Since then the case hasn’t progressed much. Kim Dotcom’s extradition hearing has been delayed until 2015 and most of the recent court proceedings dealt with how the seized assets should be handled.

Dotcom tried to regain his possessions but this effort failed last month. Meanwhile, both the MPAA and RIAA have protected their claims on the Megaupload millions, and now the U.S. Government has joined in as well.

In a complaint submitted at a federal court in Virginia the Department of Justice asks for a forfeiture of the bank accounts, cars and other seized possessions, claiming they were obtained through copyright and money laundering crimes.

The filing starts with a brief summary of the indictment that was brought against Dotcom and his colleagues. According to the Government, Megaupload was a criminal organization set up to profit from copyright infringement.

“The members of the Mega Conspiracy described themselves as ‘modern day pirates’ and virtually every aspect of the Mega Sites was carefully designed to encourage and facilitate wide-scale copyright infringement,” the U.S. attorney writes.

The Government wants the seized properties to be handed over to the authorities, and claims it’s permitted under U.S. law. This includes the bank account that was used by Megaupload for PayPal payouts.

The account, described as “DSB 0320,” had a balance of roughly $4.7 million (36 million Hong Kong Dollars) at the time of the seizure, but processed more than $160 million over the years.

“Records indicate that from August 2007 through January 2012 there were 1,403 deposits into the DBS 0320 account totaling HKD 1,260,508,432.01 from a PayPal account. These funds represent proceeds of crime and property involved in money laundering as more fully set out herein,” the complaint reads.

More than a dozen bank accounts are listed in total including some of the property they were used for to buy.

The list of assets further includes several luxury cars, such as a 2011 Mercedes-Benz G55 AMG with a “Wow” license plate, TVs including a 108″ Sharp LCD TV and artwork in the form of Olaf Mueller photographs.

The Government claims that the possessions can be forfeited since they were obtained through criminal copyright infringement and money laundering, but Megaupload’s lawyer Ira Rothken disagrees.

“Kim Dotcom and Megaupload will vigorously oppose the US Department of Justice’s civil forfeiture action,” Rothken tells TF.

“The DOJ’s efforts to use lopsided procedures over substance to destroy a cloud storage company is both offensive to the rights of Megaupload and to the rights of millions of consumers worldwide who stored personal data with the service,” he adds.

According to Rothken the U.S. ignores several crucial issues, including the Sony Doctrine and the fact that criminal secondary copyright infringement no longer exists.

“The DOJ’s forfeiture complaint ignores the US Supreme Court’s protection called the Sony Doctrine provided to dual use technologies like cloud storage, ignores substantial non infringing uses of such cloud storage including by DOJ users themselves, and ignores the fact that Congress removed criminal secondary copyright infringement from the copyright statute in 1976,” Rothken says.

Which side the District Court judge will agree with has yet to be seen, but with so many parties claiming their cut of the Megaupload assets it’s certainly not getting easier for Dotcom to reclaim his property.

To be continued.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

They believe that legal action currently underway against the Megaupload founder could lead to them receiving a sizable damages award should they win their case. But Dotcom’s lavish lifestyle gives them concerns. The more he spends, the less they could receive should the money begin to run out.

Those concerns were addressed by the High Court’s Judge Courtney, who previously ordered Dotcom to disclose the details of his worldwide assets to his Hollywood adversaries. Dotcom filed an appeal which will be heard in October, but that date is beyond the ordered disclosure date.

As a result, Dotcom took his case to the Court of Appeal in the hope of staying the disclosure order.

That bid has now failed.

Dotcom’s legal team argued out that their client’s October appeal would be rendered pointless if he was required to hand over financial information in advance. They also insisted a stay would not negatively affect the studios since millions in assets are currently restrained in New Zealand and elsewhere.

However, as explained by the Court of Appeal, any decision to stay a judgment is a balancing act between the rights of the successful party (Hollywood) to enforce its judgment and the consequences for both parties should the stay be granted or denied.

While the Court agreed that Dotcom’s appeal would be rendered pointless if disclosure to Hollywood was ordered, it rejected that would have an effect on Dotcom.

