📸

brought into play questions of non-infringing uses of technology which had more than one purpose.

And, he said, the entire case hung on whether or not there was criminal copyright infringement. It was the "apex" of the case, he said. Without it, all the other more serious criminal charges collapsed — money-laundering, wire fraud and racketeering all failed to be crimes if criminal copyright infringement could not be proved.

So, yes, he said — turn it over. The evidence which showed criminal copyright infringement should be available. The order went further, saying it was not just material held in New Zealand which should be produced but that which was held in the United States. Electronic discovery meant the scale and size of the discovery which needed to be made was of little matter. Harvey, ever the geek, said the court system had provided for this for a number of years. The documents had to be produced in 21 days.

The order was far-reaching and cut to the heart of the case. Harvey extended the reach of New Zealand courts back across the Pacific and all the way to Washington DC. In doing so, he sent a clear message — the New Zealand court system would not be a doormat to US adventurism on copyright enforcement.

JUDGE HARVEY WASN'T the only one questioning the line between civil copyright infringement, which leads to claims for financial damages in courtrooms, and criminal copyright infringement of the criminal kind, which can end in jail.

In an article for the Center for Internet and Society, the question was raised by Stanford University's director of civil liberties Jennifer Granick and non-resident fellow Tony Falzone, general counsel at Pinterest, the social media organising tool. The lawyers, both with extensive cyber-law and copyright experience, raised questions about where the US was going with the case. Allegations of direct copyright infringement were clear. For example, they pointed to the allegation van der Kolk had uploaded the movie Taken and sent the link for the movie to someone else. If proven, they said "these direct infringements would be clear violations of criminal copyright law".

But, they explained, that's not what the government's case was about. The case brought against Megaupload was one which sought to blame those running the website for the actions of those using it. "In doing so, the indictment pushes several aspects of copyright law well past existing boundaries," they wrote. "The Copyright Act does not

📸