Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 251

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AUCKLAND REGISTRY TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-3103

UNDER

the Crown Proceedings Act 1950

BETWEEN

KIM DOTCOM

First plaintiff

AND

MEGAUPLOAD LIMITED

Second plaintiff

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (ON BEHALF OF THE CROWN IN RIGHT OF NEW ZEALAND)

First defendant

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Second defendant

AFFIDAVIT OF KIM DOTCOM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ORDERS PURSUANT TO RULE 9.17 AND APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE SWORN 19 MARCH 2018

SOLICITOR ACTING:

COUNSEL:

COUNSEL:

P C Creagh

R M Mansfield

S L Cogan

Anderson Creagh Lai

22

Lorne Chambers

Quay Chambers

110 Customs Street West

22

Lorne Street

Level 7, 2 Commerce Street

Auckland 1010 PO Box 106 740 Auckland 1143

PO Box 2674 Shortland Street Auckland 1140

Auckland 1010 PO Box 106215 Auckland 1143

Telephone:

Email:phil.creagh@acllaw.co.nz

(09) 306 5893

Tel:

Email: ron@22lorne.co.nz

(09) 304 1627

Telephone:

Email: simon@quaychambers.co.nz

(09) 377 5070

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (ON BEHALF OF CROWN LAW OFFICE)

Third defendant

AND

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Fourth defendant

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (ON BEHALF OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE)

Fifth defendant

1

AFFIDAVIT OF KIM DOTCOM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ORDERS PURSUANT TO RULE 9.17 AND APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE SWORN 19 MARCH 2018

I, Kim Dotcom of Coatesville, Auckland, businessman, swear:

Introduction

1. I am the plaintiff in this proceeding.

2. Since 2012, the United States of America has been seeking my extradition from New Zealand to face criminal charges on which I have been indicted in the United States. I emphatically deny the allegations against me in that proceeding. I am now in my seventh year of defending such allegations.

3. The United States is the fourth defendant in this proceeding, in which Megaupload and I claim damages for loss suffered as a result of:

(a)

The provisional arrest warrant obtained by the United States under the Extradition Act 1999, pursuant to which I was brought before the extradition court, being invalid; and

(b)

The United States’ request for surrender, and the Minister’s notice under s 23(4) of the Extradition Act 1999, being invalid.

4. In the statement of claim dated 22 December 2017, I allege (amongst

other matters) that the extradition proceeding was politically motivated

and for an improper purpose.

commenced to earn favour with the United States and the Hollywood lobby by facilitating my extradition to face charges in the United States

criminal prosecution, which was itself politically motivated and for an improper purpose. In short, I believe that the New Zealand authorities considered that what was in the United States’ and Hollywood’s interests was also in New Zealand’s interests. Accordingly, independently of any valid legal obligation to do so, New Zealand set about facilitating my extradition.

In particular, I believe it was

2

(a)

Hollywood had historically been a major benefactor of the Democrats, who were at the relevant time in power in the United States and seeking re-election for a further term. However, Hollywood was threatening to cut that support, on which the democrats were disproportionately reliant relative to the Republicans, due to Hollywood’s dissatisfaction with the United States copyright regime and its perception that not enough was being done to protect the interests of copyright owners. The United States government of the day was under significant pressure from Hollywood to “get tough” on copyright infringement and therefore commenced the prosecution for the ulterior purpose of making an example of me and Megaupload to appease Hollywood.

(b)

The complainants whose complaints triggered the investigation that ultimately led to my indictment in the United States are the major Hollywood film studios. They are key witnesses in the United States criminal prosecution. They are also plaintiffs in a civil claim against me in the United States which arises from substantially the same factual allegations as the prosecution and in which they are seeking damages of US$100 million.

6. Megaupload and I met the United States’ need to appease the Hollywood lobby. However, because I was not based in the United States, and extradition from Hong Kong (where I was then primarily based) would be challenging, the United States needed help. New Zealand could provide that help if I was a permanent resident. As a junior member of the Five Eyes partnership, it would not have been lost on New Zealand that helping the United States with this issue would stand it in good stead with the United States. New Zealand also had its own reasons for wanting to appease Hollywood. It was trying to promote itself to Hollywood as a destination for film productions at the time but the proposal to film the Hobbit movies in New Zealand was suddenly in crisis.

3

Megaupload was conspicuous by its success, not a United States company, and at the forefront of innovative models for content delivery over the internet that threatened Hollywood’s outdated business model. I had a high public profile and, importantly, was not a United States citizen. By facilitating my extradition, New Zealand could help the United States solve its problem and show Hollywood that it was a sympathetic jurisdiction. Under political pressure (that I describe below), New Zealand enthusiastically embraced this opportunity from 2010 onwards. It used state resources in an unprecedented and, at times, unlawful way to facilitate my extradition. It did all of this despite no formal request for assistance having been made by the United States until January 2012.

8. The relevant factual allegations occurred during the Obama administration. Further, as I set out in more detail below, there is reason to believe that Mr Obama had direct knowledge of the pleaded issues. Mr Obama’s evidence is therefore directly relevant to the motivation and purpose of the United States’ prosecution, the facilitation of which was the motivation and purpose of the New Zealand authorities’ conduct in relation to the extradition proceeding.

9. Annexed and marked KDis a paginated bundle of true copies of the documents referred to in this affidavit. When I refer to a document, I will refer to it by its page number in the bundle.

Hollywood

United States

campaign

contributions

and

lobbying

in

the

10. In the United States, the Democrat party has historically been disproportionately reliant on funding and other support from Hollywood.

11. Open Secrets is a non-profit and nonpartisan research group based in Washington, D.C. that tracks the effects of money and lobbying on elections and public policy. It maintains a public online database of its information. Based on data from Open Secrets, between 2008 and 2014, the movie and television industry spent a total of

4

US$156,927,006 on campaign contributions and US$437,218,434 on lobbying (KD-001).

12. An analysis by Open Secrets shows that:

(a)

In the 2008 election cycle, the television and movie industry contributed US$46,107,467 to United States political parties. Of this, 81% went to the Democrats and 19% to the Republicans.

(b)

In the 2010 election cycle, the television and movie industry contributed US$24,251, 135 to United States political parties. Of this, 76% went to the Democrats and 24% to the Republicans.

(c)

In the 2012 election cycle, the television and movie industry contributed US$56, 113,844 to United States political parties. Of this, 78% went to the Democrats and 22% to the Republicans.

(d)

In the 2014 election cycle, the television and movie industry contributed US$28,656,889 to United States political parties. Of this, 75% of this went to the Democrats and 25% to the Republicans.

13. It is clear from this data that Hollywood spends an enormous amount on campaign contributions and lobbying. It is also clear that, of the amount spent, a disproportionate amount goes to the Democrat party. The Democrats are therefore more reliant on Hollywood than the Republicans.

The Stop Online Piracy Act

14. To understand the purpose of the United States criminal prosecution it is necessary to understand the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

15. In 1998, the United States enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Broadly, the policy behind the DMCA was to limit the liability of internet service providers (ISP) for copyright infringement by their users, provided certain requirements were met. Essentially, it

5

was up to copyright owners like Hollywood, to police the enforcement of their rights, not ISPs.

16. Hollywood, and other copyright owners, were unhappy with the balance struck by the DMCA and, over the years following the DMCA’s enactment, lobbied for amendments that would shift the burden of policing copyright infringement from copyright owners to ISPs. SOPA, which was introduced to the House of Representatives on 26 October 2011, was just one example of such lobbying.

17. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which represents the interests of the major Hollywood movie studios, was heavily involved in drafting SOPA (KD-003). This is indicative of the level of influence that the content industry enjoyed in Washington, D.C., particularly in Democrat circles.

18. If enacted, SOPA would have shifted the burden of policing copyright infringement on the internet from copyright owners such as Hollywood to ISPs.

19. SOPA provoked a public outcry. For example, a group of 110

intellectual property law professors wrote to Congress advising that

(KD-005):

(a)

SOPA would redefine the standard of copyright infringement on the Internet and "would make YouTube, Google, and numerous other websites liable for copyright infringement".

(b)

SOPA would allow the government to block Internet access.

(c)

SOPA would allow any copyright holder to interfere with websites being able to advertise or charge purchases to credit cards, restricting the flow of electronic commerce.

20. The impact of SOPA on the internet as we know it would have been huge. For example, SOPA would have forced ISPs to effectively censor their users. It would also have restricted access to the internet. Compliance costs for ISPs would have been prohibitive under SOPA. Inevitably, such costs would then have been passed on to consumers somehow.

6

21. The potential impact on free speech, access to the internet, and freedom on the internet generated a groundswell of public opposition to SOPA. This lead to millions of interventions to Congress opposing the legislation. For example (KD-021):

(a)

Demand Progress, a non-profit organisation formed to create an online campaign against SOPA, generated 1.5 million contacts to Congress in opposition to SOPA.

(b)

More than 1 million contacts to Congress in opposition to SOPA were driven by the non-profit organisation the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

(c)

A petition at Google recorded over 4.5 million signatures.

(d)

Over 3 million people independently emailed Congress to express opposition.

(e)

Lawmakers collected over 14 million names, including the names of 10 million voters, in opposition to the legislation.

22. Arguably the high point of the groundswell of opposition to SOPA was the internet blackout" where websites blacked out their sites and/or linked to a website with information on how to protest against SOPA and PIPA. Approximately 115,000 websites, including Google, Wikipedia, Tumblr, and Reddit, took part in the blackout. Megaupload also took part. We also issued a press release and sent a mass email to all of our users informing them about the threat to Internet freedom posed by SOPA and urged them to contact Congress and join the movement against SOPA.

23. The groundswell of opposition to SOPA was a success. In the face of such opposition, and with the tide of public sentiment overwhelmingly against SOPA, the White House took an ambivalent position, and ultimately did not publicly support SOPA (KD-028). Congressional support for the proposed legislation was withdrawn.

7

The MPAA’s response

24. The MPAA responded by publicly threatening the White House with

the reduction or withdrawal of campaign contributions on which the

Democrats were so reliant. This was a crucial time for the Democrats.

The United States presidential election, where Mr Obama sought a

second term as President, was held on 6 November 2012

25. In an interview on Fox News, the head of the MPAA, Chris Dodd

stated (KD-030)

Candidly, those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a cheque for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake.

26. The message to the White House was plain: do not expect funding if

you do not advance the MPAA’s legislative agenda.

The United States prosecution

27. On 20 January 2012, the day after this statement, I was arrested.

28. I believe this was always the plan. The indictment was issued on

5 January 2012. If SOPA had been enacted as originally expected, I

believe I would have been arrested, and Megaupload shut down, to

send a strong message to ISPs about SOPA. With SOPA having

failed, and the MPAA threatening to withdraw its considerable financial

support, it was all the more important that the White House send a

strong message to Hollywood and other copyright owners about its

commitment to enforcement against online copyright infringement.

29. Megaupload was an obvious target because neither it nor its

management were based in the United States. This was consistent

with the messaging that Hollywood had tried to create around SOPA -

that it was target at foreign ISPs and nothing for United States-based

ISPs to be concerned about. As the blackout demonstrated, United

States-based ISPs did not believe this reassurance.

8

30. Megaupload was highly successful in earning profits through subscription fees and advertising. The business became conspicuous for its innovation and success as a market leader. Our innovation challenged historic and outdated business practices of copyright owners that had failed to keep pace with the way in which the public consumed content. Megaupload offered a number of products and services including video streaming, photo storage, live web cam streaming, venture capital, advertising, and online news media in specialist areas. At the time of my arrest, Megaupload was also looking to develop what would at the time have been ground-breaking music and movie offerings.

