
expires first. However these rules do not apply outside
the U.S which contributed to the controversy
surrounding the arrest of Kim Dotcom, and in the case
against Megaupload this confusion seemed to be an
inevitable considering the alleged crimes are
performed in the border-free virtual world of
cyberspace. Therefore it can then be hard finding the
proper way or system in which Kim Dotcom and
Megaupload could be prosecuted, and according to
Eric Goldman the transition hasn't gone smoothly. He
argues that the people against Kim Dotcom have
chosen to disregard his constitutional rights, and he
cannot be held accountable for the actions performed
by the users of Megaupload. To conclude whether or
not copyright-expiration is logical, one could argue
55
that yes they are, but only to a certain degree and
within their separate areas and concepts. They do not
seem to co-work, or coexist in harmony, making them
in a sense useless when faced with a case such as this
one.
Criticism of Megaupload
In January 2011, MarkMonitor, a company that
provides Internet brand protection service created a
report entitled "Traffic Report: Online Piracy and
Counterfeiting" (Traffic Report). In this report they
claimed that Megaupload and Megavideo together
with Rapidshare (a similar file sharing site), were the
top three digital piracy sites, with more than 21 billion
hits per year. Megauploads response to this was that
any violations of their terms of service concerning the
DMCA would be taken seriously, which includes
piracy. Mark Muligan, an analyst from Forrester
Research, said that the number of visits does not
indicate the number of illegal downloads (BBC News).
To demonstrate this, Megaupload had given several
major and minor companies in the United States and
elsewhere, the right to delete any file, which violates
their copyright.
Another point of criticism was that when a file was
uploaded to Megaupload which already had existed
there, the uploader was asked, if they would like to
link it with the already existing file. Therefore, a
single file could contain multiple links. This created a
problem for copyright holders, since a file could exist
even though the link was disabled.
The hacker group Anonymous, shut down the
homepages of the Department of Justice, Universal
Music Group, Motion Picture Association of America
56
and Recording Industry of America to show the
dissatisfaction with how the United States have
handled the case against Megaupload. Furthermore it
is a protest for freedom on the Internet, and a fight for
a censor free Internet (CBS News).
Many law abiding citizens used Megaupload for legal
purposes. Now complain about the fact that they
cannot access to their files. These files could be
family photos, important work files etc.
Many similar file sharing sites have changed the way
you can share files with each other. e. g.
Filesonic.com has withdrawn the possibility for a
third party download. This means that you not are
able to share files, even legal files, with family,
friends and co-workers. Filesonic.com made a
statement 48 hours after the shutdown of Megaupload,
saying, all sharing functionality on FileSonic.com is
now disabled. Our service can only be used to upload
and retrieve files that you have uploaded personally.
(Filesonic.com)
The Sky is Rising
Ever since the first file sharing services as Napster
and KaZaA became popular the music industry has
claimed a loss of revenue as a direct consequence of
these services. The report The Sky is Rising written
by Mike Masnick concludes though that more artists
are making money than ever before, and that the
overall value of the entertainment industry is higher
than ever (Masnick & Ho). Masnick says: "Overall
the entertainment industry is growing rapidly and has
been doing so consistently over the last 10 to 15 years,
which is the period we've heard the complaints and
fears that the industry is being destroyed. People are
57
spending more money per household on entertainment. service. The experiment was a success and Coelho
If they just wanted stuff for free, we'd see the opposite. went from selling 1.000 books in Russia to selling
The market has exploded with new options, and more than 100.000 in two years. Coelho has since
maybe part of the issue is that the major movie studios used this method of reaching new readers on other
and record labels face more competition." Masnicks markets (Masnick & Ho).
report though was not produced to glorify piracy as he
says that: online infringement is a problem for Though one cannot contest the fact that file sharing
those who don't adjust. If you do adapt, and recognize services like Megaupload have contributed to a drop
what you can do with these things, you could be better in overall record sales, it is interesting to look at how
off." (Moltke) the music industry and the overall entertainment
industry can possibly benefit from these online
An interesting example of the positive economic services.
possibilities of sharing material online for free is the
Brazilian author Paulo Coelhos book The
Alchemist. Coelho, who has sold more than 100
million books worldwide, did not sell a lot of books
on the Russian market, he then decided to experiment
and uploaded a Russian translated version of The
Alchemist to The Pirate Bay, a free file sharing

58
http://www.techdirt.com/skyisrising/
In this section the ethical issues of file sharing will be
contrasted with the global economy. The statistics
reflecting the tendencies behind entertainment content
such as music, movies, video games and books will be
analyzed, different approaches and explanations will
be presented concerning the Internet and its properties.