“[T]he mere fact that appeal rights are rendered nugatory is not necessarily determinative and in the circumstances of this case I consider that this consequence carries little weight. This is because Mr Dotcom himself does not assert that there will be any adverse effect on him if deprived of an effective appeal,” the decision reads.

The Court also rejected the argument put forward by Dotcom’s lawyer that the disclosure of financial matters would be a threat to privacy and amounted to an “unreasonable search”.

The Court did, however, acknowledge that Dotcom’s appeal would deal with genuine issues. That said, the concern over him disposing of assets outweighed them in this instance.

In respect of the effect of a stay on the studios, the Court looked at potential damages in the studios’ legal action against the Megaupload founder. Dotcom’s expert predicted damages “well below” US$10m, while the studios’ expert predicted in excess of US$100m.

The Court noted that Dotcom has now revealed that his personal assets restrained in both New Zealand and Hong Kong are together worth “not less” than NZ$ 33.93 million (US$ 28.39m). However, all of Dotcom’s assets are subject to a potential claim from his estranged wife, Mona, so the Court judged Dotcom’s share to be around NZ$17m.

As a result the Court accepted that there was an arguable case that eventual damages would be more than the value of assets currently restrained in New Zealand.

As a result, Dotcom is ordered to hand the details of his financial assets, “wherever they are located”, to the lawyers acting for the studios. There are restrictions on access to that information, however.

“The respondents’ solicitors are not to disclose the contents of the affidavit to any person without the leave of the Court,” the decision reads.

As legal proceedings in New Zealand continue, eyes now turn to Hong Kong. In addition to Dotcom’s personal wealth subjected to restraining order as detailed above, an additional NZ$25m owned by Megaupload and Vestor Limited is frozen in Hong Kong. Next week Dotcom’s legal team will attempt to have the restraining order lifted.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

That hasn’t been the case since, however. Dotcom has continued with his very public displays of wealth, living in one of New Zealand’s most expensive houses, flying around the country in helicopters, and bankrolling a brand new political party.

All this, 20th Century Fox, Disney, Paramount, Universal, Columbia Pictures and Warner Bros insist, are clear signs that Dotcom is disposing of wealth that will transfer to their hands should they prevail in their legal action against him – if there is any left of course.

Last month the High Court’s Judge Courtney agreed with the studios and ordered Dotcom to reveal all of his global assets “wherever they are located” and to identify “the nature of his interest in them.”

Needless to say, Dotcom has been putting up a fight, and has filed an appeal which will be heard in the second week of October. However, that date falls way beyond September 5, the date by which Dotcom has to comply with Judge Courtney’s disclosure order.

During a hearing today at the Court of Appeal, Dotcom’s legal team argued that their client should not have to hand over a list of his assets in advance of the October appeal as several legal points needed to be aired during the hearing.

According to Stuff, lawyer Tracey Walker said that the 2012 restraining order covered assets generated before that date, but have no scope moving forward.

“The assets that they are talking about now are new assets that were created because of my entrepreneurial skill after the raid,” Dotcom explained previously.

Dotcom has remained extremely active in the business sector since 2012, helping to create cloud storage service Mega.co.nz and then generating cash by selling shares in the company. The authorities and Hollywood are clearly trying to keep an eye on the money.

In Court, Walker said that since $11.8 million was seized from Dotcom in 2012 and other funds are currently frozen in Hong Kong, the studios have a fund to draw on should they win their case. Revealing more about his current financial situation would breach Dotcom’s privacy, Walker added.

Appearing for the US-based studios, lawyer Jack Hodder said the disclosure order was fully justified.

Ending the hearing, the Court of Appeal reserved its decision on whether Dotcom will have to comply with the High Court ruling and disclose on September 9, or whether he will indeed be able to wait until after the October hearing.

In the meantime the political mudslinging continues in New Zealand, with Kim Dotcom now preparing legal action against controversial blogger Cameron Slater who he accuses of publishing “200 plus smear stories” as part of a “character assassination” campaign handled by the ruling National Party.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Those orders ran out in April 2014, with the Crown immediately seeking to have them extended. That application was rejected by the High Court, a decision that prompted celebrations from Dotcom alongside speculation on how he might spend some of the money.