31. Megaupload and I were, therefore, the perfect candidates for the Obama administration to make an example of so as to appease the Hollywood interests on whom they were so reliant for campaign contributions for their bid for a second term in office.

32. In the months immediately following my arrest, once released on bail, I was determined to get to the bottom of why I was in this situation. I used my connections in Hong Kong, and through that network was given the name of a Mr Thomas Hart.

33. At the time, Mr Hart was a lawyer and lobbyist in Washington, D.C. with strong connections to the Democrats and White House. In a telephone call with me he described how he had made a documentary for the President to assist with his election efforts. I have transcribed that call (KD-033).

34. Throughout my discussions with Mr Hart, I found him to be reliable and I believed him. I was put in touch with him by a trustworthy source and he was clearly well connected to the Obamas.

35. During our call, Mr Hart confirmed to me that:

(a)

The Vice President was at the centre of my prosecution, having given the go-ahead for it.

(b)

President Obama was dissatisfied with the way it had been handled.

9

Biden did admit to have you know, kind of started it, you know, along with support from others but it was Biden’s decision…

[…]

What he [President Obama] expressed to me was a growing concern about the matter. He indicated an awareness of that it had not gone well, that it was more complicated than he thought, that he will turn his attention to it more prominently after November…

(c)

The Administration wanted to “show a strong arm and a

commitment to enforcement”.

(d)

President Obama was “questioning the whole thing,which I

understood to be a reference to his degree of commitment to

the prosecution.

White House meetings

36. What Thomas Hart told me is confirmed by the publicly available White

House visitor logs. These logs show (KD-036):

(a)

On 20 July 2011, Neil MacBride met with the Vice President’s

deputy chief of staff, Alan Hoffman, at the White House.

Mr MacBride was from 2001 to 2005, Chief Counsel and Staff

Director for Joe Biden, while Mr Biden was still a senator.

Later, Mr MacBride was head of the Business Software

Alliance’s global anti-piracy division. At the time of the meeting,

Mr MacBride was serving as the United States Attorney for the

Eastern District of Virginia, where I was indicted. As such,

Mr MacBride had overall responsibility for my prosecution.

Annexed and marked (KD-054) is a copy of a recent notice

outlining his appointment to influence law firm Davis Polk

outlining his professional history.

(b)

On 27 July 2011, there was a meeting at the White House

between members of the Hollywood lobby, including the MPAA,

and the Obama administration. The attendees included:

(i) The (then) Vice President, Joe Biden.

10

(ii)

Chris Dodd, who was then Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the MPAA. Until joining the MPAA in or around March 2011, Mr Dodd had been a senator for over 30 years. He was also a personal friend of Vice President Biden. Annexed and marked (KD-054) is a biography of Mr Dodd. At the time, Mr Dodd and Mr Biden appeared to have a very strong and close relationship. Annexed and marked (KD-058) and (KD- 060) are documents confirming Vice President Biden's admiration for Mr Dodd. In the video at (KD-060) Vice President Biden confirmed his close connection with Mr Dodd and how that results in genuine access and influence.

(iii)

Michael (Mike) Ellis of the Motion Picture Association of Asia. Mr Ellis is a former police officer, an expert in extradition, and was based in Hong Kong, where the Mega Group of companies was also primarily based. Annexed and marked (KD-061) is a copy of the biography for Mr Ellis referring to him as an expert in extradition. As discussed in more detail below, Mr Ellis had previously met with the then Minister of Justice, Simon Power, in New Zealand in 2010.

(iv)

Leading Hollywood executives.

(c) On 9 December 2011, Mr Dodd met, one on one, with President Obama for approximately 2.5 hours in the Oval Office for what was described as a private lunch(KD-048 KD 053).

37. When I was arrested, the United States touted the prosecution as “among the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States” (KD-064). It seems inevitable that the Megaupload prosecution was discussed at these meetings given:

(a)

The profile that the Megaupload prosecution clearly had at the highest levels of the Obama administration;

(b)

The timing of these meetings; and

11

(c) The persons in attendance, including the fact that one of them Mr Ellis is an extradition expert who, as discussed in more detail below, had earlier met with New Zealand’s then Minister of Justice, Simon Power.

38. I believe that the prosecution was driven by the strong personal and political connections between Hollywood and the Obama administration.

Alignment of New Zealand’s interests with the United States’ and MPAA’s

39. I have set out above why I believe the United States prosecution was politically motivated and for an improper purpose. I believe that the extradition proceeding in New Zealand was also. There would obviously be no extradition proceeding but for the United States prosecution. In that sense, the motivation and purpose of the extradition proceeding is inevitably the same as that of the underlying prosecution. However, in addition, there is evidence that New Zealand went beyond the requirements of its role as requested state and took steps to facilitate my extradition. In addition, at the time, New Zealand had its own reasons for wishing to earn favour with the MPAA.

40. In February 2010, via my immigration consultant, I expressed an interest in migrating to New Zealand.

41. Soon after this, on 10 March 2010, the then Minister of Justice, the Honourable Simon Power, met with Mr Ellis of the Motion Picture Association of Asia and Tony Eaton of the New Zealand Federation Against Copyright Theft, the New Zealand arm of the MPAA (KD-067). March 2010 is the same month that the MPAA lodged the complaint about Megaupload which led to the United States prosecution.

42. As noted above, Mr Ellis is a former police officer who was at that time based in Hong Kong and responsible for the MPAA’s enforcement program in Asia. He also claimed to be an extradition expert. Megaupload was based in Hong Kong. Mr Ellis later met at the White House with Vice President Biden, Mr Dodd and representatives of members of the MPAA.

12

43. To my knowledge, there have not been any other requests for surrender by the United States involving allegations of online copyright infringement that might require Mr Ellis to meet with the then Vice President of the United States and the then Minister of Justice of New Zealand. Given the timing and attendees of the meeting, it again seems inevitable that the prosecution of Megaupload, my proposed immigration to New Zealand, and my extradition were discussed.

44. Between 26 and 27 October 2010, the Prime Minister and other senior ministers met with a Hollywood delegation, led by Kevin Tsujihara, then President of Warner Bros Home Entertainment (KD-068).

45. Following these meetings, the Prime Minister agreed to give Hollywood significant tax incentives to ensure that The Hobbit trilogy was filmed in New Zealand. These incentives resulted in approximately NZ$200 million cost to the New Zealand taxpayer as well as changes to New Zealand's employment law in favour of film studios (KD-069).

46. I believe that the purpose of the meeting between Mike Ellis, Mr Eaton and Mr Power was to lay the groundwork for the United States’ anticipated extradition request. It is otherwise difficult to make sense of why, as discussed below:

(a)

Political pressure” was later brought to bear on my residency application;

(b)

I was granted residency despite the convictions I had disclosed and despite being the subject of an FBI investigation; and

(c)

Having been granted residency against the odds, I was declined the necessary Overseas Investment Office (OIO) consent to purchase the Coatesville mansion.

“Political Pressure”

47. At around the same time the Government was considering whether to grant employment and tax concessions to Hollywood, Immigration New Zealand (INZ) was considering my application for permanent residence and being subjected to “political pressure” to grant it.

13

48. The following chronology emerges from documents I have obtained

through requests under the Official Information Act 1982 and Privacy

Act 1993. In a letter dated 8 July 2014 (KD-073) the Director of the

NZSIS, Rebecca Kitteridge, disclosed to me material that had not

previously been released despite complaints to the Privacy

Commissioner and the Inspector-General. The letter followed a

request from Mr David Fisher of The New Zealand Herald under the

Official Information Act 1982. The emails disclosed are partially

redacted. It is therefore difficult to identify who is sending which email

to whom but what happened and when is clear enough.

49. On 12 October 2010 my residency application was put on hold by

NZSIS (KD-084). Around that time, I was starting to lose patience with

the residency process. I gave INZ a deadline of 1 November 2010 to

process my application, failing which I would abandon it. But, that

cannot explain how I was granted residence when there was a known

criminal investigation into my business activities.

50. On 22 October 2010 there is an email at 11:21 a.m. stating (KD-097):

INZ [REDACTED] has phoned me to advise that the INZ CEO (Nigel BICKLE) is questioning why this case is on hold. Apparently there is some "political pressure" to process this case.

Can you advise INZ [REDACTED] as to what is happening. Naturally I cannot go back via phone or email on this case to [REDACTED]. You will need to ensure that the CEO is appropriately [sic] briefed on this case. Over to you.

51. The reference to being unable to go "back via phone or email on this

case to [REDACTED]" suggests a reluctance to put the matter in

writing, perhaps out of a concern as to accountability or later

disclosure.

52. At 11.45 a.m. the same day there is an email stating (KD-096):

little has changed with this case since her email last

week. Kim DOTCOM is not of security concern but is likely to soon become the subject of a joint FBI / NZ Police criminal investigation. We have passed this over to NZ Police:

but

14

53. At 12:48 p.m. the same day there was a further email stating (KD-

096):

Since DOTCOM is not of security concern, there is no reason for his application to be on hold with us. Please can you inform your INZ contacts of this, also noting that DOTCOM is the subject of a criminal investigation and that they need to discuss the case with NZ Police before they proceed with granting him PR.

54. On Tuesday 26 October 2010 at 9:14 a.m., at the same time that the

Prime Minister was meeting with Hollywood executives that were well

known to the public at the time, there is a further email stating (KD-

096):

just a bit of an FYI re: DOTCOM. Wonder what "Political Pressure" INZ are under??

55. On Wednesday 27 October 2010 at 4:55 p.m. an email states (KD-

099):

Hi [REDACTED] Below is the response [REDACTED] replied to [REDACTED] when [REDACTED] from INZ was questioning our hold on DOTCOM. Basically we don't have anything else to add but I strongly suggest you tell Theo to discuss the case with NZ Police before DOTCOM is granted PR. Just from looking at his records INZ do have enough on his criminal history to not give him PR and he is [REDACTED] (The link below is FBI/NZ Police corr)

56. The reference to Theomust be to Theo Kuper" because, on

Thursday 28 October 2010 at 9:41 a.m., there was an email that

stated (KD-113):

[REDACTED] thanks for this. However can you let Theo Kuper know by secure comms the background regarding the FBI/NZ Police as he has a meeting with the Minister of Immigration at 1500hrs today about Mr DOTCOM.

57. The reference to “secure comms” again indicates that it was thought

there was something exceptional about my application and/or concern

about disclosure.

58. I believe that the "political pressure" was pressure to grant me

residence in New Zealand so that I could then be extradited by the

Untied States. It would appear that the groundwork for this had been

15

laid earlier in the year when Mr Ellis met with Mr Power. The fact that

the FBI had already been in contact with the New Zealand authorities

about conducting a joint operation, before I had even been granted

residency, and well before any formal request for assistance had been

made, confirms this.

59. Extradition from New Zealand would have been more straightforward

for the United States than extradition from Hong Kong, as the

United States’ experience in trying to extradite Edward Snowden from

Hong Kong confirms.

60. By late October 2012, there was even more pressure on New Zealand

to help the United States by facilitating my extradition. The Hollywood

executives were in town, the Hobbit production appeared to be

slipping through New Zealand’s fingers, and I was threatening to walk

away from my residence application.