The Sky is Rising is one of the first (of a few)

reports that claim the entertainment industry in recent
years has been growing despite widespread Internet
piracy. In this 36 pages long document the authors
Michael Masnick and Michael Ho discuss the
statistics behind content such as movies, computer
games, music and books. It offers valuable insight
because the Internet is being presented as an agent

59
which lets entertainment become more widespread
than ever, and not just making entertainment available
for free.
According to the document, the value of the
worldwide entertainment industry from 1998 until
2010 has gone up from $449 billion to $745.
(Masnick & Ho, 2012, 2). However, the overall
growth of the economy must be taken into
consideration. Especially in America, the amount of
money spent on entertainment per month has risen
from 5 to 15 % of peoples income. The report states
more people became employed in the entertainment
industry and not just as part of big corporations, but
mostly independently. Therefore, its possible that the
myth of crumbling entertainment industry might be
due to the fact that major corporations are no longer
necessary for artists to produce and promote new
material. (Masnick & Ho, 2012, 3).
A great example of the discontent of how the Internet
affects the industry can be heard from the chief
executive of the Recording Industry Association of
America, Cary. H. Sherman, who wrote an article for
the New York Times, in which he complained about
the shrinking number of record labels, the number of
people buying physical albums and the number of
official labor workers in the field (Sherman). As
explained in the report, this is mostly experienced by
the more traditional music labels who are facing
competition from iTunes for example or websites such
as Kickstarter (Masnick & Ho).
The report gives a number of statistics demonstrating
that a new cultural renaissance of sorts has come
about due to the internet. Their theory of whats
occurring, which praises the Internet, is also backed
by the quotations of the people who wrongly
60
predicted the end of the industry, which is common
with the advent of new technologies. The authors
point out the main three opportunities given by the
Internet nowadays: absolute abundance in
entertainment, the opportunity for the artists who,
before the Internet era, were exploited by the people
who didnt have any involvement in their art. This
made the business more challenging for big names,
who had their status beforehand, and more open for
the independent artists, who had no support from the
industry. As a result of this more open system though,
there has never been more competition than nowadays.
(Masnick & Ho).
The authors take three websites into account which
enable artists to spread their content and make money
on the Internet. In all these cases, the fans are willing
to pay more than suggested, if they appreciate the
value of the music and if the money that they pay goes
straight to the musicians. The next case study is of the
comedian Louis C.K. Louis implies even more that
its enough to be human, open and awesome to
make money in the piracy driven world (Masnick &
Ho).
However, as seen in the graphics below the case of
Louis C.K seems to be isolated from general Internet
piracy tendencies. Chances are people appreciated the
fresh idea for a while, but then when given a choice of
free downloads the story of a human, open and
awesome man might not be enough to convince
people to resign from the Internet piracy. The
uniqueness of his business strategy let Louis CK win
a battle with the Internet piracy, but apparently its not
enough to win the whole war. A month after the
release of the Sky is Rising on the website
wired.co.uk, Masnick wrote another article discussing
the responses to the original article. In this more
61
recent article, he claims that online infringement is an punish those who pirate music illegally.
issue because of the people who dont adjust to http://piracy.web.unc.edu/files/2011/07/bogus-
changing times. However, it might seem to be figure.jpg
hopeless for people to adjust if the system doesnt

62
Music units shipped in the United States
http://torrentfreak.com/is-piracy-really-killing-the-
music-industry-no-100418/
Also, as seen in the table above, the music industry is
not shrinking but evolving. Music is being sold over
the internet. In the article in which this table was used,
the author states that The digital revolution in music
has changed the entire industry by altering the
consumption habits of music fans. Although piracy
could also be a factor, the data weve seen thus far
suggests that it plays only a minor role - if any at all
(Ernesto, 18 Apr 2012). Before the digital era whole
albums had to be bought, whereas now people can
buy only the tracks they like. It might mean that since
single songs cost less than entire albums the income
will be reduced, however, on the other hand people
will be willing to buy more single songs, since they
will not waste money on the songs they dont want.
Hence, its more proof that if Internet is being and
should be studied from all the angles, it has done a lot
for entertainment industry.