But things weren’t over yet. The Crown filed an appeal against the ruling, and today the Court of Appeal handed down its decision. It’s bad news for Dotcom and fellow respondents Bran Van Der Kolk, Megastuff Limited, and Dotcom’s estranged wife, Mona Dotcom.

The judgment handed down by Judges O’ Regan, Wild and French in the Court of Appeal concerns the High Court’s dismissal of an application by the Commissioner of Police to extend the restraining order over Dotcom’s assets made by a United States Court.

The High Court’s Judge Thomas previously decided that while the Court had jurisdiction to extend the duration of the restraining orders, it would be inappropriate to do so, a decision which led to the appeal.

While Dotcom supported Judge Thomas’ ultimate ruling, he cross appealed against the finding that there was jurisdiction to extend the restraining order. He also contested the Judge’s decision to extend the order pending the outcome of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Dotcom’s cross-appeal in its entirety.

For her part, Mona Dotcom supported her estranged husband’s position but also requested that her property be excluded from any extended order. The Court rejected her submission.

“We allow the appeal, quash the decision of the High Court and make the extension order sought by the Commissioner,” the Court of Appeal judges wrote.

“An order is made extending the duration of the registration of the restraining orders issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on 10 and 25 January 2012 and registered in New Zealand on 18 April 2012 for one year from 18 April 2014.”

The decision means that Dotcom will have to head back to court in April 2015 in the hope of regaining possession of his property which includes millions in cash plus luxury cars and jewelry.

In a Twitter response, Dotcom pondered whether the latest decision and others like it might be straining relations between the High Court and Court of Appeals.

“I wonder how much respect Auckland High Court judges have for the Appeal judges in Wellington. Almost all rulings in my case were overturned,” he wrote.

Dotcom’s much-delayed extradition hearing is scheduled for February 2015.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Fearing a massive loss in revenue, movie studio Lionsgate issued thousands of takedown requests to limit the film’s availability. While most sites swiftly removed links to the pre-release leak, according to the studio some did not respond at all.

Late last week Lionsgate sued the operators of six file-sharing sites that allegedly failed to remove the infringing files – Limetorrents.com, Billionuploads.com, Hulkfile.eu, Played.to, Swankshare.com and Dotsemper.com.

Lionsgate accused the sites of several copyright infringement offenses and asked for a permanent injunction to stop further distribution of the film, as well as seizure of the sites’ bank accounts and other assets.

Yesterday the case appeared before Judge Margaret Morrow at the California federal court. None of the file-sharing sites had responded to the allegations and the judge granted Lionsgate’s request for a broad preliminary injunction.

The preliminary injunction prevents the sites from hosting and linking to copies of the movie. The same applies to all companies that provide services to or in connection with the sites, which means that the sites are at risk of losing their domain names.

In addition, the court also ordered that all bank accounts and other financial assets of the sites can be frozen.

“All banks, savings and loan associations, payment processors or other financial institutions, payment providers, third-party processors and advertising service providers of Defendants or any of them must, upon receiving notice of this Order, immediately locate all accounts connected to Defendants,” the injunction states.

The seized funds may be needed to compensate Lionsgate for the losses it suffered as a result of the leak, the judge argues.

“Such an asset freeze is appropriate in this case to preserve Lions Gate’s right to such recovery against Defendants, who are trafficking in the Stolen Film and may secret assets to insulate them from judgment,”Judge Morrow notes.

This is not the first ruling in favor of the movie studio. Earlier this week Lionsgate also obtained permission to subpoena various third-party web services including Google, Cloudflare and GoDaddy to obtain personal details on several of the defendants.

With the preliminary injunction, Lionsgate now has the potential to severely cripple the accused file-sharing sites. Whether it will be enough to stop the distribution of the leaked film has yet to be seen.

Thus far all six sites remain operational and links to the Expendables 3 leak are still widely available.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

While pirated copies of most blockbusters eventually find their way online, a high quality leak weeks before a box office premiere is relatively rare.