Permanent residency granted despite FBI investigation

61. Because of the convictions I had disclosed in my application, INZ

considered that a “special direction” was necessary before I could be

granted residence. I therefore applied for a special direction through

my immigration consultant.

62. On 29 October 2010, Chris Biggs of INZ issued a memorandum

recording the decision on the request for a special direction (KD-122).

Under the heading “5.0 Factors against a special direction”, Mr Biggs

notes (KD-126):

5.0 Factors against a special direction

The main factor against the issue of a special direction is the applicant's convictions in 2001 and 2003 for what are effectively, dishonesty offences.

Other lesser negative factors are the extensive negative publicity concerning the applicant [Tag 17] and his status in Thailand as "persona non grata," [Tags 16 and 18].

The negative publicity, a sample of which is at Tag 17, must be considered against the applicant's clear police certificates (apart from the convictions declared in Germany) and the fact we have no evidence to indicate

16

that any law enforcement agency currently has an investigation underway into the applicant or his business.

63. However, it is clear that, at that time, the New Zealand agencies were

well aware of the FBI investigation into me.

64. Indeed, on the same day, Mr Biggs noted (KD-140):

8.4 Possible deferral of application

Advice has been received that the FBI has an interest in pursuing an investigation into the applicant [Dotcom] because of his ownership of the company Megaupload Ltd. It would appear that interest relates to the alleged provision of pirated digital content by Megaupload Ltd.

Policy at A5.30 has provision for applications to be deferred for up to six months in certain prescribed circumstances. Those circumstances in the policy [A5.30(b)(i) to (iii)] that could possibly apply to the applicant are as follows:

i. has been charged with any offence which, on conviction

would make either A5.20 or A5.25(a) to (f) apply to that

applicant; or

ii. is under investigation for such an offence; or

iii. is wanted for questioning about such an offence; or

65. Accordingly, there was a clear recognition of the FBI investigation and

the fact that it related to Megaupload, which the memorandum notes

was the source of the funds that allowed me to qualify in principle for

the Investor Plus category.

66. Mr Biggs then states in the memorandum (KDC-142):

The information available on this matter is simply a general comment and does not indicate that the applicant has been charged with any alleged offenses, that he is actually under investigation for any alleged offences or that he is wanted for questioning about any alleged

offences.

It is therefore my opinion that the policy relating to the deferral of an application does not apply in this case as there is no evidence to indicate that the applicant falls within any of the deferring provisions in the policy.

67. This is of course contrary to the discussion above earlier in October

2010 about me being the subject of a joint investigation by the FBI and

17

New Zealand Police. Although I have been denied access to the

particular information that INZ, the NZSIS and/or New Zealand Police

held regarding the FBI investigation, even based on the limited

information available, it was plainly wrong to say that there was

nothing to indicate that I was actually under investigation for any

alleged offences or that I was wanted for questioning about any

alleged offences.

68. On the same day, 29 October 2010, Mr Biggs signed the Special

Direction relating to my application, in which he stated (KD-126):

we have no evidence to indicate that any law enforcement agency currently has an investigation underway into the applicant [Dotcom] or his business.

69. This was simply not true. There clearly was evidence. The only

explanation for INZ’s contradictory approach is the "political pressure"

to grant my application.

70. On 1 November 2010, my application was granted (KD-144). I believe

that my ultimatum to INZ to process my application by 1 November

2010 triggered a concern I might walk away from my application and

This would have been of grave concern to the

Government, which, at that time, was in negotiations with the

Hollywood lobby. The last thing they would have needed at that

delicate stage of the negotiations was for me to walk away from

New Zealand and return to Hong Kong, where extradition would be

more difficult. I believe that this concern is what prompted the

“political pressure” that led to my application finally being granted

despite the presence of factors that would have caused anyone else’s

New Zealand.

application to have been rejected.

71. Shortly after I was granted permanent residence, New Zealand began

to assist the United States in earnest, despite no formal request for

assistance having been made by the United States through the

appropriate channels at that time.

72. By November 2010, the Police had already completed a “subject

profile” on me (KD-149), presumably in response to interest from the

18

FBI. Having granted me permanent residence, the New Zealand

authorities wasted no time in setting about extraditing me.

Refusal of consent to buy Coatesville mansion

73. My belief as to why I was granted residency was confirmed by what

happened next.

74. I had made an application to the OIO to buy the Coatesville property I

was renting at the time, plus two other properties. The total purchase

price would have been $37 million. The OIO became aware of the

FBI’s interest in me following information provided by INZ (KD-153).

75. My application was considered by OIO staff and then passed to the

then Minister for Land Information, the Honourable Maurice

Williamson. On 7 April 2011, my application was approved by

Mr Williamson (KD-168).

76. The application was then passed to the Honourable Simon Power in

his capacity as the Associate Minister of Finance. As noted above,

Mr Power had of course met with Mike Ellis of the MPAA and

Tony Eaton of its New Zealand representative, FACT, in March 2010,

after I had expressed an intention to move to New Zealand.

77. On 18 July 2011, Mr Power declined my application. On 23 July 2011

Mr Williamson then hand wrote on the report (KD-168):

After consultation and further discussion I support the decision to decline the application for Mr Dotcom.

78. It would appear that, although my character was apparently good

enough for me to be granted residence in November 2010, in July

2011 it was not considered good enough for me to buy property in

New Zealand. Purchasing property in New Zealand would of course

have been entirely consistent with being granted residency under the

Investor Plus category, as I had been. Indeed, the special direction

analysis had noted (KD-125):

4.5 Contribution to the New Zealand economy

This has already occurred and will continue to do so if the applicant is granted residence. He is currently seeking 010

19

approval to purchase a property valued at some NZD30 million and has already purchased another property as

well as motor vehicles and other consumables.

79. Purchasing property was identified as a factor that favoured the grant

of the special direction.

80. The Honourable Mr Power clearly did not want me purchasing

$37 million of real estate, presumably because he knew that the

United States was going to seek forfeiture of my assets and he did not

want what was then the most expensive property in New Zealand

being forfeited to the United States government.

81. It then seems that Simon Power's office informed the Prime Minister's

office of the decision to decline my application (KD-169). I do not

understand the need to do this, unless, as I believe to have been the

case, the Prime Minister's office was interested in my potential

extradition.

82. The only explanation for the contradictory approach to my residency

application and my OIO application is that the Government of the day

engineered my obtaining residence but prevented me from buying real

estate here because it knew that I would not be here for long.

“Brownie points”

83. A further example of New Zealand’s eagerness to use me to win

favour with the United States is the New Zealand Customs Service

encouraging staff to trade information about me for, in the words of a

senior manager at Customs, “brownie points” with the United States.

84. On or about 16 September 2011, the then manager of Customs

Integrated Targeting Operations Centre emailed staff as follows (KD-

170):

During email discussions over night with our Washington

DC CLO around another target he stated that the FBI

would be interested in anything we have on Kim DOTCOM so any information we can proactively feed to them on him will buy you many brownie points.

85. The Integrated Targeting Operations Centre collects personal

information about travellers which Customs is empowered under

20

certain circumstances to pass to other countries. To my knowledge, even after the “brownie points” email became public, and Customs was subjected to extensive criticism for its casual approach to handling personal information, Customs never suggested that it would have been lawful in the circumstances to deal with my personal information in this way.

86. Again, this was before any formal request for assistance had been made by the United States. Despite that, the New Zealand authorities appeared well aware of the United States’ intentions towards me and were clearly eager to help.

Intervention of the former Attorney-General

87. The former Attorney-General, the Honourable Christopher Finlayson QC, has throughout taken an unusually personal involvement in my case and, at times, directly intervened in it. This includes expressly and personally taking control of and denying my requests for access to my personal information, despite the Supreme Court determining this to be my basic legal entitlement in Dotcom v United States of America [2014] 1 NZLR 355.

88. In documents filed in the High Court, Crown Law has described the Honourable Mr Finlayson QC as the person on whom the practical and legal responsibility of advancing the United States’ request for my extradition fell while he held the office of Attorney-General.

89. I believe that the Honourable Mr Finlayson QC has been involved in my case since well before the United States’ formal request for assistance (KD-172) and (KD-180). The Honourable Mr Finlayson QC also attended the meeting on 26 and 27 October 2010 with the then Prime Minister and a Hollywood delegation led by the then President of Warner Bros, Mr Kevin Tsujihara. This was notionally in his capacity as Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. However, he was at that time the Attorney-General and therefore, according to Crown Law, had practical and legal responsibility for my extradition. Given that this is around the time that the “political pressure” was being applied to INZ to process my residency application, and the

21

New Zealand authorities began assisting the United States in earnest

not later than 2 November 2011, I believe it is inevitable that I would

have been discussed at those meetings.

90. The former Attorney-General has blocked my attempts to obtain

information about this and other aspects of my case. In April 2015, in

reliance on the Supreme Court’s finding in Dotcom v United States of

America [2014] 1 NZLR 355 (at [121]-[122]) and the decision of this

court in Dotcom v United States of America [2014] NZHC 2550, I

made requests under the Privacy Act 1993 for personal information

held about me by certain Government departments, including (but not

limited to) the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Ministry

of Business Innovation and Employment, the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of Justice and the New Zealand Police.

On behalf of the then Attorney-General, the then Solicitor-General

responded to those requests by letter dated 5 August 2015 (KD-219).

He said:

In the particular circumstances of this case, the Attorney- General considers, in terms of s 39(b)(ii) of the Privacy Act, the information sought, to the extent it is held by other agencies, is more closely connected with his functions as Attorney-General. Accordingly, I understand most recipient agencies have informed you the request has been transferred to the office of the Attorney-General.

(emphasis added)

91. Having been transferred to Crown Law, my requests were rejected on

the grounds that they “would run to a very substantial number of

documents” and were vexatious. I challenged this refusal in the

Human Rights Review Tribunal and am presently awaiting the

Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal is also considering whether the

decisions to transfer my requests to the Attorney-General was lawful.

Unlawful interception

92. It is well known that the Government Communications Security Bureau

(GCSB) has admitted that it unlawfully intercepted my communications

between 16 December 2011 well before New Zealand had received

22

any formal request for assistance from the United States until 16 February 2012.

93. This unlawful interception is the subject of a separate High Court proceeding (CIV-2013-404-2168 Dotcom v Attorney-General). I do not therefore propose to go into detail about it here. I simply note that, even if it was lawful to spy on a New Zealand permanent resident, spying for the purposes of a copyright infringement case, in which no issues of national security are alleged, does not fall within the objectives of the GCSB as then defined under s 7 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003. The involvement of the GCSB was an extraordinary misuse of state power to assist the United States. So eager was the GCSB to assist that they did so in breach of their own legislation.

Execution of arrest and search warrants

94. The conduct of the Police in planning and executing the search and arrest warrants on 20 January 2012 has also been the subject of separate High Court proceedings, which have since been settled. Again, I do not therefore propose to revisit that conduct here in any detail. In the context of this application, and in particular my allegation that the extradition proceeding was commenced and continued for an improper purpose, I simply note that the deployment by Police of the Special Tactics Group (STG) and the Armed Offenders Squad (AOS) was out of all proportion to a straightforward operation to arrest some middle aged businessmen for alleged copyright infringement at an open and readily accessible property. At least 30 heavily armed STG and AOS officers, carrying pistols and M4 Bushmaster rifles, stormed our home and held our family, staff and guests at gunpoint. Two helicopters and a number of police vehicles were used to deploy the armed officers and other staff.