The report is strongly connected to this project,
63
because since the ethical and political side of the
existence and shutdown of Megaupload are being Nevertheless, whats striking in such a report built on
studied, the actual data on how this kind of websites so many case studies concerning the increasing value
might have influenced the industry will help us better of entertaining business, is that theres no
understand its advantages and disadvantages and then consideration that there might be other factors than
assess the issues concerning the case. the Internet which helped entertainment industry to
grow. Its important to see the correlation between the
The report clearly states that the Internet is meant to rise of the entertainment industry and the shifts of the
be used as a file sharing device, and since its people from the agriculture and manufacture sector to
economical for the industry, it must be ethical as well. the service sector, as seen in the table below, which
In the first section of the report theres a discussion on have changed consumer habits.
how the gatekeepers of the industry are not needed
anymore, and that instead of them, the enablers of the
artists appeared. The report very subjectively presents
the gatekeepers and the old system as antagonists,
who have to be replaced by those who dont want to
make money on the innocent artists. The Internet is
showed here as the glorious savior of the repressed
ones.

64
Change in Employment Profile by sector in Ireland in
2020
(http://www.skillsstrategy.ie/2.3.html).
The development of the world has changed the
distribution of commodities and therefore more
people are allowed to have a job within the service
sector. Since the education sector has grown as well,
and along with that people have become more
educated and started becoming more culturally aware.
Previously, when the jobs were more repetitive and
more physically demanding, there was not much time
or energy left to be interested in the arts. However,
since people have started moving to urbanized areas,
different values have started to be prioritized. Of
course, the Internet is a great agent in spreading the
artistic content. Nevertheless, the rise of interest in
arts seems to be a natural order of things, where the
Internet is just a response to the newly created needs
of the society.
65
Kim Dotcom, copyright violator?
Kim Dotcom has been accused of copyright
infringement, by providing the file sharing network
Megaupload, but is he responsible for his service
being used for sharing of copyrighted material? We
might never know if Kim Dotcom had intended his
service to be used for pirated material, unless at some
point he admits it, but nevertheless the service has
been used for this. One could argue that Kim Dotcom,
even if he wanted, would not be able to prevent
copyrighted material from being shared on his service,
because Megauploads terms of service stated that
Megaupload was not allowed to look at what people
uploaded.
One could actually claim that the copyright holders
are accountable for their own losses because of the
fact that they had the option to delete links from the
Megaupload site. They would have to remove
numerous links, which were allowing users to violate
their copyright. This would take a lot of time, if the
case was viewed like this, and therefore, Kim Dotcom
cannot be held responsible for his service, being used
to share copyrighted material. As the companies
actually had the authority to remove copyrighted
material from the service, plus the fact that
Megaupload was not allowed to look into peoples
accounts, due to the laws concerning privacy.
Every user had to accept the terms of service, where a
user agrees that files chosen for sharing are not
violating any copyright laws. Since Megaupload as a
company has to respect the peoples privacy, they
cannot access their users account, and check it for
copyrighted material, because it would violate
peoples rights to privacy. Therefore, Megaupload as
a company was not legally involved in the upload of
66
the illegal file, since the user had claimed that he
owned the file, and that sharing it did not violate any
copyright laws. Hence, Megaupload had to trust their
users. However, since their users were people with
minds of their own, they might have not believed that
what they were doing was wrong. Thus they might
have uploaded material they did not hold the
copyright to.
Future Internet legislation and its effects
There are both pros and cons of the discussed Internet
legislation agreements if passed. The pros would be
that it would be easier for copyright holders to get the
money they are entitled to for their products, be it an
inventor, artist, movie company etc. together with
stopping the trade of counterfeit goods, another pro
with this agreement would be that it should be easier
to remove or close a web page containing copyright
infringing material. The con would be that every
Internet service provider (ISP) would have to give the
log in information of their customers to the police or
government without reason. This would censor the
Internet as we know it from China, India, Iran and
other countries where free speech is not allowed. This
would also give governments easier acces into our
private lives, as they would be allowed to check every
minor search on the Internet. Social medias, such as
Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, would have to
observe every user at their site to prevent intellectual
property material from being uploaded when people,
for instance, make a link to a video on Youtube.
Another con to this agreement would be ending the
production of generic medicine to third world
countries where people with AIDS who cannot afford
the medicine would die.