To limit the availability of the movie Lionsgate has instructed several piracy monitoring companies to locate copies on various web services and target them with takedown requests. In little over a week, MarkMonitor, IP Echelon and Entura International have together sent out thousands of takedown requests targeting tens of thousands of URLs.

In a sworn testimony submitted to a California federal court, MarkMonitor’s Director of Global Operations Edward Cho explains that his company alone has submitted over 2,000 takedown requests.

“MarkMonitor, on Lionsgate’s behalf, began issuing take-down requests to the operators of the websites identified through our searches. MarkMonitor has sent approximately 2,770 take-down requests covering, cumulatively, 10,846 unique host URLs,” Cho says.

Interestingly, Lionsgate is not the only rightsholder going after leaked copied of the Expendables movie. The South Korean company Medialog also has a stake in the movie and is issuing takedown notices as well. These requests are not without problems as they target many legitimate sites.

For example, Medialog’s takedown request to Google includes TorrentFreak’s original news article on the leak, as well as reports by The Verge, Consumerist and The Daily Dot. Even worse, the company even included the official Expendables 3 website among the allegedly infringing URLs.

MarkMonitor does work directly for Lionsgate and Cho’s testimony is part of a new ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order the movie studio filed against the six file-sharing sites that were sued before the weekend. The sites in question, including Limetorrents, failed to respond to MarkMonitor’s takedown notices.

If the court grants Lionsgate’s request the website operators will be ordered to shut down their sites. In addition their financial assets will be frozen until further notice. Since it’s an ex parte request the site’s operators won’t have the option to defend themselves before the order is issued.

Lionsgate’s Executive Vice President Content Protection Robert Wenokur believes that these measures are warranted as the company is facing heavy losses as a result of the leak.

“Individuals who view the Film in this manner may not pay for tickets at the box office when the Film is released later this month. Similarly, such individuals may not purchase or rent copies of the Film when it is released to the home entertainment market after its theatrical run,” Wenokur notes.

Lionsgate’s request is quite extraordinary and unprecedented in a file-sharing case. There’s no doubt that other movie studios are keeping a close eye on developments, as the company’s approach may prove to be an effective way of targeting so-called rogue sites in the future.

Whether it will do much to stop those who want to grab a copy of the Expendables 3 leak is doubtful though. Even if the six sites are shut down, there are still hundreds of copies of the movie online, and dozens are being added every day.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

New data published in a Dutch report detailing the impact of unauthorized P2P file-sharing on the movie industry reveals that in the Netherlands alone an estimated 78 million euros are lost due to movie piracy.

The same report also provides some interesting statistics that shed some light o geographical file-sharing differences.

During the first half of the year MarkMonitor, which is also the technology partner for the U.S. six strikes program, tracked 16 popular English language blockbuster movies. The list includes titles such as Frozen, The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug, and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.

The movies were monitored via both eDonkey and BitTorrent, with the latter having the largest audience. In total MarkMonitor found that these movies were shared 150,186,156 times without permission.

Despite the focus on English language films, most pirated copies – more than 20 million – were shared from Russia. The bar chart below shows the full top 10 based on the absolute number of infringements that were detected, with the United States, Italy, Brazil and Spain completing the top five.

It is of course no surprise to see these large countries on top. It gets more interesting when we look at the number of file-sharers per capita.

In the United States for example, 12.5 million pirated copies were shared in a population of more than 310 million, which is roughly 4%. In Russia this percentage is much higher at 15% and in Australia it’s more than 16%.

Not surprisingly, the list of countries that share the most pirated movies per capita is quite different.

According to the report, the movies in the sample were relatively most shared in the United Arab Emirates, followed by Israel, Estonia, Greece and Italy. Australia, Qatar, Sweden, Singapore and the Netherlands complete the top 10.

It has to be noted that the findings above are based on a sample that is biased towards Western content. This explains the absence of Chinese downloaders, who tend to share files through other channels. Similarly, the data doesn’t cover direct downloads and streaming sites which may be relatively more popular in other regions.