95. The Police were quick to trumpet the raid in a series of misleading press releases issued while I was in custody and unable to respond (KD-221-KD-225). I believe these press releases were intended to, and did, create a narrative that cast me in an unfavourable light, and

I

14

2002 8

2000 13

2004

1998 14

1996 11

1994 15

1992 13

1990 14

Total

13

KD-002
KD-002

$29,979,679

$26,220,054

$3,703,125

$56,500 $21,906,327 $7,965,284 73%

27%

$37,377,109 $7,719,987

$3,307,114 $26,350,008

$30,216,014

$7,130,015 81%

19%

$32,818,165

$14,541,444

$3,524,569 $14,752,152 $22,263,033 $10,373,763 68%

32%

$15,194,465

$6,617,911 $3,257,879 $5,318,675 $9,676,605 $5,390,605 64%

35%

$18,168,734

$7,599,894 $2,876,506 $7,692,334 $12,041,591 $6,073,251 66%

33%

$9,928,464

$5,425,519

$2,446,940 $2,056,005 $7,453,096 $2,461,076 75%

25%

$12,965,940

$7,801,505 $2,551,470 $2,612,965 $10,023,507 $2,868,129 77%

22%

$6,337,000

$3,817,340

$2,519,660

$0 $4,622,701 $1,710,399 73%

27%

$350,888,210

$218,059,678

$51,209,070

$81,619,462 $245,039,537

$81,966,939

75%

25%

I tThese numbers show how the industry ranks in total campaign giving as compared to more than 80 other industries. Rankings are shown only for

industries (such as the Automotive industry) - not for widely encompassing "sectors" (such as Transportation) or more detailed "categories" (like car dealers).

I

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions of $200 or more from PACs and individuals to federal candidates and from PACs,

soft money (including directly from corporate and union treasuries) and individual donors to political parties and outside spending groups, as reported to

the Federal Election Commission. Donations to Democrats. Donations to Republicans, and the associated percentages are based solely on contributions

to candidates and parties, independent expenditures and electioneering communications are not reflected in the breakdown by party. While election cycies

are shown in charts as 1995, 1998, 2QD0 etc. they actually represent two-year periods. For example, the 2002 election cycle runs from January 1, 2001 to

December 31,2002.

Data for the current election cycle were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, March 09, 2015.

NOTE: Soft money contributions to the nationai parties were not publicly disclosed until the 1991-92 election cycle, and were banned by the Bipartisan

Campaign Finance Reform Act following the 2002 elections. Contributions to Outside Spending groups legalized by the 2010 Citizens United v. Federai

Election Commission Supreme Court decision are iisted in the "SottfOutside Money" column as are donations of "Levin" funds to state and local party

committees. Levin funds were created by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but piease credit the Center for Responsive Politics.

but piease credit the Center for Responsive Politics. Count Cash & Make Change. © O O

Count Cash & Make Change.

©

O

O

O

O I«Ap^sro^

Join our mailing list and get our weekly money- in-politics newsletter.

OpenSecrets.org is your nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S. elections and public policy. Whether you’re a voter, journalist, activist, student or interested citizen, use our free site to shine light on your government. Sign Me Up

About Us

Mission

About the Site Board

Staff

Awards & Accolades

Funders

Financial Information

Employment

Internships

Training Opportunities

Testimonials

Contact Us

Politicians & Elections Presidential

Congressional

Congress

Elections

Congressional Committees

Joint Fundraising Committees

Personal Finances

Outside Spending

Earmarks

Political Parties

2014 Overview

Historical Elecitons

Get Locall

Influence & Lobbying

nterest Groups

Lobbying

Revolving Door

PACs

Organizations

527s

News & Analysis

Resources

OpenSecrets Blog

Learn

Reports

Create

OpenSecrets

in the News

Community

Center Press Releases

Issue Profiles

 

Take Action

Campaign Finance Links

Donate

Mail List Sign-up

httpi.ymediadecoder,blogs,nytimes,com

'2011,11

P

C

|

^ SOPA Will Be Changed to

X

SECTIONS

g;

HOME

Q SEARCH

fiETimrtG

Retirees’ Futures Hinge on

> Candidates' Plans for Social Security

Hinge on > Candidates' Plans for Social Security ®l)e KcUt JSork ®lmcs What Could Raising Taxes

®l)e KcUt JSork ®lmcs

What Could Raising Taxes

on the 1% Do? Surprising Amounts

1 Theranos, a Blood Test Start-Up, Faces F.D.A. Scrutiny

KD-003 St * LOGIN Ct SUBSCRIBE NOW Puerto Rico Governor's Fiscal Oversight Plan Raises Doubts
KD-003
St *
LOGIN
Ct
SUBSCRIBE NOW
Puerto Rico Governor's
Fiscal Oversight Plan
Raises Doubts
Rico Governor's Fiscal Oversight Plan Raises Doubts V a n C l e e f &

Van Cleef & Arpels

»

Media Decoder

Behind the Scenes, Between Ihe Lines

DISCOVER MIDNIGHT PLANETARIUM

Search Media Decoder

SI \RCH

Expect Some Toning Down of Antipiracy Bills, Says Movie Industiy Supporter

By MICHAEL CtEPLY

NOVEMBER 30, 2011 4:27 PM

LOS ANGELES — Look for changes in the proposed antipiracy legislation that has giants in the entertainment and technology industries squared off against each other, but nothing extensive enough to please aU of the legislation’s opponents. That was the message from Michael O’Leaiy, the senior executive vice president for global pohcy and external affairs of the Motion Picture Association ofAmerica, during a telephone news briefing on Wednesday.

“We will come forward with language that will address some of the legitimate concerns” of technology companies that have opposed the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, and a similar Protect I.P. Act in the Senate, Mr. O’Leary said.

He said those who were pushing the far-reaching antipiracy legislation have been huddling with Congressional staff members from both parties and both the House and Senate in the last few days, in an effort to answer some objections raised by Google, Yahoo and others who say the bills reach too far.

Mr. O’Leaiy appeared on the call with Kathy Garmezy, the associate executive director for government and international affairs of the Directors Guild of America, and Scott Harbinson, a government affairs officer with the Internationa] Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.

The proposed bills are intended to combat foreign-based Web sites that traffic in stolen copyrighted content by forcing sites that assist them through searches, payments or other means to sever those connections. Tech companies say that such steps would open the door to huge business and government intervention into the free flow of the Internet.

Mr. O’Leary and his companions on the call declined to say specifically what changes in the bills they might support — and Mr. O’Leaiy strongly cautioned that he believed that some technology companies and public advocates were bound to remain unhappy with modified version of the bills.

<

PREVIOUS POST

CBS Wins With a Fashion Show and Rudolph

NEX-

POST

Piers Moi^an Stru ®les > to Beat King's Rc"ings

ARCHIVE

I Select Morf^

RECENT POSTS

Fox Offers an Early Glimpse of Its New Seaso-i

Tbe Fox network announced four new dramas and Five i ;w comedies It has ordered for the next television season.Read more

See All Media News in One Place

The New York Times’ Media news can now be found al

-j

ie

s

“If s elU rhetoric and there are no proposals, ” he said of the position staked out by the opponents to the bills. “From where I sit, it’s hard to see that as anything but a pretext for running out the clock and preserving the status quo.”

Mr. O’Leaiy and his allies expressed confidence that the legislation would pass in some form. But they declined to say when or how it might move through some considerable opposition in Congress.

“There are lots of hurdles to he overcome,” said Mr. O’Leaiy, who acknowledged that the holidays and the coming turmoil of an election year would not make things any easier.

^

SHARE

KD-004
KD-004

Random House Adds a Big Name in Fitness

David Zinczenko, the ibmier Rodale executive who wrol : the “Eat This, Not That” series, wili write three books on exipcise, diet and nutrition, and form a new imprint. Zinc ink.Read more

NPR Series on Race Aims to Build a Wider Audience m 13

The race, ethnicity and cuiture reporting in NPR’s senes "Changing Races' is part of the network's strategy to “c i better about mirroring Amenca," the chief executive says.Read more

Alec Baldwin Said to Be in Talks to Join NBCt Late-

Night Lineup ■

E/

16

The Emmy-winning actor may repiace Carson Daiy in a

night half hour interview program, according to one exe ntive invoived in the network’s program pl0nning.Reari more.^.

ite-

November 15, 2011

An open letter to the House of Representatives:

KD-005
KD-005

We write to express our concerns about H.R. 3261, the so-called Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). A

very similar bill is pending in the Senate under the name PROTECT-IP Act. In July, more than 100 law professors focused on intellectual property law wrote to express our concerns with that Act; we attach a

copy of that letter below.

While there are some differences between SOPA and PROTECT-IP, nothing in SOPA makes any effort

to address the serious constitutional, innovation, and foreign policy concerns that we expressed in that

letter. Indeed, in many respects SOPA is even worse than PROTECT-IP. Among other infirmities, it would:

• Redefine the standard for copyright infringement on the Internet, changing the definition of inducement in a way that would not only conflict with Supreme Court precedent but would make

YouTube, Google, and numerous other web sites liable for copyright infringement.

• Allow the government to block Internet access to any web site that "facilitated" copyright or

trademark infringement - a term that the Department of Justice currently interprets to require

nothing more than having a link on a web page to another site that turns out to be infringing.

• Allow any private copyright or trademark owner to interfere with the ability of web sites to host

advertising or charge purchases to credit cards, putting enormous obstacles in the path of electronic

commerce.

Most significantly, it would do all of the above while violating our core tenets of due process. By failing to guarantee the challenged web sites notice or an opportunity to be heard in court before their sites are shut down, SOPA represents the most ill-advised and destructive intellectual property legislation in recent

memory.

In sum, SOPA is a dangerous bill. It threatens the most vibrant sector of our economy - Internet commerce. It is directly at odds with the United States' foreign policy of Internet openness, a fact that

repressive regimes will seize upon to justify their censorship of the Internet. And it violates the First

Amendment.

We hope you will review the attached letter, signed by many of the most prominent law professors

in the country, and register your concerns about SOPA.

Very truly yours.

Professor Mark A. Lemley Stanford Law School

Professor David S. Levine Elon University School of Law

Professor David Post Temple University School of Law

KD-006
KD-006

Professors' Letter in Opposition to "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011" (PROTECT-IP Act of 2011, S. 968)

July 5, 2011

To Members of the United States Congress:

The undersigned are 110 professors from 31 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico who teach and write about intellectual property, Internet law, innovation, and the First Amendment. We strongly urge the members of Congress to reject the PROTECT-IP Act (the "Act"). Although the problems the Act attempts to address - online copyright and trademark infringement - are serious ones presenting new and difficult enforcement challenges, the approach taken in the Act has grave constitutional infirmities, potentially dangerous consequences for the stability and security of the Internet's addressing system, and will undermine United States foreign policy and strong support of free expression on the Internet around the world. The Act would allow the government to break the Internet addressing system. It requires Internet service providers, and operators of Internet name servers, to refuse to recognize Internet domains that a court considers "dedicated to infringing activities." But rather than wait until a Web site is actually judged infringing before imposing the equivalent of an Internet death penalty, the Act would allow courts to order any Internet service provider to stop recognizing the site even on a temporary restraining order or preliminary injimction issued the same day the complaint is filed. Courts could issue such an order even if the owner of that domain name was never given notice that a case against it had been filed at all. The Act goes still further. It requires credit card providers, advertisers, and search engines to refuse to deal with the owners of such sites. For example, search

KD-007
KD-007

engines are required to "(i) remove or disable access to the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the court order; or (ii) not serve a hypertext link to such Internet site." In the case of credit card companies and advertisers, they must stop doing business not only with sites the government has chosen to sue but any site that a private copyright or trademark owner claims is predominantly infringing. Giving this enormous new power not just to the government but to any copyright and trademark owner would not only disrupt the operations of the allegedly infringing web site without a final judgment of wrongdoing, but would make it extraordinarily difficult for advertisers and credit card companies to do business on the Internet.