67
The Consequences of Shutting Down Megaupload
When Megaupload was shut down the 18th of January
2012 the Internet lost 2 to 3 percent of its total volume
in traffic, and at the time of its shutdown Megaupload
accounted for up to 40 percent of all the downloaded
files on the Internet.The company is currently accused
of costing copyright holders more than 500m USD in
lost revenue and was shut down by the US department
of Justice and the FBI. Immediately after the
shutdown of Megaupload the Hacker - or hacktivist
group Anonymous launched its largest attack ever
dubbed Operation Payback.The attack took down
several high profile websites of among others the
United States Department of Justice, the Recording
Industry of America, the Motion picture Association
and Universal Music Group. Anonymous stated
several reasons for their attacks and operative Barrett
Brown stated:"The raid on Megaupload Thursday
proved that the feds dont need SOPA or its sister
legislation, PIPA, in order to pose a blow to the
Web,"and a statement tweeted from Anonymous
Twitter account read: "The government takes down
Megaupload? 15 minutes later Anonymous takes
down government and record label sites."The hacker
group also encouraged others to react against
Megauploads shutdown and tweeted: "Megaupload
was taken down w/out SOPA being law. Now
imagine what will happen if it passes. The Internet as
we know it will end. FIGHT BACK."Anonymous
attacks happened just a day after several of the
worlds most popular and used websites including
Google and Wikipedia went dark in protest of the two
proposed anti piracy laws SOPA and PIPA. Wikipedia
went dark and featured just a short text that read:
"Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge."
On January the 20th Megauploads German founder
Kim Dotcom, born Kim Schmitz, was arrested in a
68
large-scale operation in his house in Auckland, New
Zealand. The arrest was an international operation
carried out by New Zealand police in cooperation
with the FBI of America and the American Justice
Department, Hong Kong Customs and the Hong Kong
department of Justice.
Kim Dotcom was denied bail on January the 25th
because of suspicion that he might flee to Germany,
but he was granted bail on February the 22nd, though
with the restrictions that he stays at least 80
kilometers away from his Coatesville resident and
does not have access to the Internet.
One must presume that with shutting down of
Megaupload the United States prosecutors and the
major record labels and film companies, which
claimed to have lost revenue, would have hoped for
less illegal downloads of their copyrighted material,
but not much changed. Just a day after Megauploads
shutdown, on January the 18th, MegaVideo,
Megauploads video streaming service, accounted for
34,1 percent of all file sharing traffic and was the
most used website with Filesonic as its closest
competitor with 19,1 percent of the traffic. January
19th, the day after Megauploads shutdown, file
sharing in the United States didnt decrease much;
people who had previously used MegaVideo now
used other file sharing websites with Putlocker and
NovaMov as the most popular. As a consequence of
Megauploads shutdown Filesonic and several other
file sharing sites though stopped the function to share
links to files.
Ever since the first file sharing services as Napster
and KaZaA became popular the music industry has
claimed a loss in revenue as a direct consequence of
these services, the report The Sky is Rising
produced by Mike Masnick though concludes that
69
more artists are making money than ever before and
that the value of the overall entertainment industry is
higher than ever. Masnick says: "Overall the
entertainment industry is growing rapidly and has
been doing so consistently over the last 10 to 15
years," "Which is the period we've heard the
complaints and fears that the industry is being
destroyed. People are spending more money per
household on entertainment. If they just wanted stuff
for free, we'd see the opposite. The market has
exploded with new options, and maybe part of the
issue is that the major movie studios and record labels
face more competition."Masnicks report though was
not produced to glorify piracy as he says
that: online infringement is a problem for those
who don't adjust. If you do adapt, and recognize what
you can do with these things, you could be better off."
Though one cannot contest the fact that file sharing
services like Megaupload has contributed to a drop in
the overall record sales, it is interesting to look at how
the music industry and the overall entertainment
industry maybe can benefit from these online services.
Conclusion
The structure of the case against Megaupload displays
the same discourses as seen throughout history, with
the cases against Vanilla Ice and other famous
performers for example. There has always been
contention between those owning copyright and those
desiring the free spread and use of information. One
could argue that the debate surrounding the awareness
of issues concerning copyright have become more
intense (Copyright Term).
One of the major aspects in the case against
70
Megaupload is proving whether or not Kim Dotcom is
guilty of copyright infringement. However, as earlier
mentioned, it remains a hypothetical question if he is
indeed a criminal, and furthermore if he is one
intentionally. However, Kim Dotcom believes that he
and his company should be under the protection of the
DMCA. Furthermore, this case will be much more
easily resolved if legislation like ACTA was in effect
worldwide. Such legislation is not currently active,
and this is a worldwide dilemma - since there is no
definitive legislation, one could call this a grey zone.