That said, the numbers do give some more insight into the popularity of P2P movie piracy, or lack thereof, across various countries.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Targeting Kim Dotcom and his associates Mathias Ortmann and Bram Van Der Kolk, the civil case aimed to recover millions in damages said to have been caused by the now-defunct Megaupload file-storage site.

The case filed by the MPAA was quickly followed by another initiated by the RIAA, with both following the pattern set by a U.S. Government criminal case already underway against Dotcom and colleagues in the United States.

To avoid their clients incriminating themselves ahead of the criminal case, Megaupload’s legal team later asked a U.S. court to freeze the civil cases filed by the MPAA and RIAA. Yesterday, United States District Judge Liam O’Grady granted that Motion to Stay.

However, the plaintiffs were successful in their request to have a number of conditions attached to the decision, each designed to give them freedom to embark on further legal action should they feel that’s appropriate.

Firstly, Judge O’Grady’s order does not disallow the plaintiffs from effecting service on any other defendant who has not already been served. They are also free to amend their complaint as they see fit.

Unsurprisingly, the thorny issue of Kim Dotcom’s assets, currently frozen by the New Zealand government pending an appeal, was also addressed.

“If the New Zealand Government loses the appeal, the assets will be unfrozen, and there is a significant risk that they will then be immediately dissipated,” the studios explained in a filing last month.

That concern was dealt with by Judge O’Grady in yesterday’s order by granting the studios freedom to go after Dotcom’s assets wherever they see fit.

“Plaintiffs may institute and pursue any action in the United States or a foreign jurisdiction to preserve Defendants’ assets in the event that such action becomes necessary,” the Judge wrote.

“The Court finds that each of Plaintiffs’ proposed conditions are reasonable under the circumstances of this case because of the possibility that Defendants’ assets abroad may become unfrozen.”

As a result the case is now frozen until August 1, 2014, seven weeks from today. The same decision was made in respect of the civil case filed against Megaupload by the RIAA.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Running in parallel to that criminal case are a pair of civil actions brought by the MPAA and RIAA, with both entities currently attempting to put a lock on his currently frozen assets, should the entrepreneur get his hands on them again.

As those battles continue in the background, Dotcom is preparing his next steps, and he’s calling on supporters to help him.

On the table today sits a cool $5 million bounty payable to anyone who provides substantial information that will allow the Megaupload founder to win his case. It’s a large amount by any standards but of course Dotcom rarely does anything in half measures.

So what exactly is Dotcom looking for and how will the project play out?

“Let me be clear, we are asking for information that proves unlawful or corrupt conduct by the US government, the New Zealand government, spy agencies, law enforcement and Hollywood,” Dotcom told TorrentFreak.

“It is the opinion of my legal team that disclosure of such information would be lawful. I would also guarantee that any whistleblower coming forward would have the best legal representation at zero cost.”

Dotcom goes on to reiterate a long-standing claim, that the action against him and Megaupload was a “corrupt contract prosecution” carried out by the White House in order to get Hollywood’s support for Obama’s re-election campaign. He’s interested in evidence that supports that assertion.

“Former Senator and now MPAA chairman Chris Dodd and Vice President Joe Biden in particular have abused their political power to make the pre-trial destruction of Megaupload possible,” he explains.

“Joe Biden’s personal counsel (while Biden was still a Senator) Neil MacBride was promoted to a top position at the DOJ and oversaw the Megaupload destruction. We have already exposed a whole range of unlawful government conduct in the Megaupload case, backed by court rulings.”

So presuming people have information, what should they do with it? Dotcom suggests going to a well-known newspaper with a proven track-record in handling leaks.

“I have been in touch with the Guardian editor and he has kindly retweeted my offer and told me that he hopes that someone will reply to that offer,” Dotcom says.

Dotcom notes that potential leakers can utilize the new whistleblower tool released by The Guardian this week. But for those who really need to cover their backs, more drastic additional steps could be taken.