Remarkably, the bill applies to domain names outside the United States, even if they are registered not in the .com but, say, the .uk or .fr domains. It even applies to sites that have no connection with the United States at all, so long as they allegedly "harm holders" of US intellectual property rights.

The proposed Act has three major problems that require its rejection:

1. Suppressing speech without notice and a proper hearing: The Supreme

Court has made it abundantly clear that governmental action to suppress speech taken

prior to "a prompt final judicial decision

unlawful is a presumptively unconstitutional "prior restraint,"^ the "most serious and

in an adversary proceeding" that the speech is

^ Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58-60 (U.S. 1965) (statute requiring theater owner to receive a

license before exhibiting allegedly obscene film was unconstitutional because the statute did not "assure a prompt final judicial decision" that the film was obscene); see also Bantam Books v. Sullivan,

372 U.S. 58 (1962) (State Commission's letters suggesting removal of books already in circulation is a

"prior administrative restraint" and unconstitutional because there was no procedure for "an almost immediate judicial determination of the validity of the restraint"); Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana,

489 U.S. 46, 51-63 (1989) (procedure allowing courts to order pre-trial seizure of allegedly obscene films

based upon a finding of probable cause was an unconstitutional prior restraint; publications "may not be taken out of circulation completely until there has been a determination of [unlawful speech] after an adversary hearing."). See also Center For Democracy & Technology v. Pappert, 337 F. Supp. 2d 606, 651 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (statute blocking access to particular domain names and IP addresses an unconstitutional prior restraint).

KD-008
KD-008

the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights/'^ permissible only in the

narrowest range of circumstances. The Constitution "require[s] a court, before material

is completely removed from circulation,

to make afinal determination that material is

[unlawful] after an adversary hearing."^ The Act fails this Constitutional test. It authorizes courts to take websites "out of circulation" - to make them imreachable by and invisible to Internet users in the United

States and abroad — immediately upon application by the Attorney General after an ex parte hearing. No provision is made for any review of a judge's ex parte determination, let alone for a "prompt and final judicial determination, after an adversary proceeding," that the website in question contains unlawful material. This falls far short of what the Constitution requires before speech can be eliminated from public circulation.^

2. Breaking the Internet's infrastructure: If the government uses the power to

demand that individual Internet service providers make individual, country-specific decisions about who can find what on the Internet, the interconnection principle at the

^ Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976).

^ CDT V. Pappert, 337 F.Supp.2d, at 657 (emphasis added).

'^he Act would also suppress vast amounts of protected speech containing no infringing content whatsoever, and is unconstitutional on that ground as well. The current architecture of the Internet permits large numbers of independent individual websites to operate under a single domain name by the use of unique sub-domains; indeed, many web hosting services operate hundreds or thousands of websites under a single domain name (e.g., www.aol.com,www.terra.es,www.blogspot.com). By requiring suppression of all sub-domains associated with a single offending domain name, the Act "burns down the house to roast the pig," ACLU v. Reno, 521 U.S. 844, 882 (1997), failing the

fundamental requirement imposed by the First Amendment that it implement the “least restrictive means of advancing a compelling state interest." ACLU v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 240, 251 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting SoWe Common, v. FCC, 492 U.S. at 126 (emphasis added)); cf O'Brien, 391 U.S. at 377 (even the lower "intermediate scrutiny" standard requires that any "incidental restriction on First Amendment

freedoms

337 F.Supp.2d, at 649 (domain name blocking ["DNS filtering"] resulted in unconstitutional "overblocking" of protected speech whenever "the method is used to block a web site on an online community or a Web Hosting Service, or a web host that hosts web sites as sub-pages under a single domain name," and noting that one service provider "blocked hundreds of thousands of web sites unrelated to" the targeted unlawful conduct); see also id., at 640 (statute resulted in blocking fewer than 400 websites containing unlawful child pornography but in excess of one million websites without any unlawful material).

be no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest"); see also CDT v Pappert,

KD-009
KD-009

very heart of the Internet is at risk. The Intemef s Domain Name System ("DNS") is a

foundational building block upon which the Internet has been built and on which its

continued functioning critically depends. The Act will have potentially catastrophic

consequences for the stability and security of the DNS. By authorizing courts to order

the removal or replacement of database entries from domain name servers and domain

name registries, the Act imdermines the principle of domain name universality - that all

domain name servers, wherever they may be located on the network, will return the

same answer when queried with respect to the Internet address of any specific domain

name - on which countless numbers of Internet applications, at present, are based.

Even more troubling, the Act will critically subvert efforts currently underway - and

strongly supported by the U.S. government - to build more robust security protections

into the DNS protocols; in the words of a number of leading technology experts, several

of whom have been intimately involved in the creation and continued evolution of the

DNS for decades;

The DNS is central to the operation, usability, and scalability of the Internet; almost every other protocol relies on DNS resolution to operate correctly. It is among a handful of protocols that that are the core upon which the Internet is Mandated DNS filtering [as authorized by the Act] would be minimally effective and would present technical challenges that could frustrate important security initiatives. Additionally, it would promote development of techniques and software that circumvent use of the DNS. These actions would threaten the DNS's ability to provide universal naming, a primary source of the Internet's

PROTECT IP's

value as a single, unified, global communications

DNS filtering will be evaded through trivial and often automated changes through easily accessible and installed software plugins. Given this strong potential for evasion, the long-term benefits of using mandated DNS filtering to combat infringement seem modest at best.®

^ Crocker, et al., "Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill," available at http://www.circleid.com/pdf/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper- Final.pdf. The authors describe in detail how implementation of the Act's mandatory DNS filtering scheme will conflict with and undermine development of the "DNS Security Extensions," a "critical set of

KD-010
KD-010

Moreover, the practical effect of the Act would be to kill innovation by new technology companies in the media space. Anyone who starts such a company is at risk of having their source of customers and revenue - indeed, their website itself -­ disappear at a moment's notice. The Act's draconian obligations foisted on Internet service providers, financial services firms, advertisers, and search engines, which will have to consult an ever-growing list of prohibited sites they are not allowed to connect to or do business with, will further hamper the Internet's operations and effectiveness.

3. Undermining United States' leadership in supporting and defending free speech and the free exchange of information on the Internet: The Act represents a retreat from the United States' strong support of freedom of expression and the free exchange of information and ideas on the Internet. At a time when many foreign governments have dramatically stepped up their efforts to censor Internet communications,® the Act would incorporate into U.S. law - for the first time - a

security updates" for the DNS under development (with the strong support of both the U.S. government and private industry) since the mid-1990s.

®Secretary of State Clinton, in her "Remarks on Internet Freedom" delivered earlier this year, put it this

way:

In the last year, we've seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the internet. In Vietnam, access to popular social networking sites has suddenly disappeared. And last Friday in Egypt, 30 bloggers and

activists were

working furiously to erase my words from the records of history. But history itself has already

condemned these tactics.

As I speak to you today, government censors somewhere are

[T]he new iconic infrastructure of our age is the Internet. Instead of division, it stands for connection. But even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping

Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent

up in place of visible

their people from accessing portions of the world's networks. They've expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in

With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new

non-violent political

information curtain is descending across much of the world.

KD-011
KD-011

principle more closely associated with those repressive regimes: a right to insist on the removal of content from the global Internet, regardless of where it may have originated or be located, in service of the exigencies of domestic law. China, for example, has (justly) been criticized for blocking free access to the Internet with its Great Firewall. But even China doesn't demand that search engines outside China refuse to index or link to other Web sites outside China. The Act does just that.

The United States has been the world's leader, not just in word but in deed, in codifying these principles of speech and exchange of information. Requiring Internet service providers, website operators, search engine providers, credit card companies and other financial intermediaries, and Internet advertisers to block access to websites because of their content would constitute a dramatic retreat from the United States' long-standing policy, implemented in section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, section 512 of the Copyright Act, and elsewhere, of allowing Internet intermediaries to focus on empowering communications by and among users, free from the need to monitor, supervise, or play any other gatekeeping or policing role with respect to those commimications. These laws represent the hallmark of United States leadership in defending speech and their protections are significantly responsible for making the Internet into the revolutionary communications medium that it is today. They reflect a policy that has not only helped make the United States the world leader in a wide range of Internet-related industries, but it has also enabled the Internet's uniquely decentralized structure to serve as a global platform for innovation, speech, collaboration, civic engagement, and economic growth. The Act would undermine that leadership and dramatically diminish the Internet's capability to be a functioning commimications medium. In conclusion, passage of the Act will compromise our ability to defend the principle of the single global Internet - the Internet that looks the

KD-012
KD-012

same to, and allows free and unfettered communication between, users located in

Boston and Bucharest, free of locally-imposed censorship regimes. As such, it may

represent the biggest threat to the Internet in its history.

While copyright infringement on the Internet is a very real problem, copyright

owners already have an ample array of tools at their disposal to deal with the problem.

We shouldn't add the power to break the Internet to that list.

Signed,^

Professor John R. Allison McCombs School of Business University of Texas at Austin

Professor Brook K. Baker Northeastern University School of Law

Professor Derek E. Bambauer Brooklyn Law School

Professor Margreth Barrett Hastings College of Law University of California-San Francisco

Professor Mark Bartholomew University at Buffalo Law School

Professor Ann M. Bartow Pace Law School

Professor Marsha Baum University of New Mexico School of Law

Professor Yochai Benkler Harvard Law School

^ All institutions are listed for identification purposes only.