Seen from an ethical standpoint, Megaupload is a grey
zone without definitive answers because of the
multiple perspectives and parties with conflicting
interest and rights. This project utilizes theories from
four different philosophers: Locke, Nozick, Rawls and
Harvey, who all share some common ground. They
would all argue that violating other peoples property
rights without any kind of compensation is wrong.
By applying David Harveys beliefs, the project states
that the practices surrounding copyright are flawed.
Harvey displays through his interpretations of
neoliberalism that the system is uneven, since the big
corporate companies influence the government to
make laws in their favor. Harvey argues that only one
minor group is favored. Furthermore, he argues that
the class struggle has shifted, and eventually he hopes
that the very system will crumble and fall upon itself.
Lockes ideology is liberal, he believes that the
products of ones labour is owned by one self.
Lockes waste principle argues that it is immoral to
claim more than one can use. Nozick, inspired by
Locke, argues that whatever you have in your
possession, rightfully earned, according to his
Entitlement Theory, should be yours to keep. Nozick
71
is not concerned with the common good of society,
but with the rights of each citizen. According to him,
all parties are in a ethical grey zone, for example Kim
Dotcom may be guilty because he provided others the
opportunity to violate copyright, though it is not
certain he intended for this to occur. The government
is also in this grey zone, since they violated Kim
Dotcoms rights by shutting down Megaupload, but
protected artists and companies rights.
Rawls would largely agree with Nozick, but applying
his thought experiment The Veil of Ignorance,
demonstrates that the entertainment corporations
exercise too much control over financial and
distributive system behind media entertainment,
which does not fairly represent the interests of artists
and consumers.
The Sky is Rising doesnt directly support
Megaupload and its activity, it does however, discuss
current trends in the entertainment industry related to
the service. The authors state their content with the
overall direction of the digital evolution. According to
the authors, since the industry has grown a lot, piracy
is not considered as harmful to the economy and
artists as it is for the record labels. Masnick and Ho
emphasize that it is companies and artists, not the
consumers, responsibility to adjust to the
opportunities given by Internet and file sharing
websites. Therefore, Megaupload is being considered
as a common good, which didnt interfere with the
entertainment industries growth, which the
government was convinced that it did.
Our use of these philosophers theories have not given
any definitive answers, to whether or not the arrest of
Kim Dotcom was ethically correct. This was because,
different parties in the case shared both positive and
72
negative ethical aspects according to the different
philosophers.

73

Works Cited
Books:
Alexander, Larry, & Moore. Deontological Ethics.
(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy))
Armstrong, Elizabeth. Before Copyright: the French
book-privilege system 1498-1526. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge: 1990, p. 3
Bodman, Andrew R. Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers. London: Blackwell Publishing,
1991. Print. (Source: Wikipedia/ David Harvey
(geographer) & ^ Andrew R. Bodman, "Weavers of
influence: the structure of contemporary geographic
research", Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers N.S., v. 16 no. 1 (1991). On line version
rev. 9 October, 1990.)
Deazley, Ronan. Rethinking copyright: history,
theory, language. (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Publishing Limited, 2006), p. 24.
Drahos with Braithwaite, Information Feudalism,
New Press 2002, p38
2001 US Dist. LEXIS 2186 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2001),
affd, 284 F. 3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002).
Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism.
Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005.
Http://www.sok.bz/web/media/video/ABriefHistoryN
eoliberalism.pdf.
Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. 1690.
Ed. Peter Laslett. London: Cambridge Univ.
Press, 1988.
74

MacQueen, Hector L; Charlotte Waelde and Graeme
T Laurie (2007). Contemporary Intellectual Property:
Law and Policy. Oxford University Press.pp. 37.
ISBN 9780199263394.
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New
York: Basic Books, 1977. Print.
Ploman, Edward W., and L. Clark Hamilton (1980).
Copyright: Intellectual Property in the Information
Age. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp. 5. ISBN
0-7100-0539-3.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap of Harvard UP, 1999. Print.
Thompson, MIchael J. "A Brief History of
Neoliberalism by David Harvey, Oxford University
Press, 2005, 256. pp.."
http://dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/article_pdfs/d
3Thompson-1.pdf. N.p.,n.d.Web.11May 2012
<dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/article_pdfs/d3Th
ompson-1.pdf>.