“In order to be completely safe I would advise any Whistleblower not to use this tool from home or work. Go to an Internet cafe with a memory stick. Don’t use your own computer or phone. You can also buy a cheap laptop or netbook just for the purpose of leaking and destroy it after you’re done.”

The big attraction of course is the $5 million Dotcom has put on the table. What assurances can Dotcom provide concerning the cash?

“I’m currently in talks with my legal team about how to formalize the bounty. We will probably setup a trust account to deposit the bounty and provide terms and conditions for anyone who will provide information. I will not just offer a bounty for the piece of ‘case winning’ information but for anything useful,” he explains.

“We know that there are people out there with information. I’m willing to pay for that information. I’m determined to fight a grave injustice that has been done to a legitimate cloud storage business, its 220 employees and over 100 million users. This struggle has just begun and it will take time. But in the end we shall be victorious and we shall expose those who have abused their power,” he concludes.

There’s little doubt that $5 million is potentially a life-changing sum for the right person.. Will someone step forward into that new life? Time will tell.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Their targets were old adversaries Megaupload, Kim Dotcom and associates Mathias Ortmann and Bram Van Der Kolk. Running in parallel with the ongoing criminal proceedings initiated by the U.S. Government, the complaint followed much of the same path.

Earlier this month, Megaupload’s legal team responded by asking the court to freeze the MPAA’s case in order to protect their clients’ Fifth Amendment rights not to implicate themselves in advance of the U.S. government’s criminal case against them.

In the period since both sides’ legal teams have been in discussion over the potential terms of any stay. But, according to papers filed in a Virginia court yesterday, 20th Century Fox are concerned that Dotcom’s fortune could soon be back in the entrepreneur’s hands.

Megaupload’s and Dotcom’s millions were seized following the now-notorious 2012 raid. However, last month the New Zealand High Court said it would not extend the foreign restraining order against his assets.

That decision was quickly appealed by the Crown, but the possibility remains that Dotcom could soon regain his wealth and legally dispose of it. The studios want to stop that from happening.

“If the New Zealand Government loses the appeal, the assets will be unfrozen, and there is a significant risk that they will then be immediately dissipated,” the studios’ lawyers state in yesterday’s filing.

Led by Warner Bros., the studios add that since Dotcom and his associates “have or have had sophisticated global business interests” and with that an ability to “move assets offshore quickly and immediately”, they are taking legal action to try and prevent that.

“To ensure that Defendants’ New Zealand assets remain frozen even if the New Zealand Government loses the pending appeal, several of the Plaintiffs have initiated civil proceedings in New Zealand to freeze Defendants’ assets pending a judgment in the [studios' civil case against Megaupload/Dotcom].”

But the fight to secure Dotcom’s and Megaupload’s cash isn’t confined only to New Zealand. Hong Kong is another battleground and the studios are determined to narrow the options for release of assets there too.

“In addition to opposing extension of the asset freeze in New Zealand, Defendants are also seeking to unfreeze their assets in Hong Kong, which have also been frozen pursuant to this Court’s restraining orders issued in the Criminal Action,” the studio’s lawyers write.

“If Defendants are successful in their efforts to unfreeze their assets in Hong Kong,
there is a significant risk that those assets will be dissipated in very short order. Plaintiffs are monitoring developments in Hong Kong and assessing whether they may need to take legal action there to further preserve Defendants’ assets.”

In conclusion the studios state that while they do not oppose Megaupload’s request for a stay, the terms must not preclude them taking action to freeze the worldwide assets of Megaupload and Kim Dotcom.

But of course, just days after the studios filed their lawsuit in April, the RIAA jumped on board too by filing a a substantially similar suit against the same defendants, again demanding millions in damages.

Yesterday the labels also made their voices heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in respect of Megaupload’s motion for a similar stay in their case. Although penned by different law firms, the labels’ filings are much the same as those from the studios.

In a slightly different conclusion, the labels oppose a stay order, but note that if one is granted it should not disallow them from seeking to “preserve the Defendants’ worldwide assets.”

Further hearings on the fate of the currently seized millions are scheduled for July 10 in Hong Kong and in the New Zealand High Court tomorrow.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.