Professor Oren Bracha University of Texas School of Law

Professor Annemarie Bridy University of Idaho College of Law

Professor Dan L. Burk University of Califomia-Irvine School of Law

Professor Irene Calboli Marquette University School of Law

Professor Adam Candeub Michigan State University College of Law

Professor Michael Carrier Rutgers Law School - Camden

Professor Michael W. Carroll Washington College of Law American University

Professor Brian W. Carver School of Information University of California-Berkeley

Professor Anupam Chander University of California-Davis School of Law

Professor Andrew Chin University of North Carolina School of Law

Professor Ralph D. Clifford University of Massachusetts School of Law

Professor Julie E. Cohen Georgetown University Law Center

Professor G. Marcus Cole Stanford Law School

KD-013
KD-013

Professor Kevin Collins Washington University-St. Louis School of Law

Professor Danielle M. Conway University of Hawai'i Richardson School of Law

Professor Dennis S. Corgill St. Thomas University School of Law

Professor Christopher A. Cotropia University of Richmond School of Law

Professor Thomas Cotter University of Minnesota School of Law

Professor Julie Cromer Yotmg Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Professor Ben Depoorter Hastings College of Law University of California - San Francisco

Professor Eric B. Easton University of Baltimore School of Law

Anthony Falzone Director, Fair Use Project Stanford Law School

Professor Nita Farahany Vanderbilt Law School

Professor Thomas G. Field, Jr. University of New Hampshire School of Law

Professor Sean Flynn Washington College of Law American University

KD-014
KD-014

Professor Brett M. Frischmann Cardozo Law School Yeshiva University

Professor Jeanne C. Fromer Fordham Law School

Professor William T. Gallagher Golden Gate University School of Law

Professor Laura N. Gasaway University of North Carolina School of Law

Professor Deborah Gerhardt University of North Carolina School of Law

Professor Llew Gibbons University of Toledo College of Law

Professor Eric Goldman Santa Clara University School of Law

Professor Marc Greenberg Golden Gate University School of Law

Professor James Grimmelman New York Law School

Professor Leah Chan Grinvald St. Louis University School of Law

Professor Richard Gruner John Marshall Law School

Professor Bronwyn H. Hall Haas School of Business University of California at Berkeley

KD-015
KD-015

Professor Robert A. Heverly Albany Law School Union University

Professor Laura A. Heymann Marshall-Wythe School of Law College of William & Mary

Professor Herbert Hovenkamp University of Iowa College of Law

Professor Dan Hunter New York Law School

Professor David R. Johnson New York Law School

Professor Faye E. Jones Florida State University College of Law

Professor Amy Kapcz5mski University of California-Berkeley Law School

Professor Dennis S. Karjala Arizona State University College of Law

Professor Anne Klinefelter University of North Carolina College of Law

Professor Mary LaFrance William Boyd Law School University of Nevada - Las Vegas

Professor Amy L. Landers McGeorge Law School University of the Pacific

Professor Mark Lemley Stanford Law School

KD-016
KD-016

Professor Lawrence Lessig Harvard Law School

Professor David S. Levine Elon University School of Law

Professor Yvette Joy Liebesman St. Louis University School of Law

Professor Peter Linzer University of Houston Law Center

Professor Lydia Pallas Loren Lewis & Clark Law School

Professor Michael J. Madison University of Pittsburgh School of Law

Professor Gregory P. Magarian Washington University-St. Louis School of Law

Professor Phil Malone Harvard Law School

Professor Christian E. Mammen Hastings College of Law University of California-San Francisco

Professor Jonathan Masur University of Chicago Law School

Professor Andrea Matwysh)m Wharton School of Business University of Pennsylvania Professor J. Thomas McCarthy University of San Francisco School of Law

Professor William McGeveran University of Minnesota Law School

KD-017
KD-017

Professor Stephen Mcjohn Suffolk University Law School

Professor Mark P. McKenna Notre Dame Law School

Professor Hiram Melendez-Juarbe University of Puerto Rico School of Law

Professor Viva Moffat University of Denver College of Law

Professor Ira Nathenson St. Thomas University School of Law

Professor Tyler T. Ochoa Santa Clara University School of Law

Professor David S. Olson Boston College Law School

Professor Barak Y. Orbach University of Arizona College of Law

Professor Kristen Osenga University of Richmond School of Law

Professor Frank Pasquale Seton Hall Law School

Professor Aaron Perzanowski Wayne State University Law School

KD-018
KD-018

Malla Pollack Co-author, Callman on Trademarks, Unfair Competition, and Monopolies

Professor David G. Post Temple University School of Law

Professor Connie Davis Powell

Baylor University School of Law

Professor Margaret Jane Radin University of Michigan Law School

Professor Glenn Reynolds University of Tennessee Law School

Professor David A. Rice Roger Williams University School of Law

Professor Neil Richards Washington University-St. Louis School of Law

Professor Michael Risch Villanova Law School

Professor Betsy Rosenblatt Whittier Law School

Professor Matthew Sag Loyola University-Chicago School of Law

Professor Pamela Samuelson University of California-Berkeley Law School

Professor Sharon K. Sandeen Hamline University School of Law

Professor Jason M. Schultz UC Berkeley Law School

Professor Jeremy Sheff St. John's University School of Law

Professor Jessica Silbey Suffolk University Law School

Professor Brenda M. Simon Thomas Jefferson School of Law

KD-019
KD-019

Professor David E. Sorkin John Marshall Law School

Professor Christopher Jon Sprigman University of Virginia School of Law

Professor Katherine J. Strandburg NYU Law School

Professor Madhavi Sunder University of California-Davis School of Law

Professor Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown University Law Center

Professor Deborah Tussey Oklahoma City University School of Law

Professor Barbara van Schewick Stanford Law School

Professor Eugene Volokh UCLA School of Law

Professor Sarah K. Wiant William & Mary Law School

Professor Darryl C. Wilson Stetson University College of Law

Professor Jane K. Winn University of Washington School of Law

Professor Peter K. Yu Drake University Law School

Professor Tim Zick William & Mary Law

KD-020
KD-020
KD-021
KD-021
httpi/y'vvVvT-v.iopastrike.com/number:/ p - 0 SOPA STFUKE Largest onli IN NUMBERS AND SCREESHOTS r'^i
httpi/y'vvVvT-v.iopastrike.com/number:/
p - 0
SOPA STFUKE
Largest onli
IN NUMBERS AND SCREESHOTS
r'^i

10,000,000

PETITION SIGNATURES

Through Free Press, Don't Censor the Net, Avaaz, Credo and MoveOn

OVER 8,000,000

CALLS ATTEMPTED

Through nthipedio's call look up tool and hundreds of thousands morefrom partner sites

a

OVER 4,000,000

EMAILS SENT

Through EFF, FFTF and Demand Progress, Wikipedia wasn’t even counting

FFTF and Demand Progress, Wikipedia wasn’t even counting 115,000+ SITES PARTICIPATED IN THE STRIKE 45,000 on

115,000+

SITES PARTICIPATED IN THE STRIKE

45,000 on Wprdpress.cOTn alone, many mor^r not recorded

ALMOST 1,000,000,000

PEOPLE WERE BLOCKED FROM WEBSITES

rTWITTER STATS*

M of Ittk VeAnejJq<i, bt-foft ye.»l C■el^3^■ ^ork^l^^ jas cVcftctnitil 2,200,000 ■•^sofa 105,000

M of Ittk VeAnejJq<i, bt-foft

ye.»l C■el^3^■ ^ork^l^^ jas cVcftctnitil

2,200,000

■•^sofa

105,000

wik.«pe.ii»a

52,000

=^5opa5+r'ik.t

9,000

’^biaKou+sopa

411,000

»i>vpa

159,000

' si-ofsopa

17,000

*sopablack.c>at

5<Hxfsrj

A ac.Tttorsb\p amtotan Jaj

lU, soil

No^n.aoii

^fm Tan 1^, 501^

riFA

SoTft 3^an U, 3013.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAA*

KD-022
KD-022

*10 OF THESE ARE SOLID, WE NEED TO KEEP PUSHING

OUR FAVORITE PROTESTERS

F

1

ixrz

Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge

>

WiK

CMUct your representatives.
CMUct your representatives.

over a decade, we have spent millions of hours buildiag

largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the . Congress is censtderiog legislation that could fually

damage *e free and open interneL For 24 houra» to mbe awareness, we are blocking out Wikipedia. Leam more.

Li

Wikipedia

REDOn IS DOWN

KD-023
KD-023

SOPA and PIPA damage WordPress. today we fight back.

Dearreddlt.

Today, (or 12 hours, raddtt.com goos darlf to raise awareness of two bills In congress: H.R.3261 'Stop Online Piracy AcT and S.gSB'PROTlCT IP*, which could radically cha^ the landsc^ of the Internet. These bills

provide overly broad mechanisms for enforcement of copyright which would restrict innoyatlon and threaten the existence of websites with user- submitted content, such as raddit.

: iternet

Please take today as a day of focus and action to learn about these destructive reality. bills and do what you can to prevent them from becoming

Reddit

Google End Piracy, Not Liberty

I

^o^Tle

Mort about SOPA and PIPA

Community

More about SOPA and PIPA

M«fr>ben of Conpm ar» trying to do the rifht thing by going aftn- pirat b and coLjnt«rf*rt«fs bur SOPA and PtPA art the wrong way :o do ii.

1, SOPA and PIPA would censor the Web

The U.S. government could order the blocJimg of shB using methods Similar to those employed by Chms. Among other things, search engines could be forced lo delete entire vwbsiies from their search reSuhS-That^ why 41 human rights organiutionsand no prominent kiwprofessors have expressed grave concerm about the bills

Videos

Prolact laAct Break^^ Internet

 

rtmlmilw^rwtwani R trtOh'1 n«fk,

^

VtdilMdlfaMWlMIMitL

V ^PBjMTCiTlwUlMtbllkaVif

* ^^^Partertarmant ndixtry,

PROTECT-

Z SOPA and PIPA would be job-killers because they would create a new era of
Z SOPA and PIPA would be job-killers because they would
create a new era of uncertainty for American butiness
Law abiding US. inlemet companin would havelo monitor everything men
knV to or upload or ^ce th« nsk of (Ime-consumirtg litigation. That^ why AOU
EBay, raceboek, Google, Linkedln, Metifla, Tviiiter. Yahoo and Zynga wrotea
letter to Congress sayingthese bils "pose a senous risk to our industry’s
cominued track record of innovation and Job<reai ion.'Ii’s also why SSef
Amenta's mos: successfulventurecapitaiistsexpressed concemthat PIPA
KD-024
KD-024
KD-024 NYC Protest WORDPRESS.ORG PROTESTS THE PROTECT IP ACT M u 7 wcMtH m blKtodouttod«yto pntwt

NYC Protest

WORDPRESS.ORG PROTESTS THE PROTECT IP ACT

Mu 7 wcMtH m blKtodouttod«yto pntwt giimwed

kgMiboD that thTHteu bteniet

freedoRLOkeStopIatefnel Wildpcdia.nteill Pincy Act (SOPA) aad ^ ProtMl IP Act CPtPA). Prcm penooiJ blogt to

frxHDbdD» puHd. incuo witx^ Ibc video b«km t0 UwD how thk tegahtknt wm attnet Fitedon, tbea mtoI] down to ulcc Mtion.

LEARN MORE

Fitedon, tbea mto I] down to ulcc Mtion. LEARN MORE » ‘ t Wordpress petergabriel.com T.

»

t

Wordpress

petergabriel.com

T. Mrtiti

iREAL'iOHI-DlOl

t Wordpress petergabriel.com T. Mrtiti iREAL'iOHI-DlOl This year is going to be a very crueial year

This year is going to be a very crueial year for the fate of digital rights and freedoms on the internet. We strongly support the campaign against both the Protect IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act. For that reason our website will be down today in support of the campaign.

“Please check out http://www.avaaz.org/en/save

the internet/ifyou want to read more/sign the

petition.

Thank you."

Peter Gabriel

Peter Gabriel

and

KITTEN BBQ

the internet/ ifyou want to read more/sign the pe titi on. Thank you." Peter Gabriel Peter
KD-025
KD-025
KD-025 OatMeal SAVETH[INTERNET r 1 □ Black out my blogs for the rest of the day

OatMeal

SAVETH[INTERNET r 1

□ Black out my blogs for the rest of the day to protest PIPA.

You can toggle this on your blog's Senings page.