Yu, Peter (2007). Intellectual Property and
Information Wealth: Copyright and related rights.
Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 142.ISBN
9780275988838.
Articles:
3news. Kim Dotcom Exclusive Interview 'I will fight
this and win. YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. . N.p.,
n.d. Web. 15 May 2012.
Albanesius, Chloe. "File-Sharing Site Megaupload
Shut Down Over Piracy, Execs Indicted."
75
PCMag.N.p., 19 Jan 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2012.
<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399105,00.
asp>.
Anonymous downs government, music industry
sites in largest attack ever. RT. N.p., 20 Jan. 2012.
Web. 13 May 2012.
<http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-doj-universal-
sopa-235/>.
"BBC News - 'Piracy websites attract billions of
visits'." BBC - Homepage. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May
2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-
12163161>.
Brodkin, Jon. "Before shutdown, Megaupload ate up
more corporate bandwidth than Dropbox | Ars
Technica." Ars Technica. N.p., 19 Jan. 2012. Web. 13
May 2012.
<http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/01/before-
shutdown-megaupload-ate-up-more-corporate-
bandwidth-than-dropbox/>.
Burns, Matt. "Guilty Until Proven Innocent: The
MegaUpload Closure Leaves Users Unable To Access
Their Files | TechCrunch." TechCrunch. N.p., 20 Jan.
2012. Web. 16 May 2012.
<http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/20/guilty-until-
proven-innocent-the-megaupload-closure-leaves-
users-unable-to-access-their-files/>.
Cyber-security bill Cispa passes US House. BBC
News. 26 April 2012. Retrieved 1 May 2012.
Enigmax. "From Rogue To Vogue: Megaupload and
Kim Dotcom."Torrent Freak. N.p., 18 Dec. 2011.
Web. 18 May 2012. <http://torrentfreak.com/from-
rogue-to-vogue-megaupload-and-kim-dotcom-
76
111218/>.
Enigmax, . "Universal Censors Megaupload Song,
Gets Branded a Rogue Label." TorrenFreak.N.p., 10
Dec 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2012.
<http://torrentfreak.com/universal-censors-
megaupload-song-gets-branded-a-rogue-label-
111210/>.
Enigmax, . "US Government Targets The Pirate Bay,
Megaupload and Others." TorrentFreak. N.p., 12 Dec
2012. Web. 20 Mar 2012.
<http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-lists-notorious-pirate-
sites-to-u-s-government-111028/>.
Ernesto. "Is Piracy Really Killing The Music Industry?
No!." Torrent Freak. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 May 2012.
<torrentfreak.com/is-piracy-really-killing-the-music-
industry-no-100418/>.
Ernesto. "Megaupload Founder Kim Dotcom
Released From Prison" Torrentfreak. N.p., 22 Feb.
2012. Web. 2 May 2012.
<torrentfreak.com/megaupload-founder-kim-dotcom-
released-from-prison-120222/>.
Ernesto. "Megaupload Prosecution Is Lawless and
Unconstitutional, Law Professor Says." Torrent Freak.
N.p., 2 May 2012. Web. 20 May 2012.
<http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-prosecution-is-
lawless-and-unconstitutional-law-professor-says-
120502/>.
Ernesto, . "MPAA Lists Notorious Pirate Sites To
U.S. Government." TorrentFreak.N.p., 28 Oct 2011.
Web. 20 Mar 2012.
<http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-lists-notorious-pirate-
sites-to-u-s-government-111028/>.
77
Ernesto. "Kim Dotcom Lashes Out Against Corrupt
US Government."Torrent Freak. N.p., 12 Apr. 2012.
Web. 18 May 2012. <http://torrentfreak.com/kim-
dotcom-lashes-out-against-corrupt-us-government-
120420/>.
Explaining To Do." TorrentFreak.N.p., 28 Dec 2011.
Web. 20 Mar 2012.
<http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-to-universal-
youve-got-some-explaining-to-do-111228/>.
"Famous Copyright Infringement Plagiarism cases
in Music." Fair Wage Attorney | Fair Wage Lawyer
|Wage and Hour Attorney | Employees Rights
Attorney. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2012.
<http://www.fairwagelawyers.com/most-famous-
music-copyright-infringment.html>.
- section called George Harrison vs. Bright Tunes
Music Corp.
Greek, Dinah. "US piracy proposals could affect
UK". Computer Act!ve.
Retrieved 11 April 2012. The Undersigned (2011),
Public Interest Letter to Senate Committee on
the Judiciary in Opposition to S. 968, PROTECT IP
Act of 2011, pp. 12, retrieved May 30, 2011
Hodson, Steven. "Feds shuts down Megaupload
claiming more that $500 million in lost revenue." The
Inquisitor. N.p., 19 Jan. 2012. Web. 13 May 2012.
<http://www.inquisitr.com/183717/feds-shuts-down-
megaupload-claiming-more-that-500-million-in-lost-
revenue/>.
IT Networks. "Anonymous attacks WhiteHouse.gov
after taking down Department of Justice and others."
IT-Networks | Latest Security and Tech News. N.p.,
19 Jan. 2012. Web. 13 May 2012. <http://www.it-
78
networks.org/2012/01/19/anonymous-attacks-
whitehouse-gov-after-taking-down-department-of-
justice-and-others/>.
Kilcullen, J. "Robert Nozick: Against Distributive
Justice." Department of modern history, politics,
international relations and security at macquarie
university. 1996: n. page. 0.
<http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l17.h
tml>.
Koenigs, Michael , Liane Young, Ralph Adolphs,
Daniel Tranel, Fiery Cushman, Marc Hauser and
Antonio Damasio Damage to the prefrontal cortex
increases utilitarian moral judgements,
Nature,wczeniejsza publikacja streszczenia on-line
21 marca 2007. Popularnonaukowe streszczenie:
Laurenti, Cyndi. "Megaupload Shutdown and SOPA:
Future Implications | AnsonAlex.com."Technology,
Tutorials, Facebook and Infographics |
AnsonAlex.com. N.p., 31 Jan. 2012. Web. 12 May
2012. <http://ansonalex.com/technology/megaupload-
shutdown-and-sopa-future-implications/>.
"Libertarianism" Mizzou - University of Missouri.
N.p., n.d. Web. 14 May 2012.
<http://web.missouri.edu/~johnsonrn/nozick.html>.
Masnick, Mike (April 2, 2012). "Forget SOPA, You
Should Be Worried About This Cybersecurity Bill".
Techdirt. Retrieved April 11, 2012.
Masnick, Mike. "Kim Dotcom Gives TV Interview
Where He Insists The Charges Against Him Are A
Joke | Techdirt." Techdirt.. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May
2012.
79
Masnick, Michael, and Michael Ho. "The Sky Is
Rising | Techdirt.."Techdirt.. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 May
2012.
"Megaupload Prosecution Is Lawless and
Unconstitutional, Law Professor Says |
TorrentFreak ." TorrentFreak | Torrent News, Torrent
Sites and the latest Scoops . N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May
2012.
<http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-prosecution-is-
lawless-and-unconstitutional-law>.
"Megaupload Seizure Order Null and Void Says
High Court | TorrentFreak ." TorrentFreak. N.p., 18
Mar. 2012. Web. 2 May 2012.
<http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-seizure-order-
null-and-void-says-high-court-120318/>.
"Megaupload Shut Down by U.S. Prosecutors;
Kim Dotcom, Three Others Arrested |
Billboard.com."Music News, Reviews, Articles,
Information, News Online & Free Music |
Billboard.com. Billboard, 19 Jan. 2012. Web. 12 May
2012. <http://www.billboard.com/news/megaupload-
shut-down-by-u-s-prosecutors-
1005932352.story#/news/megaupload-shut-down-by-
u-s-prosecutors-1005932352.story>.
Michaels, Sean. "Megaupload threatens to sue
Universal over YouTube video." The Guardian. The
Guardian, 13 Dec 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2012.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/dec/13/mega
upload-universal-youtube-video>.
Moltke, Henrik. "Mike Masnick: 'The sky is rising'
for the entertainment industry (Wired UK)."
Wired.co.uk Future Technology News and Reviews
(Wired UK). N.p., 23 Feb. 2012. Web. 20 May 2012.
80
<http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-
02/23/the-sky-is-rising>.
Musil, Steven. "Wikipedia to Join Web Blackout
Protesting SOPA." CNET News. CBS Interactive, 16
Jan. 2012. Web. 16 May 2012.
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57359763-
93/wikipedia-to-join-web-blackout-protesting-sopa/>.
"Press Releases." GovHK.N.p., 20 Jan 2012. Web.