Thanks to action by a broad and bipartisan coairtion of Intsfriet users, companies, and

inlerrtioned bu1 deeply flawed bill that would use Internet censorship to combat overseas

But nevertheless, the Senate is continuing to move forward — and fast ■ with Its equally dangerous version of the bill, called PIPA. the Protect-IP Act. As written, PIPA would import censorship and surveillance techniques pioneered by countries like China and Iran, reversing longstanding U.S. policy on Internet freedom, betraying U.S. First Amendment values,

Kamaninn m tr etanHirwi ai

irtrl tKa utrsrIH

tKraataninn rti ir inK-/'roatinn inrv%tratnra

TumbLr

anrl

rti ir inK-/'roatinn inrv%tratnra TumbLr anrl HANDS OFF THE INTERNET! r I h k mDGCKPOBT DrudgeReport

HANDS OFF THE INTERNET!

r I h

k

mDGCKPOBT

DrudgeReport

STOP SOPA/ PIPA

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo ““'““•““E!! I □ E Q Don't Censor the Web. Tdi Congress Noon SOPAard

““'““•““E!! I □

E Q

Don't Censor the Web.

Tdi Congress Noon SOPAard PiPA

Gooj

Censoring Wired

Al

W red

Don't Censo

the Web.

Tell Congress No on SOPA and P

Wired

503: Service Unavailable

Bo^ Boing is offline today, because the US Senate Is considering legMalion that would certainly kill uS forever. The legislaBon is called the PnOflECXT IP Act (PIPA), and would put us In legal jeopardy if we linked to a site anywhere online that had any Hnks to copyright infringamant

This would unmake the Web, just as proposed In the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

more information on this btkI other issues central to your treodom online.

Thanks,

ThaBoingsrs

BoingBoing

KD-026
KD-026

Today, the Internet learned to defend itself.

We could still lose

But things will never be the same.

REMEMBER!

THE SENATE RETURNS MONDAY TO VOTE ON PIPA

Senators need to be called every day that week until they vote no on cloture.

be called every day that week until they vote no on cloture. SENATE SWITCHBOARD: (202) 224-3121

SENATE SWITCHBOARD:

(202) 224-3121

• OetoToPiPMII

»QtWlflwiW*

»OelATdiirMM

sOpleVpwMIk

J Od 14 roiPV«i«

JOp|pT«err^i

■UMiVeurSnM

rtUMVoaSmlan

kiM Yqu> SanMan

Uari Y«u S«fcn

«Um IY<u iM 2rr<ii .

•tkatatBssMa

<rOB^tp«t<A

«QotoP

(to Id traarMi

 

•hteVwfa-M

eWMYwftmn

nWMVayrB*^

°MM(YaiirSM

*Ogi

•OouTwt^

*MWHl

lYMl

 

• Um'trnrl

•QstoTopnMi iVwi

*0»lo1«prt«L

pb»

*Prw,

dU,

Strltei! •

^Vitl

Oob TomM*

IMiVh

*pi*r

qU^Vw I

*Uiitvuapw

■Qa(

*wm

•Pn»

jit He FttUte.

KD-027
KD-027

FIGHTFORTHEFUTURE.ORG / AMERICANCENSORSHIP.ORG / SOPASTRIKE.COM

Designed by Ivan Tohnadrev - dribbble.cam/itolrnach

B httpi;//petition:,whitehouse,gov/response/combating-online P

fl 0

Combating Online Piracy

x|

the WHITE HOUSE

puESiuEi^-iiAitACtc obama

Online Piracy x| the WHITE HOUSE puESiuEi^-iiAitACtc obama BRIEFING ROOM ISSUES THE ADMINISTRATION PARTICIPATE PEOPLE

BRIEFING ROOM

ISSUES

THE ADMINISTRATION

PARTICIPATE

PEOPLE

YOUR VOICE IN OUR GOVERNMENT

^ CREATE A PETITION

OPEN PETITIONS

RESPONSES

HOW & WHY

KD-028 Contact Us ^ Get EmajI Updates ^ Q. 1600 PENN
KD-028
Contact Us ^
Get EmajI Updates ^
Q.
1600 PENN

Help make We the People even better. Share your feedback on how this new platform can improve.

Share Your Feedback Q

Log in | Create an Account

OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE RESFONSE TO

VETO the SOPA bill and any other future bills that threaten to diminish the free flow of Information and 1 other petition

This response was published on January 13, 2012.

Combating Online Piracy while Protecting an Open and Innovative Internet

By Victoria Espinel, Aneesh Chopra, and Howard Schmidt

Thanks for taking the time to sign this petition. Both your words and actions illustrate the importance of

maintaining an open and democratic Internet

Right now. Congress is debating a few pieces of legislation concerning the very real issue of online

piracy, including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the PROTECT IP Act and the Online Protection and

Digital ENforcement Act (OPEN). We want to take this opportunity to tell you what the Administration will

support—and whal we will not support. Any effective legislation should reflect a wide range of

stakeholders, including everyone from content creators to the engineers that build and maintain the

Infrastructure of the Internet.

Helpful Hints

Creating a duplicate or similar petition will make it harder for you to get an official response. Instead, sign and help promote the one that has already been created.

Recent Petitions

Recent Responses

CREATE A PETITION

CREATE A PETITION

While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious

legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, Increases

cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.

Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful

activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. Across the

globe, the openness of the Internet is increasingly central to innovation in business, government, and

society and it must be protected. To minimize this risk, new legislation must be nanowly targeted only at

sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law. cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and

be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal aclivity. Any provision covering

CREATE A PETITION

Internet inlermedianes such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines

must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private nghts of action that could encourage

unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.

We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the

Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through

manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the

DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity

and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online We must avoid legislation thal drives

users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the

deployment of DNSSEC, at risk

Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, and threatens jobs

for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and

innovative companies and entrepreneurs It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews,

and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the

vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the

worst online pirates beyond our borders. That is why the Administration calis on ali sides to work

together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new

legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while slaying true to the

principles outlined above in this response. We should never let criminals hide behind a hollow embrace

of legitimate American values.

CREATE A PETITION

CREATE A PETITION

CREATE A PETITION

This is not just a matter for legislalion. We expect and encourage all private parties, including both

content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures

and best practices to reduce online piracy.

So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don't limit your opinion to what's the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what's right Already, many of members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to

those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue turther with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions. Details on that will follow in the coming days.

KD-029 CREATE A PETITION
KD-029
CREATE A PETITION

Washington needs to hear your best Ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money oft the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge. CREATE A PETITION

Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and Innovation. Again, thank you for taking the time to participate in this important process. We hope you’ll continue to be part of it.

Victoria Espinel is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator el Office of Management and Budget

Aneesti Cftopra is the U.S. Chief Technology Officer and Assistant to the President and Associate

Director for Technology at the Office of Science and Technology Policy

Howard Schmidt is Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff

EXECUTIVE

Politics

KD-030 I g II B m EXCLUSIVE: Chris Dodd, X
KD-030
I
g
II
B
m EXCLUSIVE: Chris Dodd,
X

EXCLUSIVE: Chris Dodd warns of Hollywood backlash against Obama over anti-piracy biil

Published January 19, 2012 ■ FoxNews.com

anti-piracy biil Published January 19, 2012 ■ FoxNews.com f/fOX ^EV.S, \\ N E V ' n

f/fOX

^EV.S,

\\

NEV'

n

s

NOW PLAYtNG

Obama's Disney appearance in battleground state Fiorida

!

.

Disney appearance in battleground state Fiorida ! . iSPECIALi REPORT + ra Hollywood’s top lobbyist and

iSPECIALi

REPORT

+

ra

Hollywood’s top lobbyist and former Sen. Chris Dodd is threatening to cut off campaign funds to President Obama's re-election effort because of anger over the White House appearing to side with tech companies in a bitter fight over anti-piracy legislation.

In an exclusive interview with Fox News, Dodd fired off a warning to Obama - his former Senate Democratic colleague in this election year - "don't take us for granted."

"Candidly, those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake," Dodd told Fox News. "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."

Dodd, who became CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America after leaving the Senate in 2011, noted the movie "Avatar" was stolen by online pirates 21 million times. Such acts, he said, threaten to

decimate his industry.

KD-031
KD-031

"You can complain and say, well, actors make a lot of money and they don't have to worry about this," said

Dodd. "You tell that to that camera guy, you tell that to that makeup artist, you tell that to that truck driver out there who made, makes a living because they work in this industry."

"Avatar" was made by 20th Century Fox which, like Fox News Channel, is owned by NewsCorp. Rupert

Murdoch, chairman and CEO of NewsCorp, has also been outspoken in promoting two pieces of anti-piracy

legislation, the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act, known respectively as "SOPA" and "PIPA," to

protect copyrighted material.

More on this

* Feds say 7 behind celeb-endorsed Megaupload.com ran massive, worldwide piracy ring

Tech companies like Google charge that such a crackdown would result in censorship. Dodd said he was

caught off-guard when the White House released a written statement last Saturday sharing some of the tech

community's concerns about the legislation.

"I would caution people don't make the assumption that because the quote ’Hollywood community' has been

historically supportive of Democrats, which they have, don't make the false assumptions this year that

because we did it in years past, we will do it this year," said Dodd. "These issues before us - this is the only

issue that goes right to the heart of this industry."

Vice President Biden, in Reno, Nev. on Thursday, said that he met with tech officials Wednesday night and

was meeting Thursday evening with Hollywood studio chiefs to try and broker a legislation deal.

A White House official later told Fox News the vice president isn’t brokering a deal, suggesting Biden

misspoke.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney earlier this week stressed the administration did not take sides last

Saturday and is simply trying to find the right balance to come up with reform that both sides can live with.

"Our firm belief is that we need to do something about online piracy by foreign websites, but we need to do it

in a way that does not impinge upon a free and open Internet," Carney said.

Meanwhile, it’s unclear if Dodd will follow through on the threats — or whether it will matter. Hollywood has so far ponied up over $4.1 million to the Obama re-election campaign. That's already higher than the $3.7

million it gave him in the 2008 campaign, according to Opensecrets.org. Several months remain for more

money to flow.

In addition, any lost Hollywood support could be made up with votes and dollars from the tech community,

which is lobbying the issue just as aggressively.

Fox News has learned from Democratic sources that several tech company officials attended a fundraiser for

the president in Washington last Friday, one day before the White House publicly expressed its concerns about the proposed legislation that angered Hollywood so much.

While the fundraising event itself was on the president’s public schedule, details of who attended were not

released by the White House last Friday. Fox News on Thursday asked the Obama campaign to release the

names of attendees but so far that has not been done.

KD-032
KD-032

An Obama campaign official did confirm "the event included both supporters who work for technology companies and those who do not."

The campaign official said there was no connection between Friday's fundraiser and Saturday's announcement on the legislation, and noted the president does not take money from federal lobbyists so none was in attendance at the fundraiser. Other company officials for some of the tech companies, however, were there.

The president's re-election team also notes it has a broad base of financial support, and does not seem to be sweating any potential cutoff of more money than it's already received from Hollywood.

"This campaign is fueled by donations from more than 1.3 million Americans who come from different backgrounds and might disagree on some issues but contribute to the campaign because they believe in the president's vision to restore economic security for the middle class and to build an economy that rewards hard work and responsibility," said the Obama campaign official.

KD-033
KD-033

TRANSCRIPT OF A TELEPHONE CALL BETWEEN KIM DOTCOM AND THOMAS HART, JR.

Recording Number 1:

Kim Dotcom

Thomas Hart

Kim Dotcom

Thomas Hart

Kim Dotcom

Thomas Hart

Recording Number 2:

Kim Dotcom

I will, I will watch the

Obama

Yeah.

Movie tomorrow.