20 Mar 2012.
<http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201201/20/P201
201200626.htm>.
Sherman, Cary H. "What Wikipedia Won t Tell
You - NYTimes.com." The New York Times -
Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., 7
Feb. 2012. Web. 18 May 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-
wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html?_r=2>.
Spence, Kate (May 12, 2011). "A Broad Coalition
Indeed!". Retrieved June 11, 2011.
<http://blog.mpaa.org/BlogOS/post/2011/05/12/A-
Broad-Coalition-Indeed!.aspx>
Solon, Olivia (26 January 2012). "The EU signs up to
Acta, but French MEP quits in protest". Wired UK.
Retrieved 9 April 2012.
Thier, Dave . "Is This The Real Reason Why
MegaUpload Was Shut Down? - Forbes."
Information for the World's Business Leaders -
Forbes.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2012.
The US Stop Online Piracy Act: A Primer; PC
World Business Center; November 16, 2011
81
Uzgalis, William, "John Locke", The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/lo
cke/>.
Walsh, Jason (11 February 2012). "Europe's Internet
revolt: Protesters see threats in antipiracy treaty".
Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 9 April 2012.
"ACTA-Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement."
europa. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 May 2012.
<http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/acta/>.
Wilcox, Joe. " Anonymous launches SOPA strike,
takes down Justice Dept." Technology News and
Analysis - BetaNews. N.p., 13 Jan. 2012. Web. 13
May 2012.
<http://betanews.com/2012/01/19/anonymous-
launches-sopa-strike-takes-down-justice-dept/>.
Homepages
1TheRevolutionIsNow. "What Is ACTA?" YouTube
- Broadcast Yourself. . N.p., 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 12
May 2012.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Xg_C2YmG0
>.
Alexander, Larry, and Michael Moore.
"Deontological Ethics." (Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy). 29 Aug. 2008. Web. 3 May 2012.
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-
deontological/>.
Brodkin, Jon, . " Megaupload wasn't just for pirates:
angry users out of luck for
now."http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/01/megaupl
82
oad-wasnt-just-for-pirates-angry-users-out-of-luck-
for-now/. N.p., 2012. Web. 15 May 2012.
CBS News. Justice Dept. website shut down in
apparent hack - " Breaking News Headlines: Business,
Entertainment & World News - CBS News. N.p., n.d.
Web. 20 May 2012. <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-
201_162-57362376/justice-dept-website-shut-down-
in-apparent-hack/>.
"Copyright Infringement Notification."YouTube -
Broadcast Yourself. . N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2012.
<http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy>.
"Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the
United States." Copyright Information Center. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 11 May 2012.
<http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.
cfm>. 2004-12 Peter B. Hirtle. Last updated 3 January,
2012
"David Harvey." Speedy Look. N.p., n.d. Web. 20
May 2012.
<http://www.myetymology.com/encyclopedia/D
"Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
N.p., n.d. Web. 19 May 2012.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Co
pyright_Act>.
Duignan, Brian, . "Robert Nozick."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/421354/
Robert-Nozick. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 May 2012.
Feser, E. "Robert Nozick." Distributive justice.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005. Web. 16
May 2012. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/nozick/>.
83

MrKimDotCom, dir. Megaupload Mega Song HD.
Youtube, 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2012.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0Wvn-9BXVc>.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?
"Record For MegaUpload.com." Domain
Tools.N.p., 20 Mar 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2012.
<http://whois.domaintools.com/megaupload.com>.
statista. "Online Piracy." kovtr.com. N.p., n.d. Web.
19 May 2012. <http://kovtr.com/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2012/02/chartoftheday
Hart, Terry. "Megaupload and the DMCA."
Copyhype. N.p., 25 Jan. 2012. Web. 25 May 2012.
<http://www.copyhype.com/2012/01/megaupload-
and-the-dmca/>.
"Traffic Report: Online Piracy and Counterfeiting."
Mark Monitor. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2012.
<https://www.markmonitor.com/download/report/Mar
kMonitor_-_Traffic_Report_110111.pdf>.
"UPS: Globalt" Shipping, Freight, Logistics and
Supply Chain Management from UPS. N.p., n.d. Web.
15 May 2012.
<http://www.ups.com/content/dk/da/about/facts/world
wide.html>.
Wenar, Leif. "John Rawls." (Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy). 29 Aug. 2008. Web. 3 May 2012.
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/>.
84