Watch that and then

if you like it

Yeah

Like he did, he, he, that was the first thing he said because the last time I

saw him I gave him another copy, he told me he had seen part of it before but them Michelle took it from him and left it in their Chicago house because she had some friends over and they watched it, and so when I gave him another one he said he would watch it, sure enough he did and he mentioned it to me, he said it was really good, and we’re updating it now.

Now is it your, is your feeling

and your understanding that there is a desire

for some sort of diplomatic solution after the election?

Thomas Hart Yes, yes, yes, that’s my feeling and that’s, that’s what, I actually think he would, he didn’t say it but he’s aware of the problems, he doesn’t like to be embarrassed, this has the potential to be an embarrassment to him whether its, you know, in his first term or second term, he wants to start his second term off better, that’s what he said, I want to start my second term off better than I finished my first term. So.

Kim Dotcom

[Laughter] That’s good.

Thomas Hart He, he, yeah and I think, you know, it would be just as well for him to clean the slate on this and, and you know start anew. Now how that is done, you know, I don’t know and it is a complicated procedure for, you know, various reasons but I think he would welcome as I have articulated from the beginning an industry solution that he could then, you know, endorse and applaud rather than, you know, pursue this course for the next year or two, it’s just it, you know, it’s not, it’s not, it’s not going to be worthwhile for, for him or anyone else really at this point to just keep grinding the thing down.

Kim Dotcom

Well sounds, sounds.

Thomas Hart

So yeah, I, I,

I do think he will do that.

KD-034
KD-034

Kim Dotcom

Sounds good Thomas, I think this is an interesting development, I’m happy to hear that he is aware that things, you know, are not.

Thomas Hart

Are not going, are not going as well

as he expected, that, that was what he

is going to anticipate. I’m, I’m aware that, that this matter has not gone as

well as we expected.

That was, you know, virtually a quote and that he’s

not going to do anything dramatically between now and November, but after the election he will have meetings with all secretaries and, you know, be more familiar with the matter and will be open to a solution at that time.

Kim Dotcom

Yeah. Now let me

ask you this, you know the understanding is that Biden

is

the driver behind all of this, even if Mr O wants to change course wouldn’t

he need him to go along and be happy with it because, you know, I, I don’t see him being reasonable because, you know, of his relationship with Dodd. How important do you think

Thomas Hart

Well, I, I, I, that’s why I think Dodd is key and, and you know, we’ve discussed this privately and otherwise that, and, and, and you know, as you’ve threw me under the bus by reporting, you know, Biden did admit to have, have a, you know, kind of started it, you know, along with support from others but it was Biden’s decision and he, he, you know.

Kim Dotcom

Yeah I mean we, we, we, we know that but, you know, sometimes when people, when people make

Thomas Hart

Yeah but at this point to me

Kim Dotcom

Yeah

Thomas Hart

He did it as, you know,

a favour and what, and also a, a consolation to the

lack of advancement in SOPA and, and they, they, they, they, I, I don’t think the Vice President expected it to, to unravel the way it has either, I have not spoken to him by the way, so understand.

Recording Number 3:

Thomas Hart I’ve heard this, you know, not only from the top guys but from other people too that this is now, you know, it’s pretty much run its course and, and that they stand more to, here it is, they stand more to lose than they do to gain at this point, they’ve already gained what they wanted to which was to show

a strong arm and a commitment to enforcement but at this point the negative

feedback and repercussions both domestically and internationally could very well be more costly than the effort that they have attempted to achieve in the first place.

Recording Number 4:

KD-035
KD-035

Kim Dotcom

Thanks, thanks for telling me about what Mr O said, I think that’s.

Thomas Hart

Mmm hmmmm.

Kim Dotcom

That all sounds very promising, you know, I mean at least the.

Thomas Hart

Its the process and it’s, it’s, it’s, you know, one step at a time but his attitude was actually more conciliatory and more sort of open and, you know, while he, you know, he’s questioning the whole thing frankly at this point. [Inaudible]

Kim Dotcom

Well I

mean everyone with half a brain is questioning this whole thing, you

know, so I mean.

Thomas Hart

Yeah.

Kim Dotcom

I’m glad that, that he has reached that point and, you know.

Thomas Hart

Mmm hmmmm.

Kim Dotcom

I’m sure people are updating him about what’s happening.

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

NAMELAST

MacBride

NAMEFIRST

Neil

NAMEMID

H

UIN

U28172

BDGNB

R

86872

Page 1 of 6

Type of Access

VA

TOA

7/20/2011 13:08

Powered by socrata

KD-036
KD-036

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

POA

D0101

TOD

POD

APPT MADE DATE

07/19/2011 12:00:00 AM

APPT START DATE

7/20/2011 13:15

Page 2 of 6

Powered by socrata

KD-037
KD-037

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

APPT END DATE

7/20/2011 23:59

APPT_CAN

CEL DATE

TotaLPeople

1

LAST_UPD

ATEDBY

KS

Page 3 of 6

POST

WIN

LastEntryDate

7/19/2011 16:17

Powered by socrata

KD-038
KD-038

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

TERMINAL

SUFFIX

KS

Hoffman

visitee namelast

visitee namefirst

Alan

Page 4 of 6

MEETING LOG

WH

Powered by socrata

KD-039
KD-039

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

MEETING ROOM

WH Mess

CALLER NAME LAST

SEIGHMAN

CALLER NAME FIRST

KATHLEEN

Page 5 of 6

CALLER ROOM

Powered by socrata

KD-040
KD-040

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

Description

RELEASE DA TE

10/28/2011

07:00:00 AM +0000

Page 6 of 6

Powered by socrata

KD-041
KD-041

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

NAMBLAST

NAMEFIRST

NAMEMID

UIN

BDGNB

R

Type of Access

TOA

KD-042
KD-042

Blake

Jeffery

V

U29594

79796

VA

7/27/2011 13:47

Dodd

Christopher

J

U29594

87091

VA

7/27/2011 13:44

Ellis

Michael

C

U29594

73104

VA

7/27/2011 13:47

Grey

Brad

A

U29594

78258

VA

7/27/2011 13:48

Meyer

Barry

M

U29594

83566

VA

7/27/2011 13:46

Meyer

Ronald

M

U29594

79917

VA

7/27/2011 13:48

OLeary

Michael

P

U29594

80146

VA

7/27/2011 13:46

Regan

Robert

M

U29594

87260

VA

7/27/2011 13:45

Ross

Richard

S

U29594

87127

VA

7/27/2011 13:45

 

Page 1 of 6

Powered by socrata

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

POA

TOD

POD

APPT MADE DATE

APPT START DATE

KD-043
KD-043

A0401

7/27/2011 18:29

A0401

07/25/2011 12:00:00 AM

7/27/2011 13:30

A0401

7/27/2011 18:30

A0401

07/25/2011 12:00:00 AM

7/27/2011 13:30

A0401

7/27/2011 18:35

A0401

07/25/2011 12:00:00 AM

7/27/2011 13:30

A0401

7/27/2011 18:29

A0401

07/25/2011 12:00:00 AM

7/27/2011 13:30

A0401

7/27/2011 18:29

A0401

07/25/2011 12:00:00 AM

7/27/2011 13:30

A0401

7/27/2011 18:31

A0401

07/25/2011 12:00:00 AM

7/27/2011 13:30

A0401

7/27/2011 18:29

A0401

07/25/2011 12:00:00 AM

7/27/2011 13:30

A0401

7/27/2011 18:29

A0401

07/27/2011 12:00:00 AM

7/27/2011 13:30

A0401

7/27/2011 15:35

A0401

07/25/2011 12:00:00 AM

7/27/2011 13:30

Page 2 of 6

Powered by socrata

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

APPT END DATE

APPT_CAN

CEL DATE

TotaLPeople

LAST_UPD

ATEDBY

POST

LastEntryDate

KD-044
KD-044

7/27/2011 23:59

10

KS

WIN

7/25/2011 11:34

7/27/2011 23:59

10

KS

WIN

7/25/2011 11:34

7/27/2011 23:59

10

KS

WIN

7/25/2011 11:34

7/27/2011 23:59

10

KS

WIN

7/25/2011 11:34

7/27/2011 23:59

10

KS

WIN

7/25/2011 11:34

7/27/2011 23:59

10

KS

WIN

7/25/2011 11:34

7/27/2011 23:59

10

KS

WIN

7/25/2011 11:34

7/27/2011 23:59

10

KS

WIN

7/27/2011 9:21

7/27/2011 23:59

10

KS

WIN

7/25/2011 11:34

Page 3 of 6

Powered by socrata

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

TERMINAL

SUFFIX

visitee namelast

visitee namefirst

MEETING LOG

KD-045
KD-045

KS

VPOTUS

WH

KS

VPOTUS

WH

KS

VPOTUS

WH

KS

VPOTUS

WH

KS

VPOTUS

WH

KS

VPOTUS

WH

KS

VPOTUS

WH

KS

VPOTUS

WH

KS

VPOTUS

WH

Page 4 of 6

Powered by socrata

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

MEETING ROOM

CALLER NAME LAST

CALLER NAME FIRST

WW

SEIGHMAN

KATHLEEN

WW

SEIGHMAN

KATHLEEN

WW

SEIGHMAN

KATHLEEN

WW

SEIGHMAN

KATHLEEN

WW

SEIGHMAN

KATHLEEN

WW

SEIGHMAN

KATHLEEN

WW

SEIGHMAN

KATHLEEN

WW

SEIGHMAN

KATHLEEN

WW

SEIGHMAN

KATHLEEN

Page 5 of 6

CALLER ROOM

Powered by socrata

KD-046
KD-046

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

Description

RELEASE DA TE

10/28/2011

07:00:00 AM +0000

10/28/2011

07:00:00 AM +0000

10/28/2011

07:00:00 AM +0000

10/28/2011

07:00:00 AM +0000

10/28/2011

07:00:00 AM +0000

10/28/2011

07:00:00 AM +0000

10/28/2011

07:00:00 AM +0000

10/28/2011

07:00:00 AM +0000

10/28/2011

07:00:00 AM +0000

Page 6 of 6

Powered by socrata

KD-047
KD-047

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

NAMELAST

Dodd

NAMEFIRST

Christopher

NAMEMID

J

UIN

U63134

BDGNB

R

87161

Page 1 of 6

Type of Access

VA

TOA

12/9/2011 11:54

Powered by socrata

KD-048
KD-048

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

POA

A0401

TOD

12/9/2011 14:36

POD

A0401

APPT MADE DATE

12/01/2011 12:00:00 AM

APPT START DATE

12/9/2011 12:00

Page 2 of 6

Powered by socrata

KD-049
KD-049

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

APPT END DATE

12/9/2011 23:59

APPT_CAN

CEL DATE

TotaLPeople

1

LAST_UPD

ATEDBY

AB

Page 3 of 6

POST

WIN

LastEntryDate

12/1/2011 15:57

Powered by socrata

KD-050
KD-050

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

TERMINAL

SUFFIX

AB

visitee namelast

visitee namefirst

POTUS

Page 4 of 6

MEETING LOG

WH

Powered by socrata

KD-051
KD-051

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

MEETING ROOM

CALLER NAME LAST

CALLER NAME FIRST

CALLER ROOM

KD-052
KD-052

Oval Offic

BRECKENRIDGE

ANITA

 

Page 5 of 6

Powered by socrata

White House Visitor Records Requests

Based on White House Visitor Records Requests

Description

Private lunch meeting with President

Obama

RELEASE DA TE

03/30/2012

07:00:00 AM +0000

Page 6 of 6

Powered by socrata